When presenting TZMs solution-oriented train of thought to those unfamiliar, it is usually just a matter of time before, at a minimum, the basic scientific premise is understood and accepted in abstraction. For example, the isolated technical reality that we have the resources and industrial methods to easily feed everyone on the planet earth, so no one has to starve, rarely finds argument in and of itself. If you were to ask an average person today if they would like to see an end to the over one billion people in currently in chronic starvation on the planet,94 they would most likely agree. However, it is when the logic runs its course and starts to depict the type of large-scale social and economic reformations needed to facilitate true system support for those 1+ billion people that many find contempt and objection. Apart from stubborn, temporal “value” associations, where people essentially refuse to change anything they have become used to in their lives, even if that change clearly supports a better outcome in the long term, there is one argument so common that it warrants a preliminary discussion in and of itself. That is the argument of “human nature”. This argument might also be said to be the only real objection left, if you think about it, outside again of the near arbitrary cultural lifestyle practices people are afraid to change due to their identity associations and conditioned comforts. Are humans compatible with a truly sustainable, scientific socioeconomic system or are we doomed to the world we have now due to our genetics? TZMDefined
Posted on: Wed, 03 Dec 2014 06:01:43 +0000