Heart of the Sunrise - Yes
I finally have a few Yes albums back in my itunes and now I just want to watch Buffalo ‘66.
Jungbluth // These Rare Moments
"bin ich am richtigen ort?
so lange eingeübt ausgebrannt zu sein
und die dinge die sonst sinn und halt geben mit überwältigender unzufriedenheit…”
"…for the more of us
that lift our voices in a song
the sweeter life will be”
Anonymous said: what about Gaza and Ferguson John? do they not deserve your respect? you're such a hypocrite, i's disgusting
I think this is a deeply flawed way of looking at the world.
Now, I have talked about Ferguson, and I’ve talked about Gaza. (In fact, I’ve been writing and talking about Israel and Palestine for more than a decade.) But there are many important problems facing the world that I haven’t talked about: I haven’t talked much about the civil war in South Sudan, or the epidemic of suicide among American military personnel, or the persecution of Muslim Rohingya people in Myanmar.
Is that okay? Is it okay for me to talk about, say, racism in football and lowering infant mortality in Ethiopia? Or must we all agree to discuss only whatever is currently the ascendant news story? Is it disrespectful to Ferguson protesters to talk about continued political oppression in Egypt now that we are no longer reblogging images of the protests in Tahrir Square? I think this is a false choice: If you are talking about Ferguson and I am talking about Ethiopian health care, neither of us is hurting the other.
I think the challenge for activists and philanthropists online is in paying sustained attention, not over days or weeks but over years and decades. And I worry that when we turn our attention constantly from one outrage to another we end up not investing the time and work to facilitate actual change. We say “THE WORLD IS WATCHING,” and it is…until it isn’t. We’ve seen this again and again in Gaza and the West Bank. We’re seeing it in Iran. We’re seeing it in South Sudan. And we’re seeing it in the U.S., from net neutrality to Katrina recovery.
The truth is, these problems are complicated, and when the outrage passes we’re left with big and tangled and nuanced problems. I feel that too often that’s when we stop paying attention, because it gets really hard and there’s always a shiny new problem somewhere else that’s merely outrageous. I hope you’re paying attention to Ferguson in five years, anon, and I hope I am, too. I also hope I’m paying attention to child death in Ethiopia. I don’t think these things are mutually exclusive.
I really don’t want to minimize the effectiveness of online activism, because I know that it works: To use a personal example, I’ve learned a TON from the LGBT+ and sexual assault survivor communities in recent years online. People on tumblr make fun of me for apologizing all the time, but I apologize all the time because I am learning all the time, and every day I’m like, “Oh, man, Current Me has realized that Previous Me was so wrong about this!”
But we can only learn when we can listen. And when you call me a hypocrite for talking about X instead of talking about Y, it makes it really hard to listen.
At times, online discourse to me feels like we just sit in a circle screaming at each other until people get their feelings hurt and withdraw from the conversation, which leaves us with ever-smaller echo chambers, until finally we’re left only with those who entirely agree with us. I don’t think that’s how the overall worldwide level of suck gets decreased.
I might be wrong, of course. I often am. But I think we have to find ways to embrace nuance and complexity online. It’s hard—very, very hard—to make the most generous, most accepting, most forgiving assumptions about others. But I also really do think it’s the best way forward.
I haven’t read a page of his books but John Green is one of my favorite internet entities.
I fell asleep driving. I’ve worked 50 hours since Monday. There is a correlation here. I need to re evaluate things.
Cursive - The Game of Who Needs Who the Worst
Listening to Domestica on my break because, as I’ve blogged about a dozen times before, it’s a masterpiece and I have a little bit of time to kill.
Anonymous said: The overwhelming majority of living things on earth die because something else eats them. To think that an animal dying so it can be eaten by another animal is a bad thing is to think the ecosystem that allows animals to exist in the first place is a bad thing. I'm all for humane treatment of animals, and I'm not down with any of that factory farming bullshit, but the actual act of eating an animal is perfectly compatible with empathy for other living beings.
oops, you missed a step. i have encountered many zersons who really enjoy making this argument; but there is just one detail they are all glazing over:
YOU ARE NOT PART OF AN ECOSYSTEM.
what is the carrying capacity of the place where you live? do the animals you eat occur naturally in the region you live in? if so, do you have a rough figure for uninterrupted forest acreage in your area? is it enough to sustain both that animal and the species (if any) that occupy a higher space than them on the energy pyramid?
the answer is probably “no” to all. the fact is, your food probably comes from a farm. it’s ok, mine does too. if you ate a steak that came from south america today, and a kiwi imported from new zealand, does that make ostensibly most of the world your ecosystem? how are you interacting with the organisms in this community? when you die, will your remains help fertilize the former rainforest land that was burned to make cattle ranches in ecuador?
the fact is: very, very, very few human beings can claim to be an actual functioning part of their ecosystem anymore. take a tiger for example. it needs a certain amount of territory in which to hunt to get enough food to sustain itself. for the tiger to have enough deer or wild boar to eat, these animals must have enough acreage to obtain sufficient calories to sustain themselves. basically what this boils down to is that everything creates waste. a deer does not absorb 100% of the energy from the grass it eats, and it can’t just keep eating the same patch of grass every day because that grass will take time to regrow (a darwinian version of you can’t have your cake and eat it too.)
so back to the tiger. the tiger is a part of the ecosystem; tigers are aware of the comings and goings of all other tigers within their territories. if a tiger encroaches on another’s territory, tiger A will respond with force to make the second tiger leave; this second tiger (tiger B) provides competition and the chance that there will not be enough food to go around. if 20 tigers just moved in next door, you can damn well bet the whole ecosystem will go out the fucking window.
do you have neighbors? you probably do. (i do too.) human beings have positioned themselves in such a way where we live in population masses which greatly exceed the carrying capacity of the land these masses exist on. this requires food importation. we can go on and on about whether this concept is flawed to begin with, or how the agricultural industrial complex got to be the way that it is today, but that is not going to get us to where we want to go. food importation is a real, tangible thing that happens.
and any way, and i truly mean ANY way you slice it, meat as food costs more resources to bring to table than vegetables. small scale, large scale, doesn’t change the fact that eating meat is feeding your food. more land used, more water used.
so if we have found a way to live outside the context of an ecosystem, acquire our food oftentimes from great distances from the place we live, and it costs a good deal more to raise meat as food than non-meat, your argument starts to unravel a bit.
-the ability to understand and share the feelings of another.
i know i have mentioned this before on this blog, but just a reminder in the case that you are living in a way which would allow you to forget this:
WE LIVE ON A FINITE PLANET
yep, there is only so much land. there is only so much oil. there is only so much clean water. with this many fucking people covering this planet, feeding your food is just plain unsustainable.
if i am sitting in a room with three starving people while i gorge myself on cappuccino flavored potato chips, i feel as though one could make a strong argument that i lacked empathy.
the sheer volume of information available on veganism (solely on this very website alone) is staggering. to have that access to that information and instead to choose to cover your ears, say LALALALALALA and give some flimsy, embarrassing, red herring argument about being part of an ecosystem as justification for eating meat, one could make a pretty strong case that you lack empathy. taking more than you need when there is a finite amount that the planet can produce is to take the needs of the many and take a shit on them. good do, ace.