Discuss: Activism’s Paradox Mountain

Muir: Comre to the woods for here is rest is a self indulgence (at this point).
Sit back is not an option, but continuing doing what is been done is not enough.
We are going to get out of the old pattern of activism and get engagin others (the least middle class, least beautiful, least educated, least resource accessed ones in our communities.
Just observe how activists works: They go to the college campus, university campus and they work with the most affluent ones.
Where is activist working with the downtrodden? I was working for a big activist organization and was told that we are not here for the poor or the colored folk. Who donate money to us are middle class and up. We do what they want.
And that has been the goal.
Academic types getting oput of their way to offer active concern for the less privileged?
Are you kidding? Dogs get better treatment.
The less privileged (millions of people every where) are of no concern, because as someone already mentioned in one post - overpopulation is a problem. So according to Buckminster Fuller we could have many more people on the planet if we had another economic format.
The first thing is to get off our buts and dismantle all the multinationals.
In order to do that we need to create the conditions to bring that forward. Educate, educate, educate.
Then go from there.
We are loosing precious time.

Dear Harris Pohl,

Thanks for your uncommon perspective.

If it is all right to do so, I would to pose a handful of questions for consideration that are related to the ominous potential for mass devastation that could result from human-induced climate change between now and 2025.
 
Is it somehow harmful to ask direct questions regarding good scientific evidence of the potential for either apocalyptic climate change or pernicious impacts from the rapidly growing, colossal presence of the human species on Earth?

Are willful blindness, hysterical deafness or elective mutism ever acceptable “defenses” for scientists who choose to deny evidence derived from good science?

Is there some reasonable, sensible or moral foundation upon which faithful scientists can stand upright and say, “I refuse to acknowledge carefully and skillfully gained scientfic evidence if I cannot refute it?”

Are scientists who present good evidence of climate change and human population dynamics, even though their research is plainly unforeseen and surely unwelcome, entitled to have their evidence openly discussed by professional colleagues with established expertise?

If the global challenges looming before humanity are as formidable as the best available scientific evidence indicates, then is the family of humanity not well-advised to begin widely sharing in open discussions in the mass media, not just in blogs like this one, what is to be done in order to avoid whatsoever is unmanageable, while managing and mitigating everything else?

Steven Earl Salmony
AWAREness Campaign on The Human Population,
established 2001