But we don’t do solidarity, do we? Greta Thunberg’s Scolstreik for klimatet went viral, but she was alone. Not one of her schoolmates supported her.
Greta and Chris Packham are officially Asperger’s, so I have tried to contact them, but if either of them got my message they haven’t acted on it. Maybe there are many different forms of Asperger’s. Perhaps only a tiny minority of readers will see it my way.
It all seems so obvious to me, so I thought (think) it might seem obvious to Greta or Chris. I can see two powerful reasons why nothing has been done to stop the rot, but I can also see something which, though risky, ought to help all the necessary measures to happen. It is all somewhere in this weblog.
But am I really alone? I understand (but can never accept) why most think I am just plain wrong, and so I am wasting mine and everybody else’s time, but not why I still seem to be alone in shouting
“Basic income could save us!!”
from the housetops. Greta sees Asperger’s as a gift. Whatever I have got, it hasn’t done me any favours.
What harm could it do to try the basic income? Is there an ‘existential threat’, or not? Actually quite a lot almost certainly will go wrong, and I agree with critics that the basic income is not a panacea.
It looks increasingly doubtful that a rational, coherent plan of co-operation will be in place when those causing the ecocide begin to suffer from its effects, Jem Bendell and Rupert read’s heroic efforts notwithstanding. I do not know exactly what form conflict will take, but it will be nasty. The cannibalism with which Easter Island reacted to the Tragedy seems unlikely, but a major war between superpowers is not out of the question, and a widespread suspension of democracy associated with martial law is more or less a foregone conclusion.
I have two requests, to anyone out there who does take this blog seriously. One is to get a reference in Wikipedia to my ‘insight’ (Wiki’s description) that the real Tragedy of the Commons is the persistence of growth strategies, because they used to work well, long beyond the point at which the exponential principle abruptly made them dangerous. I am told that Wiki is not the place for ‘original insights’: they must be referred to by someone else.
The second request, well just a hope really, is to get taken seriously by someone taken seriously by everyone else. I have tried to contact a long list of people in the public eye. A few have sent polite acknowledgements, but with most, I have no idea whether they received my request. It would be a pity not to try to save the world with such a harmless idea.
But wait, the basic income might not be harmless. If implemented before ecological breakdown, it will (not would) will cause a spurt of disastrous economic growth if intended only to solve the ‘artificial intelligence’ problem. But, small mercy, that is unlikely. I have proposed the basic income for 47 years as something which allows people – whole populations – to consider downsizing without fear. It makes the necessary sustainability mind set possible, but it does not guarantee it. It will only have the effect I hope for if there is a general recognition of what ecocide really means.
Is this why so few grasp what I am trying to say?