(English below...)
Wat beteken dit, as 'n mens gesels oor die bewaring van die aarde, as 'n biosfeer, en iemand sê vir jou daar is nie genoeg geld om dit of dat te doen nie? Ek lok gewoonlik hierdie reaksie uit as ek oor groot en uitdagende projekte praat soos om ontslae te raak van alle lang termyn radio aktiewe afval of om eerder ons minerale uit die ruimte te kry. Ek is nie dom of naïef as ek wil weet wat is regtig die rede hoekom "GELD se skaarste" as 'n verskoning gebruik word om nie die mensdom te plaas in die posisie om ware rentmeesters van ons biosfeer, die aarde, te wees nie. Ek weet baie goed wat "moderne geld" is, maar ek weet nie hoekom geld die "vermoeë" het om te voorkom dat die mensdom werklik sinvolle dinge aanpak nie. As die wil van die mens nie meer in terme van geld uitgedruk kan word nie, dan is daar 'n nuwe tipe geld nodig.
Dit is altyd moontlik dat dit juis die "wil van die mens" is wat altyd in terme van geld uitgedruk word, en as mense sê dat daar "nie geld is om die biosfeer te beskerm nie" dan sê hulle eintlik "daar is nie 'n wil om die biosfeer te beskerm nie". Dit is baie moontlik, maar absoluut fatalisties. Was die ou Rome nie ook maar baie fatalisties teen die einde nie? Was dit nie die Christendom wat deur die fatalisme gebreek het en hoop gebring het nie? Ek dink niks het verander en dat ons steeds in opwindende tye leef.
(English)
What does it mean if, in a discussion about protecting the earth as a biosphere, someone declares that there is not enough money to achieve this or that? Usually I get this response in reaction to my suggestion that large projects like, getting rid of all long term radioactive waste or to rather mine space resources on other planets or asteroids than on earth. I am not naive or uninformed if I would like to know what the real reason is why "The scarcity of MONEY" is used as an excuse for humanity not placing itself in the position to be proper stewards of our boisphere. The nature of modern money is well known, but what I do not understand is why money has the "capability" to prevent humanity to do really worthwhile activities. If the will of the people cannot be expressed in terms of money, then it is time for a new kind of money.
It is always possible that the "will of the people" is exactly the thing being expressed by money and if people say "there is not enough money to save the biosphere", then they actually imply that "there is no will to protect the biosphere". This situation is very possible, but it is also obviously and absolutely fatalistic. Was the old Roman Empire not also plagued by fatalism at its end? Was it not Christianity that broke through the sense of fatalism and brought hope? I think nothing has changed since the end of Rome and that we are living in exciting times.
15/02/2014
Please consider this point in case / Oorweeg asseblief die voorbeeld van hierdie saak:
The Center for Public Integrity: Nuclear Waste: Cost of South Carolina fuel plant goes up by billions of dollars — again.
25/04/2014
Please consider the following TED talk to expose the futility of current monetary thinking:
Michael Metcalfe: We need money for aid. So let’s print it.
Please consider this TED talk to expose the market economy's impact on modern society:
Michael Sandel: Why we shouldn't trust markets with our civic life.
Please consider this informed opinion regarding the nature of modern money:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/18/truth-money-iou-bank-of-england-austerity
No comments:
Post a Comment