I am convinced one reason the closures came as fast and hard and with as little resistance as they did - and why we've been so slow emerging from them - is because of a widespread but untapped sense that there was something wrong, off, koyaanisqatsi, about everyday life as we knew it all along, and we jumped at the excuse to shut down because subconsciously we wanted to shut it all down and don't want to go back. (Yes, I know this applies to my bubble and maybe not to, say, theater workers. But my bubble is a big bubble and there are many, many people in it.)
This is insightful. It's why, despite not really liking the lockdown/closure stuff, I kind of went with it. I felt conservatives gave up a huge opening to critique a lot of things about society but pivoting so quickly to "get the economy open again." I'm more sympathetic to folks with families who had the flow of their lives interrupted, but I like the framing some Christians have taken - comparing the pandemic to Lent. A time to engage in some self-denial and meditation.
Interesting thoughts. I share some of them from time to time. I'm probably most interested in hearing more about this environmental economics professor. I sometimes talk to people with similar outlooks and sometimes they strike me as having no firm views at all. They'll say something is bad, and then you say, ok, should we do the opposite? And then they tell you that that's bad too. So.... ???
No, he wasn't really like that. His take on environmental impact was a little dismal, I guess! That we've simply gotten to a point where we consume too much, and we'll have to reduce our material standard of living either by choice or by necessity. And with that, he talked and thought a lot about what makes life good outside of material goods. I didn't agree with all of his materials, but he had a lot of influence on my approach to life, especially things like consumerism, fixing your own things, driving less, etc.
Interesting. Glad to hear he's not a nihilist. A lot of people like that are Jevons extremists. "Energy efficiency leads to more energy consumed!" "ok, so should we switch back from LEDs to incandescent?" "no! that burns more fossil fuels!"
Or alternatively, I've met energy/environment professors who think there's no point to switching to clean energy because "you still have to burn fossil fuels to manufacture the equipment." OK? Yes, but a lot less burning though over the life cycle.
I think he was more complex than that. Yes, if you have to choose, green energy is better. Electric cars are better. But there are deeper environmental and social issues at stake too. Learning to do more with less is good for the environment but it also builds a resilient character. I heard a lot of his stuff almost more as good life advice than as environmental policy!
Have no idea about your spirituality, but you may want to begin to explore Buddhism. Your writing suggests that you would find some interesting parallels there, as well as connections.
I am convinced one reason the closures came as fast and hard and with as little resistance as they did - and why we've been so slow emerging from them - is because of a widespread but untapped sense that there was something wrong, off, koyaanisqatsi, about everyday life as we knew it all along, and we jumped at the excuse to shut down because subconsciously we wanted to shut it all down and don't want to go back. (Yes, I know this applies to my bubble and maybe not to, say, theater workers. But my bubble is a big bubble and there are many, many people in it.)
This is insightful. It's why, despite not really liking the lockdown/closure stuff, I kind of went with it. I felt conservatives gave up a huge opening to critique a lot of things about society but pivoting so quickly to "get the economy open again." I'm more sympathetic to folks with families who had the flow of their lives interrupted, but I like the framing some Christians have taken - comparing the pandemic to Lent. A time to engage in some self-denial and meditation.
Interesting thoughts. I share some of them from time to time. I'm probably most interested in hearing more about this environmental economics professor. I sometimes talk to people with similar outlooks and sometimes they strike me as having no firm views at all. They'll say something is bad, and then you say, ok, should we do the opposite? And then they tell you that that's bad too. So.... ???
No, he wasn't really like that. His take on environmental impact was a little dismal, I guess! That we've simply gotten to a point where we consume too much, and we'll have to reduce our material standard of living either by choice or by necessity. And with that, he talked and thought a lot about what makes life good outside of material goods. I didn't agree with all of his materials, but he had a lot of influence on my approach to life, especially things like consumerism, fixing your own things, driving less, etc.
Interesting. Glad to hear he's not a nihilist. A lot of people like that are Jevons extremists. "Energy efficiency leads to more energy consumed!" "ok, so should we switch back from LEDs to incandescent?" "no! that burns more fossil fuels!"
Or alternatively, I've met energy/environment professors who think there's no point to switching to clean energy because "you still have to burn fossil fuels to manufacture the equipment." OK? Yes, but a lot less burning though over the life cycle.
I think he was more complex than that. Yes, if you have to choose, green energy is better. Electric cars are better. But there are deeper environmental and social issues at stake too. Learning to do more with less is good for the environment but it also builds a resilient character. I heard a lot of his stuff almost more as good life advice than as environmental policy!
Have no idea about your spirituality, but you may want to begin to explore Buddhism. Your writing suggests that you would find some interesting parallels there, as well as connections.