Originally Posted by
tandempower
When realists presume change is 'unrealistic,' they are fundamentally misrepresenting the inherent nature of reality, which is that it is always changing and that there are certain pathways of change that are more natural than others. So, patterns of large scale industrial waste are actually unrealistic in the sense of being unsustainable in terms of the bigger picture of how nature works, but because of the way humans have set up their complex house of mirrors, they can create the illusion that the unnatural/unrealistic/unsustainable levels of industrialism are the reality and the real sustainable realities of nature are what is unrealistic.
If you would think about it on a more basic level, you would see what I mean. What is more natural: doing the minimum work necessary to live and letting everything grow and prosper around you or maximizing industrial waste of resources to create as much artificial commodities and trade as possible before the house of cards comes tumbling down? Obviously the former scenario is more realistically sustainable, but because of the culture of 'realism' where unsustainable human patterns can be imagined in terms of an eternal present as opposed to the 100-200 years that they've actually been going on, the unsustainable can be asserted as 'realistic.'
Now I realize you're going to go on insulting me with words like, 'word salad,' but that's because you would rather deny the sense that I am making than deal with it. If you can't maintain that I'm crazy, then you'll go on and on about present day patterns that are unsustainable while trying to deny obviously untenable patterns are limited by their very intensity of waste. You are a person who looks at a raging bonfire and thinks that the fire can go on blazing forever and even grow without ever running out of wood. So you'll go on cutting the forest and burning through the fuel until it's all gone, and in the mean time the rising price due to scarcity will only invigorate you more because you love the money and the race to control others with it.
But maybe you should just stick with insisting that realism is realistic because reality is reality.
you do know sustainable or not has “nothing to do with GM and making profit from cars? You do realize what reality is don’t you? A Light turns red, a car runs the light and hits another car the crash is reality. Someone sitting in a living room doing the minimum to survive will not change the fact that in a real world the accident happened? Wishing that GM was more interested in selling Ebikes than cars doesn’t make that wish a reality.
This is is just silly. We see where things are going and what people want and are willing to pay for. It doesn’t matter if we think is if fair or sustainable it is what it is. By your standards Neanderthal man lived a sustainable life. In reality where are they?
Just how many people have you convinced to live a minimalist life and how sustainable are you efforts? At the rate of change you have accomplished what is the time frame for sustainability? Do you believe developing nations will give up their quest for first world transportation? If not will they be sustainable? Do you believe first world nations will give up personal powered transport so everyone else can catch up and then become sustainable? That would be unrealistic in my opinion. You simply can’t promise sustainability you can only hope for it. Think about it. GM cannot sustain the workforce it has today if the stopped building cars and trucks and switched to Ebikes, that wouldn’t be realistic either. People are going to want the best form of transportation for their purposes at the time they need it. They are not going to worry about what someone else wants 3500 miles away and 200 years in the future. Where in recorded history have you seen a different human attitude?
You cannot not see how people can expect to continue on a path that isn’t sustainable? Take a look at any third world country attacked with poverty and starvation. What is their birth rate. That is reality.