To hell in a handbasket

Recently on another thread the claim was made that western civilisation has gone to hell in a handbasket.

(From Google:- To go to hell in a handbasket means to go to one's doom, to deteriorate quickly, to proceed on a course to disaster. The phrase go to hell in a handbasket is an American phrase which came into general use during the American Civil War, though its popularity has spread into other countries)

Are we? What do others here think? If you agree, why. Are there solutions?

Me, I tend to take an "eastern" approach. We are immersed in samsara , the world of birth and death, a revolving wheel. It has always been so, although civilisations have risen and fallen, come and gone. So I don't really think our current "civilisation" has actually gone anywhere.

We are in many ways like hamsters in a wheel. "Solutions" are like oiling the cogs or just running faster. The "solution" is more a sideways leap. But enough "mumbo jumbo".......I try to do what I can, when I can, but don't really look for results, which are beyond my calculation anyway

At the risk of being a pedant, I believe the actual quote was "Hell in a hand cart". Perhaps using a basket instead of a cart would be the economy version, like, when you only pop into the supermarket for a bottle of milk on Tuesday rather than your full weekly shop on Saturday.

Of course, no such thing is happening either in a basket, cart or any other form of collecting receptacle. The whole idea is merely the opinion of an individual with a rather myopic view of the world.

For sure, the world has its problems, the overwhelming majority of which are human-made. But for all the problems being made by however many humans, just as many (and perhaps a few more besides) have the desire, and are trying to overcome them. As you suggest (if I read you right), a kind of balance is achieved. At least in human terms.

But if the human consequences of any wrangle of activity more or less balance each other out, there is one area affected by our behaviour that we don't do enough to ameliorate. The affect we have on our planet.

The damage human activity is doing to our environment could become the largest single factor in the future of our species.... not to mention a lot of other species who haven't done anything to create the problem and certainly don't deserve to become extinct as a result.

I suggest the most important area of human activity in the next century or so should be directed at doing all we can to, firstly, reduce to the lowest possible level, the effect humans have on our "little blue dot" (thank you, Carl Sagan). Once this is achieved, then we can begin to start reversing that effect.

We can't put oil back in the wells, or replace the raw materials dug out of mines, but we can start to clean up the seas and the atmosphere. We can replant the forests that have been cut down. We can protect threatened species and ecosystems. We can find alternative ways of producing power and energy that don't threaten habitats.

These things are possible. The means to do them already exist. What doesn't exist is the comprehensive will to do them. For sure, politicians talk and come up with treaties and protocols and some countries do try to stick to them - more or less. But some don't. And that's where the treaties and protocols fall down.

Politically, globalisation is the key to changing behaviour towards the environment. If all countries are interdependent on each other, then the practice of the conscientious majority can have the greatest effect on the destructive minority.

On the other hand, if a "Free Market" world is allowed to flourish, then the "Every country for itself", where the forces of corporate greed prevail, then self interest will severely damage restraint, reversal and recovery.

The ability of human intelligence to innovate, adapt and adjust in order to achieve our objectives is there. It must be harnessed by uniting the countries of the world and putting mankind to work collectively on resolving the human vs nature conflict.

The major threat to that happening is the greed and desire for power of the corporations whose only interest is themselves.

Yes, I think Jennifer has highlighted one aspect of our current situation that is unique (at least in this cosmic round!)

Global warming, our potential now to actually end all life on our planet, to bring civilisation to an end.

While an adequate response to this requires international co-operation and long term vision, we see instead the usual insular self-interest of various Nation States unable or unwilling to look beyond their current economic balance sheet or the next election.

Another factor, developing over the past 50 or so years is the growing power of the multi-national corporations. Statistics show many such corporations outstrip the economies of many of the world's nation states (for instance, Walmart out-earned Belgium in 2017) Such corporations are driven almost exclusively by the profit motive which obviously does not necessarily relate in any way with larger planetary concerns.

(In the complex and nuanced world of fossil fuels there is evidence that findings regarding the effect upon the environment are being deliberately falsified by the giant fuel companies)

I have a mate on Facebook whose nose is close to the ground regarding such things. Since Donald Trump became President he has posted a succession of news items where environmental protections in Law have been rescinded by Donald Trump's administration. Time and time again.

From all this, maybe a lot of other concerns will prove of little consequence. The old one about shifting the deckchairs about on the Titanic.

Your comment has reminded me of a remark made by a poster on Rainbow Network. He's a religious kind of chap and when there was a similar discussion to this, his view was that God would sort out humankinds misdeeds in his own way.

When somebody else said that humankind had the expertise to solve its own problems rather then resort to waiting for an amateur to get his arse into gear, he replied:

"An amateur build the Ark. Professionals built the Titanic."

1-0 to God that time around. But I liked the retort and committed it to memory.

I thought you'd like it.

* I think he meant Noah