View Single Post
JDoolin
#67
Mar1-12, 09:37 AM
PF Gold
P: 706
Quote Quote by chiro View Post
The fact is that its just too much of a hassle for people to worry about more than they have to which includes things like putting a roof over their head, feeding their family, getting their kids to school and then using whatever remaining time they have to wind down and not worry about anything else.

People say they want this and they want that, but if you asked them to get personally involved and have more responsibility, chances are they won't step up to the plate.

It's the same kind of reason that people buy cheap crap and wonder why everyone is losing jobs: you tell them that you can get back your local economy again, but you'll have to pay 50% more (maybe even slightly more) initially.

People won't do it because it is initially painful for them.



Anyone can say whatever the hell they want to, but in the end its only the people that take action that have an effect.

The model we have chosen is that we elect someone and 'trust' them to do a good job. That's it, nothing more to it. Also we indirectly elect people that have been chosen by some other administration to do all the supporting procedures because intuitively one person can't execute a plan by themselves.

In large organized societies this can actually be a good thing, but again the risk is that if the people do things that they "shouldn't" for whatever reason, then it might be so bad as to affect everybody in some manner.

Again I absolutely stress that you ask how many people are actually going to get up and really do something about any problem that exists.

Most people will say "someone else will do it", or "I can't do it", or "I don't want to do it: it's good enough at the moment". There is always an excuse and its not surprising since doing something about the problem takes a lot of effort and courage to do and comes with the risk of being ostracized, your life made into a living hell and in some cases killed.

Maybe you should ask people next time instead of 'what should be done', something more along the lines of 'would you be willing to take the hard option of taking on more responsibility and short-term pain if X was the case': just make it straight-forward and listen to the kind of 'standards' people have about 'fixing the problem'.
I'm not making any huge sacrifices, or changing my life for it, but, here's an example. If I happen across a one-sided argument, on Physics-Forums, I can jump in and put in my two cents. True, it's not going to change the world by itself, but I can lead by example. If two people see me doing it, maybe they'll jump in as well.

There are a lot of people that are doing a lot more than I am, of course. Look at the Occupy Wall Street movement. There are more and more people taking that chance of being ostracized, imprisoned; maybe they're not getting killed, but they're getting pepper-sprayed, and arrested.

They may not know exactly what needs to be changed, but they are willing to take the hard option and short-term pain. But I think that there's another point to be made here. The people in the Occupy Wall Street movement want to be a part of their government. They want to be part of the decision-making process.

But most of the people I talk to aren't in the Occupy Wall Street movement. They are people who listen to Christian radio stations, and try not to watch the news, because "it's usually bad news anyway," or "it's so boring" and they "don't know which side to believe." That's the scariest thing... We really don't know what to believe. It's this sense that "If I were compelled to act... what if I were on the wrong side?"

No, I think if people knew what to do, they would stand up and do it. The problem is that without transparency and accountability, nobody has any idea what to do. We know we're being lied to, but we don't know who is lying.