Honesty: Does anybody else feel demotivated with life due to the state of society or the world?

a reply to: FyreByrd


First of all, I am educating my children, making sure that not only do they have a mastery of the basics (strong math and sciences kills, extensive knowledge of history and philosophy, divers wilderness survival skills, etc etc) but also imbuing them with a sense that they alone must create their own opportunities and that they must not depend on others to save them. Second of all, I don't vote for anybody who is not definitely going to dutifully serve this country. (As it so happens there is nobody currently in office whom I voted for, except for one single local town councilman). Third, I work every day towards greater personal independence and am continually educating myself.

a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

Politics will suck the life out of you if you make it a daily visitation. I'm a very motivated, driven, "keep going' kind of guy and even I get depressed and demotivated, and I own a business, so I gotta stay up. I think politics and such are a distraction for the brains little entertainment center. Sorry to say but even sites like ATS are a distraction of sorts.

It's good to walk away and take breaks from the distraction of the internet.

I would say the complexity is withing the chaos that people endure day to day. Most people don't have time to even think about taking a dump let alone the massive pyramid scheme they are subjected to.

It all boils down to good people's sweat equity being taken advantage of, because the only thing we truly have to give on this earth is our time.

TPTB understand it's better to have 1% of everyone's efforts, even though most of those people are working at 100%, then for them to use a 100% of there own.

Keep them in chaos, divide and constantly indentured be it mortgages, car leases, taxes, or credit card payments.

originally posted by: rickymouse

The economies and societies are so complex it is hard to figure how they survive, based on deceit at all levels.

a reply to: olaru12

I agree, a collapse must happen to bring in a new government. There are many points to this argument that I believe rings truth, and history guarantees that it must happen, or else a NWO type of government will be put in place before any change can be made. The NWO government has already been in place for some quite time now, and it is easy (if research is done on the subject) to track it down to at least Nixon, however, it has been in place much longer. The NWO type of government wouldn't be able to succeed in the world today as I see it in the first place, but they believe it could. "They" would have to make it more liveable for the common man, or else the common man would be able to arise in vast majority to strike down upon them, just as history always shows.

Let's just figure 2 million (1/180) Americans rise up on the government at the same time. These people have the means to gather mass aount of weapons and could easily take over cities, take more weapons, infiltrate bases, take over power grids, water, etc. But there must be some type of leadership. Whether it be planned through a TOR type of internet to remain annonymous, or some new sort, to gather troops and to plan attack. There still must be a leadership to strategize and to plan if it is to happen nationwide. True, one group of 20 heavily armed and strategized militia could wreak havoc on any city, but to make it nationwide, it takes a lot. Ideally for these 20 or so people, they would take over all broadcasting stations within the area and broadcast their message out 24/7 until it was shut down. This would gather more troops significantly. Then they would aquire all weapons and vehicles they could to take over the local governent. Likely executing their state government on air to show their power. It goes on and on from there. Supposedly there are only 500,000 armed troops in in the military. How many of these would actually fight for their government against their own family? Knowing of course how corrupt and evil their own governent is? The only reason they are in the military is to protect their family and freedom and not the lawmakers and politicians. Whose to say that they would follow orders when they knew that the "underground freedom fighters" were actually the group meant to be defended?

I could go on and on about revolutions and what it would actually take nowadays. I have studied many in depth, especially the Communist take over of Russia spurred by Lenin. Which would be the most relevant, however 100 years ago. There is no true precedent to what it would take to complete the objective, but what I do know, it would take a voice that is fluent, and a voice that could gather funds and protection.

originally posted by: BatheInTheFountain
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

Politics will suck the life out of you if you make it a daily visitation. I'm a very motivated, driven, "keep going' kind of guy and even I get depressed and demotivated, and I own a business, so I gotta stay up. I think politics and such are a distraction for the brains little entertainment center. Sorry to say but even sites like ATS are a distraction of sorts.

It's good to walk away and take breaks from the distraction of the internet.

I get what you are saying.

The thing is, I think I need to differentiate here.

I actually work to varying degrees in public policy and international development, which includes politics. Part of the point of my post was the fact that I am feeling deeply demotivated and demoralized by international affairs and politics, but I work in it. I currently do development research for a UN official.

The higher the level in any field of any kind, including business or development policy, the more political realities have to be accounted for. That's why for example all big corporations have some kind of lobbying going on in the political sphere.

So, the problem is, other people can step away from it, I cannot. I can't do my job if I don't keep up with what is going on in the world on a variety of topics, mostly international development and politics related to that.

So, a rough analogy would be what does a doctor do if they suddenly find themselves totally disillusioned with the medical system.

originally posted by: FamCore
It really is disheartening when you get a glimpse into reality and actually see the severe levels of poverty and injustice that plague the world. But as many have said already, it's a matter of letting that knowledge/awareness drag you down/make you feel depressed, or using it as a motivator and a purpose.

I can relate because I work in the non-profit sector, and some of the people we see are so down and out on their luck. And there are always just such a high volume of them, we are only able to truly help a small fraction. Sometimes you build a personal connection with these community members and still are not able to find them assistance, that's one of the most discouraging things ever. What do you say? There isn't much you can say except that you are sorry and you are doing everything you can.

But at the end of the day I know I'm doing what I can and I'm making SOME kind of difference, even if it is seemingly small. Little by little, I know I am making a difference.

Your post really resonated with me because of your background, your schooling, and the perspective you wrote from. Thank you for sharing Quetzalcoatl. Keep the faith and keep making a difference. The world is a better place because of you.

FamCore


a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

Glad to see it resonated with you as someone in the non-profit world.

I get you completely that the emotions can range from disillusionment to motivation and purpose. For many years my main motivation to do well in school and work was precisely based on addressing some of these injustices. It's like the person who goes to law school to fight for some kind of justice.

I do agree with you that we have to see the wins and change that does happen, no matter how big or small. And positive impact does matter to someone, sometimes a lot of someones.

a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

Man

You just nailed it in the OP big time SF

originally posted by: dreamingawake
What you are feeling is part of the process after taking the red pill.

Eventually you get over the shock. Until then, what you as shared(thanks for that help for people!) others are doing with helping communities. You are on the right track with that so far. Try to do the best you can whether if it's just something small(helping out, inform people of concerns), etc., or fighting against something bigger(net users coming together to thwart invasive internet legislation). At this point it will take more people to "change" anything.

I think you are totally right, that such pain is part and parcel of "taking the red pill" and attempting to find out what is really going on in the world. I had a mentor who told me "There is nothing negative about disillusionment, as it is the removal of illusions. However, the process of removing illusions is painful. At the other end, one comes to awakening."

originally posted by: rickymouse
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

The economies and societies are so complex it is hard to figure how they survive, based on deceit at all levels. People wonder why others cannot see what is really going on. If it's not broken don't fix it comes to mind. Most economies eventually crumble for multiple reasons. Most crumble because the members of societies do not want to do physical work anymore. This physical work, creating things that the society really needs, stabilizes the economy and this stabilizes society.

When you export the jobs making essentials and replace these jobs with consumer based jobs the society gets susceptible to a quick downturn. This kind of consumer based society has not worked on a country wide basis for big nations anywhere in the world before. A small country like England with many provinces will succeed but only on the mainland. Even there the people need to be working. The United States is way too big for this to work. Economists know this, but Society ignores these economists who look at historic data.

I see a dangerous situation on the horizon, one which will escalate to a major war again. It seems that people have been led to believe that war boosts the economy, something that was true in the past but that was because it boosted the jobs created by the needs of the military. Now, Military contractors use a lot of automation and do not supply many jobs to the regular people, just some high paying jobs to specialists in their field. So war won't work anymore. Destroying things so they need to be rebuilt is not a wise way to create jobs. The only reason the economy is doing as well as it is seems to be because of natural disasters lately, insurance pays for the rebuilding of structures. What if the weather gets nicer?

Good thread by the way.

Oh totally, there are many many many parts of the "business as usual" path at a national and international level that are totally unsustainable long-term: economically, socially, environmentally.

Much of the current problems in the world were created by powerful people of all sorts with myopic greed and power desires. This includes some of the focus as you are mentioning with economy, but also war. It's also true of environmentally unsustainable methods of production and consumption. In regards to the social part of the triad myopic government and class policies have led to extreme inequality in many countries as well as poverty, which is also unsustainable over the long term.

No. Release your expectations, accept reality, and keep perspective. Laugh at your mistakes, shrug at humanities, but always look for ideas to implement which provide improvement.

There's so much going on in this world, that it's up to you which bits to focus on. If you want to see the worst of times, you will see it. If you want to see the best of times, you will find it. Behind all of this, is the steady trickle of storytelling, which follows the same themes.

originally posted by: kosmicjack

originally posted by: Themarkedone
The solution to a peaceful prosperous society has evaded us for thousands of years, unfortunately I imagine it will continue to do so.

Power, authority, is necessary to keep society in line, but with that power comes opportunity for corruption and we are greedy as a species. Many can't resist the temptation to unethically turn things in their favour.

As time progresses, this issue will only get worse, every civilization has its inevitable end, our time will come too.

Agree wirh this.

When I look at the top news stories of the day, I feel the need to double check a calender. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

I definitely think we're on a slow skid into Dystopia...our politics is broken, our representatives are corrupt, our systems are inept, our infrastructure is crumbling, our wealth is gone, our culture is depraved, our families are dysfunctional and our citizens walk around looking more like refugees.

I can't decide if I should go all Sarah Connor and prepare my kids for the inevitable or should I keep clinging to traditional values and what's left of normal...

I can see people's concern that we are on a slippery slope to dystopia, especially with the NSA revelations.

Lol, love the "go all Sarah Connor" line.

I get thoughts like that once in a while.

a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14


everyday, its like an oppressive cloak of suffocation.

originally posted by: pl3bscheese
No. Release your expectations, accept reality, and keep perspective. Laugh at your mistakes, shrug at humanities, but always look for ideas to implement which provide improvement.

There's so much going on in this world, that it's up to you which bits to focus on. If you want to see the worst of times, you will see it. If you want to see the best of times, you will find it. Behind all of this, is the steady trickle of storytelling, which follows the same themes.

I think that what you describe is how to stay sane on most days.

The problem is, some of us work in positions that actually depend on us noting what is a problem and then working with others of all kinds to form a solution. We also are not supposed to accept reality for what it is but instead move it forward, which is what development fundamentally means. Such as, developing medical systems so millions more can be reached in Africa.

In development, one has to constantly face epically crazy sh%t across the world. You have to for example constantly look at starvation, food security, poverty, you name it, because it's your job to do so.

But then, there are so many counterforces to these efforts across the world. That is what I am discussing. I can't ignore any of it.

I also think that the old saying is true that something cannot be changed until it is recognized there is a problem (which is painful), and for these complex issues, it is very important that an accurate gauge be made of the problem and it's variables.

originally posted by: iDope
a reply to: olaru12

I agree, a collapse must happen to bring in a new government. There are many points to this argument that I believe rings truth, and history guarantees that it must happen, or else a NWO type of government will be put in place before any change can be made. The NWO government has already been in place for some quite time now, and it is easy (if research is done on the subject) to track it down to at least Nixon, however, it has been in place much longer. The NWO type of government wouldn't be able to succeed in the world today as I see it in the first place, but they believe it could. "They" would have to make it more liveable for the common man, or else the common man would be able to arise in vast majority to strike down upon them, just as history always shows.

Let's just figure 2 million (1/180) Americans rise up on the government at the same time. These people have the means to gather mass aount of weapons and could easily take over cities, take more weapons, infiltrate bases, take over power grids, water, etc. But there must be some type of leadership. Whether it be planned through a TOR type of internet to remain annonymous, or some new sort, to gather troops and to plan attack. There still must be a leadership to strategize and to plan if it is to happen nationwide. True, one group of 20 heavily armed and strategized militia could wreak havoc on any city, but to make it nationwide, it takes a lot. Ideally for these 20 or so people, they would take over all broadcasting stations within the area and broadcast their message out 24/7 until it was shut down. This would gather more troops significantly. Then they would aquire all weapons and vehicles they could to take over the local governent. Likely executing their state government on air to show their power. It goes on and on from there. Supposedly there are only 500,000 armed troops in in the military. How many of these would actually fight for their government against their own family? Knowing of course how corrupt and evil their own governent is? The only reason they are in the military is to protect their family and freedom and not the lawmakers and politicians. Whose to say that they would follow orders when they knew that the "underground freedom fighters" were actually the group meant to be defended?

I could go on and on about revolutions and what it would actually take nowadays. I have studied many in depth, especially the Communist take over of Russia spurred by Lenin. Which would be the most relevant, however 100 years ago. There is no true precedent to what it would take to complete the objective, but what I do know, it would take a voice that is fluent, and a voice that could gather funds and protection.

This brings up interesting points.

I guess, something that was latent within my op is whether traditional methods of democracy (voting, all that), development, politics, and so on, will be able to change how entrenched the elite powers and corruption have become?

So then, if so, what would it take to disrupt that change it?

The problem with a collapse is as someone else noted, a real collapse would negatively affect a lot of people, possibly killing countless people or at least reducing many to destitution.

Even with a revolution scenario, this could cause a long period of chaos and similarly negatively affect a lot of people. It can be necessary in some contexts, and has been in the past, so perhaps when it's truly warranted it's truly warranted.

Am I wrong that in many of the successful revolutions such as Russia and China it caused a long period of chaos and lots of death?

originally posted by: PizzaAnyday505
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

Man

You just nailed it in the OP big time SF

Thanks for the kind words.

It's coming up to spring, disconnect from on line for a little while, reconnect with a sibling, or a friend with a simple call not a text, pot a plant or two, coffee/tea with a friend, talk to a old person for perspective, they have seen worse days than you or I.
Change what you can in your day, the clouds will not seem so low.

a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

I'd suggest ditching government work. You want to help communities, go it rogue, develop trusts, start not for profits, anything but government. That's likely the problem you're facing. Trying to help within establishments that are inherently inefficient and difficult to progress with.

The starvation, poverty, and such... has always been an issue, and is actually improving over time. So expand out, take perspective. If you can't handle the reality, then maybe you should seek a different job?

No, not really. The world is a very big place. MSM has made it -seem- like all the worlds problems are in your living room. But.. they aren't. People now get so angry and upset with events not only happening in the U.S., but across the world. There are -billions- of people. There are wars and unjust activities and tragedy at every turn. Just like at every point in our planets history.

In our past.. if the Romans were conquering (or being conquered by barbarians), and you were say, living in South America.. or New Zealand, did you care? Obviously not, you didn't even know. You lived YOUR life. And that was ok.. it's your life after all.

What has changed? If there were no TV, no newspapers.. and in your neck of the woods, it was peace and prosperity, you'd be living happy. So why does knowing what happens to people you will seriously never meet, and never know, bother you -that- much?

I agree that trends and tragedies that can affect all should garner attention. But I also saying.. reach out around you. In that several feet span.. THAT is what you can control. Don't let the weight of the world rest on your shoulders, because while it is tragic, is has NOT changed in 10s of thousands of years. You just hear about it now.. often within hours of it happening. Control what you can control.. worry to some degree.. because empathy and sympathy is important, but don't let every crime, 1%'er, government rule and regulation, war, etc. et al.. completely dismantle YOUR LIFE. It's your life.. live it.

Don't let the weight of the worlds problems rest on you.. it's not worth your health and sanity. You can't change everything.

originally posted by: pl3bscheese
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

I'd suggest ditching government work. You want to help communities, go it rogue, develop trusts, start not for profits, anything but government. That's likely the problem you're facing. Trying to help within establishments that are inherently inefficient and difficult to progress with.

The starvation, poverty, and such... has always been an issue, and is actually improving over time. So expand out, take perspective. If you can't handle the reality, then maybe you should seek a different job?

It's possible. The feeling I am experiencing is very recent, due to being in this for 10 years.

I also spent probably 2/3 of that time in local community-based non profits, not government.

The problem is everything converges the higher you go. Business, non-profit, social enterprise, government, you name it. All of the problems on every single topic are interconnected and involve all players.

I could switch back to a different player but honestly, you cannot address anymore many of these issues without working with and addressing each one of the players. This is why integrated sustainable development goes for holistic solutions with all stakeholders involved. So, yes, someone could switch their organization from let's say a government agency to a private development consulting firm. But, those very same development consulting firms often are funded by the government. Or, someone could switch to an NGO that works on education, only to confront the reality that business is a huge player and the government often dictates education policy and funding mechanisms. So what would it mean to switch players, beyond just liking specific work and organizational culture more?

Switching in no way address what the op was about, the system itself, of which all of these players are embedded in.

a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

I know players who run organizations that don't get any funding from government, and they tell me it's the way to go. That's not me, and I don't have your experience, so I'll have to bow out, but for some reason get the impression that you're following assumptions and themes which were are not your own. It's as if you're trying to get somewhere that can't be, because the assumptions and themes only give you so many inevitabilities.

What I've seen personally is that the global-integrated approach is perhaps too macro to have resilience in the face of differing ideas of implementation, and ever-changing terrain. I think it's bound to be inefficient, two things of which it aims to resolve, lack of resilience and inefficiencies!

That's why I think a decentralized approach is best. Yes, it's all interconnected, but perhaps working with small chunks while having the whole in mind is a better approach than looking at statistics on the whole of nations, or the world... just stick with one communities worth of problems at a time. At least, this is what I'd definitely suggest to someone who seems to be overwhelmed with the sheer scale of projects, and scope of disasters around them. It's counter productive to over-extent for prolonged periods of time. Scale down, step back, change something up!