What's So Hard about Living Local?

[Neytiri]

Humanity has been doing it for like 99% of history. It was not until recently that globalization brought us jeans and fruit from other continents. And look what it has done to our environment and to our souls. We spend all day slaving away at work to "grow the economy". What does that even mean? All it means is making rich people richer, while our families suffer from our lack of time and attention and love. While our pets, our communities our environment our children our friends our health our joy our happiness all of us in it together just SUFFER, for the insane irrational further fattening of the wallets of the few that are already too rich to know what to do with their money.

[TheWootinMan]

I agree; why shoudl we support the rich bourgeoise when we could simply cut back on roughly 400-500 years of human progress? Teh rich get richer and all we do is work and die at 80 when in the past the rich got richer and all we did was work and die at 40.

[Neytiri]

I agree; why should we support the rich bourgeoise when we could simply cut back on roughly 400-500 years of human progress? Teh rich get richer and all we do is work and die at 80 when in the past the rich got richer and all we did was work and die at 40.

Actually, all we'd really need to cut back on is about 50-60 years of human progress. You know, back in the 50s when it was actually still possible to live on a one-person income... and 10-year-olds didn't have to know what ozone layer and acid oceans are. We can still keep some of the medical progress but without the INSANE level of irrational destructive consumption. Even houses in the 50s weren't nearly as big as the average house today, and as a result families were more close knit! People today have NO IDEA how different life used to be even a few decades ago... and yes our economy will have to shrink as a result. Get over it people. That's just exactly what we need... The economy, unlike what Presidential speech after speech would have you believe, is BY FAR NOT the most important thing on earth... it is only the most important thing on earth for the corporations that have lobbyists paying government insane amounts of money to work for the corporations instead of the citizens...

[Neytiri]

if this were the 1950s i would definitely give joseph mccarthy a call, you communist bastards


I actually read his biography, by the way. He was a mentally unstable person. Oh... and my grandfather spent 6 years as a fugitive and 2 years as a political prisoner in his country... fighting AGAINST the Communists. Think twice before you judge. Not every philosophy that is NOT CAPITALIST is automatically communist. That is a very simplistic and completely incorrect way of looking at things, which history-illiterate, pop-culture educated individuals espouse.

[TheWootinMan]

Actually, all we'd really need to cut back on is about 50-60 years of human progress. You know, back in the 50s when it was actually still possible to live on a one-person income... and 10-year-olds didn't have to know what ozone layer and acid oceans are. We can still keep some of the medical progress but without the INSANE level of irrational destructive consumption. Even houses in the 50s weren't nearly as big as the average house today, and as a result families were more close knit! People today have NO IDEA how different life used to be even a few decades ago...

oh ok thank you for the free education idea i had no idea that until post world war 2 there was no such thing as a world community and people for the most part lived locally. actually this isnt true at all and also its still very possible to support yourself on just your own income and actually before the 1950s it was harder to support yourself on your own income. Get Money - carl jung

[TheWootinMan]

I actually read his biography, by the way. He was a mentally unstable person.

That's a general you're talking to, maintain discipline! - Major Tom Baxter (David Morse), The Rock (1996)

[Neytiri]

oh ok thank you for the free education idea i had no idea that until post world war 2 there was no such thing as a world community and people for the most part lived locally. actually this isnt true at all and also its still very possible to support yourself on just your own income and actually before the 1950s it was harder to support yourself on your own income. Get Money - carl jung


It's a lot harder to support yourself on just one income these days because as the economy has grown...the amounts and types of things that our culture says people must own in order to be considered "decent" people among their friends, has also grown. In the 50s you'd have a phone and a TV and a car in your household and be done. These days every room must have a TV, you have a landline, an internet connection, cable subscription, and everyone has their own cell phone, and two cars in order to feel like your family "made it" in the world. THAT, my friend, is FINANCIAL and MENTAL SLAVERY. Not to mention the fact that your teeny bopper children must have the latest designer fashions every six months, and the list just goes on and on and never ends... and in the end the family suffers, because they're harried, stressed out and dont have time for the things really important... too busy worrying about the wrong things... as they are being spiritually and emotionally murdered... along with our environment.

[TheWootinMan]

It's a lot harder to support yourself on just one income these days because as the economy has grown...the amounts and types of things that our culture says people must own in order to be considered "decent" people among their friends, has also grown. In the 50s you'd have a phone and a TV and a car in your household and be done. These days every room must have a TV, you have a landline, an internet connection, cable subscription, and everyone has their own cell phone, and two cars in order to feel like your family "made it" in the world. THAT, my friend, is FINANCIAL SLAVERY. Not to mention the fact that your teeny bopper children must have the latest designer fashions every six months, and the list just goes on and on and never ends... and in the end the family suffers, because they're harried, stressed out and dont have time for the things really important... to busy worrying about the wrong things... as they are being spiritually and emotionally murdered... along with our environment.
yes in the 1950s there was no materialism based on judgment by your own possessions do you actually believe that lmao

there's always been pressure to make yourself look good based on your possessions. there has always been materialism. even in tribal cultures. you may need to own more stuff today than in the 1950s, but it's actually easier to own cars, phones, and televisions today than it was then.

[Neytiri]

yes in the 1950s there was no materialism based on judgment by your own possessions do you actually believe that lmao

there's always been pressure to make yourself look good based on your possessions. there has always been materialism. even in tribal cultures. you may need to own more stuff today than in the 1950s, but it's actually easier to own cars, phones, and televisions today than it was then.

And where does it end? When our environment is completely destroyed, and our homes are filled with 1000 objects and zero love? There is a HUGE difference between our per capita consumption then and our per capita consumption now. Yet we are still the same people. SURELY this makes a difference in us as individuals, and surely this makes an impact on our environment.

[TheWootinMan]

And where does it end? When our environment is completely destroyed, and our homes are filled with 1000 objects and zero love?

if you are under the incorrect assumption that there is an inverse relationship between property ownership and love, then yes.

[Neytiri]

if you are under the incorrect assumption that there is an inverse relationship between property ownership and love, then yes.

No, NOT incorrect.

YouTube- Broadcast Yourself.

[Shatnerpossum]

if you are under the incorrect assumption that there is an inverse relationship between property ownership and love, then yes.

How can you quantify love?

[TheWootinMan]

No, NOT incorrect.

YouTube- Broadcast Yourself. ("")

okay so explain the fact that altruistic activity (stuff like donating to charities, nonprofit organizations, etc.) has increased steadily over the last century when it should be decreasing since there's apparently no love with money???

and it's inherently incorrect because it's assumption is an absolute which cannot allow for any exceptions. for what you say to be right, homeless people who have nothing must all be happier than rich people, who all must be utterly depressed. there are happy rich people out there and there are suicidally depressed poor people out there. as a nation's wealth grows (and thus, the wealth of people), happiness grows.

and btw http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World_happiness.png look at how the people in rich materialistic countries are happier than the poorer ones. i'm gonna go with that map and its cited source before i go with the vague poll from an uncited source that youtube guy pulled out.

[TheWootinMan]

How can you quantify love?

pretty easily since quantification in relation to human psychology is measuring sensory and emotional experiences and observations.

[Shatnerpossum]

pretty easily since quantification in relation to human psychology is measuring sensory and emotional experiences and observations.

I'd say that trying to define emotion devalues it. Trying to quantify it is worse, because it makes it a commodity.

[TheWootinMan]

I'd say that trying to define emotion devalues it. Trying to quantify it is worse, because it makes it a commodity.

how the hell does giving emotion a definition devalue it? please explain how giving something grammatical substance devalues it.

and quantifying something and giving it a numerical value in no way devalues it. whether you realize it or not, you do it for the most important stuff you do every day. is your entire day substantially devalued? recording something and even turning it into a 'commodity' (although that implies that it can be bought and sold simply because it has a numerical value), you can be making it more valuable in many cases, not exclusively making it less valuable.

[Neytiri]

okay so explain the fact that altruistic activity (stuff like donating to charities, nonprofit organizations, etc.) has increased steadily over the last century when it should be decreasing since there's apparently no love with money???

and it's inherently incorrect because it's assumption is an absolute which cannot allow for any exceptions. for what you say to be right, homeless people who have nothing must all be happier than rich people, who all must be utterly depressed. there are happy rich people out there and there are suicidally depressed poor people out there. as a nation's wealth grows (and thus, the wealth of people), happiness grows.

and btw File:World happiness.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World_happiness.png) look at how the people in rich materialistic countries are happier than the poorer ones. i'm gonna go with that map and its cited source before i go with the vague poll from an uncited source that youtube guy pulled out.

Umm.... this map does not invalidate Bill McKibben (or as you called him, that YouTube guy)... what he is saying is that ever since the level of economic growth in the 50s our level of happiness has GONE DOWN. In other words we already reached peak happiness at THAT level of economic growth, and from there on out happiness and economic growth have became an inverse relationship.

[TheWootinMan]

Umm.... this map does not invalidate Bill McKibben (or as you called him, that YouTube guy)... what he is saying is that ever since the level of economic growth in the 50s our level of happiness has GONE DOWN. In other words we already reached peak happiness at THAT level of economic growth, and from there on out happiness and economic growth have became an inverse relationship.

ok i'm not watching that boring as **** youtube video again so please tell me how your whole 'richness=no love' thing is waterproof and 100% true because i'd love to hear it

[Shatnerpossum]

how the hell does giving emotion a definition devalue it? please explain how giving something grammatical substance devalues it.

and quantifying something and giving it a numerical value in no way devalues it. whether you realize it or not, you do it for the most important stuff you do every day. is your entire day substantially devalued? recording something and even turning it into a 'commodity' (although that implies that it can be bought and sold simply because it has a numerical value), you can be making it more valuable in many cases, not exclusively making it less valuable.

By any chance are you an economist? Because they take the fun and mystique out of everything, which you seem to like doing.

How do you describe emotion? Its like trying to describe a color. You really have to experience it to understand, anything else has lesser value. And when you quantify something it ceases to be a quality. That pretty much kills the beauty of emotion.

[Neytiri]

ok i'm not watching that boring as **** youtube video again so please tell me how your whole 'richness=no love' thing is waterproof and 100% true because i'd love to hear it

If you don't have enough patience to watch and thoroughly understand a piece of information... I'm pretty sure I'm wasting my time arguing with you. But in case I'm wrong... what he's basically saying (and by the way this man has been on a list of the twelve most influential men of 2009 - he's not "that YouTube guy")... is that peak human happiness/love/emotional satisfaction, etc. was reached at the level of economic growth we had in the 50s and that from there on out all additional growth has brought us diminished returns, has made us less happy... Your map does not invalidate this video especially since the level of consumption in the United States today is almost twice that of Europe in the first place. Sure we may (still) be in the same category of "happy" with Europe but we are not as happy as we were before we reached at our immense present level of consumption... we already reached peak happiness about 55 years ago.... the United States is proof-positive that past a certain point More does not equal Better.

[TheWootinMan]

By any chance are you an economist? Because they take the fun and mystique out of everything, which you seem to like doing.

How do you describe emotion? Its like trying to describe a color. You really have to experience it to understand, anything else has lesser value. And when you quantify something it ceases to be a quality. That pretty much kills the beauty of emotion.
okay here's an example: you meet the love of your life and you realize it when you're thinking that you've never felt this way about someone before. you just gave that emotion a value - does that in any way lessen its impact? hell no.

and both emotions and colors are pretty easy to describe. ****, read shakespeare or something. how does a sonnet defining love lessen the beauty of love? protip it doesnt

[Shatnerpossum]

okay here's an example: you meet the love of your life and you realize it when you're thinking that you've never felt this way about someone before. you just gave that emotion a value - does that in any way lessen its impact? hell no.

and both emotions and colors are pretty easy to describe. ****, read shakespeare or something. how does a sonnet defining love lessen the beauty of love? protip it doesnt

You were trying to provide a mathematical sort of value to prove your point. My point is that emotion cannot be turned into numbers. And it cannot be described adequately, only felt.

If you can't ask yourself these questions, you need to step back and take a deep breath.

I don't think I've ever seen someone get irate over nothing before. Maybe you should take a walk around the block before you come back to this.

[TheWootinMan]

You were trying to provide a mathematical sort of value to prove your point. My point is that emotion cannot be turned into numbers. And it cannot be described adequately, only felt.

If you can't ask yourself these questions, you need to step back and take a deep breath.

I don't think I've ever seen someone get irate over nothing before. Maybe you should take a walk around the block before you come back to this.

Care Hard.

[TheWootinMan]

http://www.avatar-forums.com/images/imported/2010/02/730.jpg

[TheWootinMan]

This is a test. Was this an actual Carepost in an actual Carethread, I would have Cared.

[Shatnerpossum]

This is a test. Was this an actual Carepost in an actual Carethread, I would have Cared.

If you can't even respond sincerely or politely you should probably call it a night.

[Tsyal Makto]

Don't feed the troll, guys.

[TheWootinMan]

If you can't even respond sincerely or politely you should probably call it a night.

the whole deal lost its steam by like post 10 and i had to wrap it up entertainingly

[Shatnerpossum]

Don't feed the troll, guys.

Call me a sentimentalist, but I like to give people the benefit of the doubt.

I think you're right though.

[TheWootinMan]

Call me a sentimentalist, but I like to give people the benefit of the doubt.

I think you're right though.check out teh link i just posted on the sea shepherd thing youd prob be interested in it

[Tudhalyas]

Not every philosophy that is NOT CAPITALIST is automatically communist. That is a very simplistic and completely incorrect way of looking at things, which history-illiterate, pop-culture educated individuals espouse.
This is so true, Neytiri. I come to a point that I can't accept any "political label" on me, as I don't recognize myself anymore in any party. In the past years I used to vote for right-wing parties, but I just can't do that anymore because all they can think of is to boost the economy, without caring about their own citizens. I can't also vote left-wing parties because all they can do is speaking... but in the end they don't do anything at all to make things better.


It's a lot harder to support yourself on just one income these days because as the economy has grown...the amounts and types of things that our culture says people must own in order to be considered "decent" people among their friends, has also grown. In the 50s you'd have a phone and a TV and a car in your household and be done. These days every room must have a TV, you have a landline, an internet connection, cable subscription, and everyone has their own cell phone, and two cars in order to feel like your family "made it" in the world. THAT, my friend, is FINANCIAL and MENTAL SLAVERY. Not to mention the fact that your teeny bopper children must have the latest designer fashions every six months, and the list just goes on and on and never ends... and in the end the family suffers, because they're harried, stressed out and dont have time for the things really important... too busy worrying about the wrong things... as they are being spiritually and emotionally murdered... along with our environment.


yes in the 1950s there was no materialism based on judgment by your own possessions do you actually believe that lmao

there's always been pressure to make yourself look good based on your possessions. there has always been materialism. even in tribal cultures. you may need to own more stuff today than in the 1950s, but it's actually easier to own cars, phones, and televisions today than it was then.
IMHO the main issue of modern society is that we focus our attention on matters that are very less important than others. It's all about VALUES.
Possessing things is not necessarily bad, but you must have always in mind what's more important than that: Love. Love for all people around you.