A house divided: Syrian Refugees and Thanksgiving conversation...

[Ultralight]

Yesterday was my family's little Thanksgiving dinner. Mom, dad, sis, BIL, and me.

The topic of the Syrian Refugees came up.

The score is:

3 to 2, with xenophobia ruling the day.

My dad, sis, and BIL all want to shut out any and all refugees. My mom and I are okay with allowing refugees in.

Microcosm for America? Thoughts?

Anyone else having these convos during the holidays or do you anticipate having them?

[freshstart]

we're already having them, in this house 2 open to refugees, 1 xenophobe

I want the rest of my family to weigh in but not on Thanksgiving because we will be in public and we fight about stuff like this til blood is nearly shed and it makes my mom cry, lol. Although, Thanksgiving is exactly when you should have this conversation.

[Gregg]

My family is in favor of opening the door wider. The only exception is my mom, who is pretty xenophobic by nature anyway and prone to identifying threats whether they exist or not. This turkey day will be spent hosting DW's whole family; I think the count is around 18 adults. Out of that crew I would be very surprised if, 1) more than two or three of the women even voice an opinion about anything non-Kardashian, and 2) if more than two or three of the men are open to anything beyond slamming the door shut. When it comes to the out-laws its easiest to just keep cooking turkeys and try to remember some sports statistic I read in the paper that morning.

[jp1]

We'll be going to sister and sister-in-law's on Wednesday. I haven't spoken to them about this topic yet but I suspect in our case it will be 4 to 0 in favor of refugees. I'll post a followup if my guess was wrong.

[Williamsmith]

It is foolish to invite refugees into our country....we have something to cherish here do we not? There must be a very strict and meaningful vetting process or you might find your town overrun with refugees, looting your shops, taking over your public places, committing crimes against your decent neighbors. Especially since many of them believe we are the cause of their problems in the first place. It is a recipe for disaster and so I rest firmly in the camp of the isolationists. Accept some but do not take a net and scoop them out of the population without any regard for their background. Or you will just cause further damage to your own places of serenity.

[Ultralight]

It is foolish to invite refugees into our country....we have something to cherish here do we not? There must be a very strict and meaningful vetting process or you might find your town overrun with refugees, looting your shops, taking over your public places, committing crimes against your decent neighbors. Especially since many of them believe we are the cause of their problems in the first place. It is a recipe for disaster and so I rest firmly in the camp of the isolationists. Accept some but do not take a net and scoop them out of the population without any regard for their background. Or you will just cause further damage to your own places of serenity.

I have many-a-mixed feeling about the American experiment.

But for me, it is more like:
1. I am a citizen of the world. And so are they. I think we all ought to help our fellow citizens.
2. Like Americans, Syrians are a mixed bag. Why don't we toss out the bad apples who are Americans? haha

Also, could you look some little starved Syrian child in the eye and say: "Nope, you are not allowed in!"

Remember what you told me: "Love makes room for inconvenience."

[iris lilies]

Is it really a yes/no question? I don't think so, but if the discussion is posed as such, it already is dumbed down. Might as well talk about Kardashians, the Los Angeles variety, not the Star Trek type.

I live in the city that had the largest influx of Muslims fleeing persecution of any U. S. city within the past 20 years. That influx revitalized this city, these immigrants were super great for the area. They are now so successful that they are moving out of the city to the 'burbs because they don't like our ghetto element. So do you think my point is: bring on immigrants any and often? Nope. There are too many complex issues to reduce this to a yes/no question.

In general, sure, the U.S. needs to continue with an immigration policy that includes political refugees in some way. How many and where they are from are huge issues that the gubmnt needs to handle carefully. If Nanny G. does one thing, it sets and carries out immigration policy. You all know my skepticism that the
Nanny can do much very well.

For those who don't know what happened in my city 20 years ago, we settled the largest population of Muslim Bosnians outside of Bosnia itself here. The (?) former President of Bosnia pays visits to St Louis to see his people. These immigrants have been great, but they are European-ized and as such do not have a predilection for terrorism. Now our Somali settlers are a bit different, we've got some bad eggs in that group, some have terrorist ties.

[flowerseverywhere]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/11/17/what-americans-thought-of-jewish-refugees-on-the-eve-of-world-war-ii/

you should read this Washington post article. The country was overwhelmingly against letting Jewish children come to the U.S. From Germany on the eve off WW2. Googling anti immigrant sentiment in the U.S. Brings up tales of anti Italian sentiment and so on.

i am not sure how I feel but I am surely not asking anyone else in public. Fear fuels hate and certainly the Fox/Rush barrage of fanning the fires does not help with the truth.

[iris lilies]

I have many-a-mixed feeling about the American experiment.

But for me, it is more like:
1. I am a citizen of the world. And so are they. I think we all ought to help our fellow citizens.
2. Like Americans, Syrians are a mixed bag. Why don't we toss out the bad apples who are Americans? haha

Also, could you look some little starved Syrian child in the eye and say: "Nope, you are not allowed in!"

Remember what you told me: "Love makes room for inconvenience."

i don't understand why all of a sudden, today, the little Syrian child gets you attention. What about the millions of other starved children who would have loved to come here over the past 100 years from Africa, So. america, Asia, etc.?

Aren't you just rousing the rabble to follow the example of our President Obama who lectured us Neanderthals last week about this issue? What is really educational of unique in this thread so far?

Nothing.

i have been wondering about how many Syrian refugees the sand countries are taking in. Now I'm off to Google that data.

[JaneV2.0]

Most of the terrorism in this country is home-grown and fringe right (clinic arsons, white supremacist police shootings, etc.) I don't know why this is even an issue except that people tend to hate and fear anyone perceived as "different." Too bad, because as Iris Lily points out, immigrants are often eager to use the opportunity to better themselves and their families, which betters us all.

If Middle Eastern terrorists want to come here and make trouble, they can just get fake papers and a visa. They don't need to go through the two years of granular vetting necessary to prove refugee status. That so many people believe the xenophobes' propaganda is scarier to me than the thought of terrorism itself.

Terrorist activities are clearly here to stay and occur worldwide; we're not a nation of special snowflakes, though we clearly think we are. http://uaposition.com/15-years-of-terror-a-time-lapse-map-of-all-big-terrorist-attacks-in-2000-2015-video/

[ApatheticNoMore]

i have been wondering about how many Syrian refugees the sand countries are taking in. Now I'm off to Google that data.

too narrow a question really. It is my understanding that some of those countries have already took a lot of refugees from Iraq, Libya etc. (all those U.S. government created humanitarian nightmares). And those wars created a lot of refugees, just not as many as the Syrian situation. So maybe countries want to set some limit on total refugees they let in, not just Syrian.

[Ultralight]

i don't understand why all of a sudden, today, the little Syrian child gets you attention. What about the millions of other starved children who would have loved to come here over the past 100 years from Africa, So. america, Asia, etc.?

Aren't you just rousing the rabble to follow the example of our President Obama who lectured us Neanderthals last week about this issue? What is really educational of unique in this thread so far?

Nothing.

i have been wondering about how many Syrian refugees the sand countries are taking in. Now I'm off to Google that data.

It is not just today that I care about the tired, the poor, the huddled masses, the homeless, the temptest tossed... I know it is old fashioned but I am my brother's keeper, whether my brother is Syrian or Somali or Guatemalan or from West Virginia...

But still, I invite anyone who wants to keep our doors closed to immigrants to state clearly that they would look a starving Syrian child in the eye and deny them entry. Any takers?

Didn't think so.

Am I a rabble rouser? Well, I used to be.

I am no fan of Barry. I don't even know what he said.

And: "What is really educational of unique in this thread so far?"

Not entirely sure what you're asking...

[rodeosweetheart]

Here was the original question:
'Microcosm for America? Thoughts?

Anyone else having these convos during the holidays or do you anticipate having them? '

It seems like folks are giving you what you asked for, their thoughts.

[iris lilies]

...But still, I invite anyone who wants to keep our doors closed to immigrants to state clearly that they would look a starving Syrian child in the eye and deny them entry. Any takers?

Didn't think so.

wait! You didn't give me a chance to respond. Don't assume you know my answer.

If you mean a specific instance of me acting as a immigration bureaucrat where my job was to carry out immigration quotas and decide who and how many get into the U.S., yes I would "look them in the eye" and say not you, not today, not in the U.S.

if you mean a more generalized action on my part where I sit in a chair typing on the interwebs, being an armchair social warrior, hell that's even easier. My answer is yes.

Do you recognize recognize that the U.S. already has extensive immigration and settlement programs? What exactly are you proposing to change? this emo black and white thinking just isn't my cup of tea.

which leads to...


And: "What is really educational of unique in this thread so far?"

Not entirely sure what you're asking...

i mean what's educational or unique in this thread that hasn't already been said a zillion times already? It's a superficial discussion of a complex topic.

[Ultralight]

wait! You didn't give me a chance to respond. Don't assume you know my answer.

If you mean a specific instance of me acting as a immigration bureaucrat where my job was to carry out immigration quotas and decide who and how many get into the U.S., yes I would "look them in the eye" and say not you, not today, not in the U.S.

if you mean a more generalized action on my part where I sit in a chair typing on the interwebs, being an armchair social warrior, hell that's even easier. My answer is yes.

Do you recognize recognize that the U.S. already has extensive immigration and settlement programs? What exactly are you proposing to change? this emo black and white thinking just isn't my cup of tea.

which leads to...



i mean what's educational or unique in this thread that hasn't already been said a zillion times already? It's a superficial discussion of a complex topic.

Did I ask so you could say: "Just doing my job!"?

No.

Did I ask so you could say what you thought and felt about this scenario as a social warrior?

In part, yes.

But the essence of my question is to allow you to reveal the content of your character through a symbolic hypothetical scenario.

[iris lilies]

too narrow a question really. It is my understanding that some of those countries have already took a lot of refugees from Iraq, Libya etc. (all those U.S. government created humanitarian nightmares). And those wars created a lot of refugees, just not as many as the Syrian situation. So maybe countries want to set some limit on total refugees they let in, not just Syrian.yes, certainly previous resettlement actions from prior refugee situations should be considered in any scenario where Syrians, today, are the topic whether sand country or U.S of A. It's all interconnected.

[Ultralight]

yes, certainly previous resettlement actions from prior refugee situations should be considered in any scenario where Syrians, today, are the topic whether sand country or U.S of A. It's all interconnected.

"Sand country?" Uh... ever been to Arizona?

[catherine]

Not sure how my family will react if this conversation comes up at Thanksgiving, but I"m certainly not going to raise it, since we will be spending Thanksgiving at the home of my DILs sister/husband, and there will be a dozen immigrants from Brazil there, so I have to coach my husband on the taboo topics of the day (since he has a faulty self-editor) and immigration policy will certainly be one of them.

However, he has already pointed out how when his Scottish parents and grandparents came, they had to be sponsored and employed. It was no easy entry, and so he feels everyone should be subject to the same vetting process.

I can see the risks involved in opening the floodgates, but I also see that historically we have had this discussion with almost every wave of immigrants and we're still standing. Does the "Where's Waldo" effect of terrorists slipping in with innocent families make a difference? It might, but I haven't thought it through enough yet.

[iris lilies]

Did I ask so you could say: "Just doing my job!"?

No.

Did I ask so you could say what you thought and felt about this scenario as a social warrior?

In part, yes.

But the essence of my question is to allow you to reveal the content of your character through a symbolic hypothetical scenario.

Usually these internet challenges exist to make the asker feel good about his own character. I don't see how a real measure of character results from this kind of pissing contest.

But since you like hypotheticals and consider them a true measure of something, let me ask you this:

Would you you look a perfectly healthy dog in the eye and have him euthanized?

[Ultralight]

Usually these internet challenges exist to make the asker feel good about his own character. I don't see how a real measure of character results from this kind of pissing contest.

But since you like hypotheticals and consider them a true measure of something, let me ask you this:

Would you you look a perfectly healthy dog in the eye and have him euthanized?

If it was my job to euthanize healthy dogs, I would not show up for the first day of work.

As an armchair social warrior (whatever that really means) on the intarwebz, no I would not. If I had the ability to rescue all the dogs I would.

Now I know where this is going, so go ahead with it.

[iris lilies]

If it was my job to euthanize healthy dogs, I would not show up for the first day of work.

As an armchair social warrior (whatever that really means) on the intarwebz, no I would not. If I had the ability to rescue all the dogs I would.

Now I know where this is going, so go ahead with it.

neither you nor I have the resources to rescue all healthy dogs being euthanized. But we both have the resources to rescue more than we have. why haven't you done that? Why don't I do that? You first. (I was actually going in a different direction starting out, but I'll take this path instead.)

[Ultralight]

neither you nor I have the resources to rescue all healthy dogs being euthanized. But we both have the resources to rescue more than we have. why haven't you done that? Why don't I do that? You first. (I was actually going in a different direction starting out, but I'll take this path instead.)

I think that our governments -- essentially all of us acting as a collective -- could do a much, much better job of managing animals. But then Nanny G would have to get quite involved. And you do not like that!

Why do you want Nanny G to close the borders or "manage them?" Why not let individuals decide whether or not they want to stay in one place in the world or simply relocate to another place?

[LDAHL]

I will give thanks to my primitive sky god this Thanksgiving that my family doesn't have this type of discussion during holiday gatherings.

[Ultralight]

I will give thanks to my primitive sky god this Thanksgiving that my family doesn't have this type of discussion during holiday gatherings.

I LOLed! :)

Truth be told I talked mostly to my dad about fishing (a safe topic!). My sis and I did all the cooking, so we only talked about cooking.

[iris lilies]

I think that our governments -- essentially all of us acting as a collective -- could do a much, much better job of managing animals. But then Nanny G would have to get quite involved. And you do not like that!

Why do you want Nanny G to close the borders or "manage them?" Why not let individuals decide whether or not they want to stay in one place in the world or simply relocate to another place?

You are right, Nanny G managing pets is theoretically abhorrent to me although I have to support practical laws against cruelty. But as example, deep governmental fingers in the puppy mill pie has produced laughable results. And there is an effective argument that if Nanny would scale back her taxation requirement from me, I would have more money to give to the social causes I like which is pet and animal welfare.

The federal government has, in my mind, only a few jobs and controlling borders is one of them. But I may not be opposed to MUCH looser immigration regulations, assuming that we do not have to feed, clothes, and house anyone at taxpayer expense. But that's a big complex issue so I'm not committing to anything until I see the plan.

ok, but why, again, don't you have a house full of rescue dogs? Is it that you want OTHERS to spend their resources? That's what I think based on your "collective" comment.

[Ultralight]

The federal government has, in my mind, only a few jobs and controlling borders is one of them.

Quite convenient. ;)

[iris lilies]

Quite convenient. ;)

But that is consistent with most libertarians. Big Military for Defense, controlling borders, some sort of national monetary system, taxation system to support these FEW federal programs --those are the biggies that comprise responsibilities of the federal government. My position is not inconsistent with general libertarian thought, if that's what you are implying. This doesn't mean that states should not take on a whole lot of restrictions and laws.

You aren't going to answer about why you aren't spending more of your own resources rescuing dogs. So I'll answer for me.

I don't spend more because I don't want to. I won't list the stuff I HAVE done and continue to do because that's the pissing contest I mentioned earlier, it makes for dull discourse.

I will also say that I HAVE taken perfectly healthy dogs to be euthanized which, for this discussion, I am making a moral equivalent of telling your hypothetical staving Syrian child that he can't come in to this country today because there aren't resources, today, allocated to take him and the millions like him. ( Millions!)

Three of these dogs we had to put down. They were biters. There are no homes for biters (i.e. there are no resources today.) One could argue that these are not "healthy" dogs and I was disingenuous in calling them healthy, but the fact remains that they had no physical reason to be put down. I could even go further and say that one of them, the last one we euthanized, was a little guy and he had no canine teeth, so possibly he COULD have been managed in our childless household, hard to know. He was going after our oldest Frenchie as well as humans, so that was another issue to work out. But I didn't want a biter. I chose not to open my own home to this dog, I chose not to spend my own life energy.

Contests of character often take place in animal rescue, and while I do respect those who know and state their limits, I have 0 respect for those who cast aspirations on others who work in the field who do carry out the "dirty" work. That's what you, UL, have done in this discussion in your "character test."

I have learned from decades of internet chat to have little respect for keyboard warriors. I am wired to personally pay attention to action not feelings. The "oh I could never do what you do because feelings" rationale usually just irritates me, not always of course, because we ARE appropriately guided by our feelings in many situations. But the fact remains that someone's gotta do some of the hard stuff in the world. If that means euthanizing healthy dogs or denying entry to the starving millions of children in the world so that you, UL, and I can sit in our comfortable American homes with all of the resources we've got, not bothered by biting dogs or crying Syrian children, and type passionate screes in cyberspace, so be it.

I think that your character test is silly, and I think that you are much more like me than you wish to admit on this thread.

[LDAHL]

Quite convenient. ;)

And quite constitutional. The framers expected the States to do most of the heavy lifting, governance-wise. Since then, the central government has exploited the Commerce Clause in ways that go far beyond the original intent of keeping the states from imposing tariffs on one another. They've also used the income tax to pull money out of the states to be redistributed with all sorts of strings attached.

Many people today look at the states as being subordinate to the federal government in a sort of hierarchy of power, when the original idea was that the states would dole out just enough power to the feds to do things it didn't make sense for them to do individually. Although there have always been "nullifiers", such as the Confederate States or the Sanctuary Cities who believed the locals had a right to override the central government.

[Teacher Terry]

Unfortunately, we can not save the world. I am a bleeding heart liberal but at 61 I get that we can't help everyone. I got into dog rescue 11 years ago and I have seen many people get burned out. I have also seen people take more animals then they could handle with good intentions but of course it did not work out. There is always 1 more to save. That is one reason I have 4 dogs. Did I set out out to get 4-hell no! I spent my life working in human services & we could we help everyone? No there are limited resources, etc. The sad truth is that there will always be people, children, animals suffering & dying when they should not but at my age I no longer think we can remedy all the world's problems. I think one of the reasons we have some of these refugees is because we thought we could solve the world's problems & we probably ended up making them worse. I have no answers because I don't think there is one to save the entire world. Can we make a big difference in small ways like in St. Louis-of course. Just like when we rescue one dog it makes a huge difference to that dog but in the big scheme of animal welfare probably very little difference.

[bae]

Unfortunately, we can not save the world.

This is a hard truth. I asked a wise fellow who is my mentor on things related to emergency response how he handles not being able to save everyone, especially in the context of having to triage. He's a very Orthodox Jew, "retired" from years of fairly nasty military service in Bad Places.

He walked me through this:

"And whoever saves a life, it is considered as if he saved an entire world." — Mishnah Sanhedrin 4:9

You don't have to save everyone. You can't. You're human. If you can save just *one* person, you've done an amazing thing, and you should ponder that, instead of those you couldn't save. Keeps you sane.

[Teacher Terry]

Bae, that is an awesome way to look at it. There are many things I admire about the Jewish religion-they seem to have a way to put life's hard choices in perspective. Triage has to be one of the hardest things to do but if you don't everyone dies. I know when I was young I thought all things were possible & getting older has taught me that I was wrong.

[Ultralight]

And quite constitutional. The framers expected the States to do most of the heavy lifting, governance-wise. Since then, the central government has exploited the Commerce Clause in ways that go far beyond the original intent of keeping the states from imposing tariffs on one another. They've also used the income tax to pull money out of the states to be redistributed with all sorts of strings attached.

Many people today look at the states as being subordinate to the federal government in a sort of hierarchy of power, when the original idea was that the states would dole out just enough power to the feds to do things it didn't make sense for them to do individually. Although there have always been "nullifiers", such as the Confederate States or the Sanctuary Cities who believed the locals had a right to override the central government.

There are so many right-wing constitutional scholars in this nation. There are also so many left-wing constitutional scholars in this country. It is almost like they are looking at two different documents. hahaha

[kib]

Going back to the family post, my mother would vote for no immigrants because she is one and had to go through the tough process Catherine mentioned. My argument would be that these people don't particularly want to come here, they haven't set their lives up to audition to be Americans, they're in an awful position and have to do something to save their lives. I guess it's government intervention on a Really big scale (bound to fail scale) to say let them in as refugees, care for them, clean out their country of the mess going on, and send them home again, but that is what comes to my mind. Yes, I would care for a foster biter dog for two years. Yes, I would care for a Syrian child with big hungry eyes for two years. In neither case would I want to make a permanent commitment, and perhaps neither would they.

[Rogar]

My host's daughter was in the Peace Corps and has somehow connected to a Syrian refugee and an immigrant from Costa Rica. It's not a topic I intend to broach in all politeness, but can guess the vote.

I perceive the issue against the refugees as being nearly entirely fear based and without solid logic. Any motivated terrorist can find a way to get into the country through our north or south borders or with a cheap fake passport. Of the terrorists in France only one was possibly Syrian citizen and that hasn't been proven to my knowledge, so is there equal or more risk from French or Belgian citizens. A two year vetting system seems more than adequate. And ISIL seems to have a population that shifts between Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan, so singling out one country of origin seems myopic and misdirected.

[JaneV2.0]

I read a heart-breaking article recently. Because Syria is in shambles, there are no jobs. Because there are no jobs, people are desperate for work. And what do you know--Isis is hiring. And they pay well. So anyone who wants to work to feed their family has to essentially join Isis. The organization also provides housing. So a whole lot of people who aren't murderous religious wackos are forced to do Isis' bidding. No wonder so many young men are fleeing--they don't want to be conscripted into an army of brutal, suicidal jihadists. What a screwed up world we live in.

[iris lilies]

So, now Canada is excluding single Syrian men from their approved list of immigrants.

And the new very liberal PM has approved this? I think he needs to experience a finger wagging lecture from President Obama to get him into correct-think mode.

[LDAHL]

So, now Canada is excluding single Syrian men from their approved list of immigrants.

And the new very liberal PM has approved this? I think he needs to experience a finger wagging lecture from President Obama to get him into correct-think mode.

Didn't he win a Nobel Prize for scolding?

[Ultralight]

Didn't he win a Nobel Prize for scolding?

Petty.

[Kestra]

So, now Canada is excluding single Syrian men from their approved list of immigrants.

And the new very liberal PM has approved this? I think he needs to experience a finger wagging lecture from President Obama to get him into correct-think mode.

Apparently. Stupid decision. I was talking to a young refugee man recently and he was clearly struggling with knowing that apparently we don't allow sponsorship from certain countries at all. (Info was from him. I didn't confirm.) But obviously more exclusion is not going to help the anti-ISIS cause.

[iris lilies]

Petty.

oh,it was an oddity all right, him winning an award after being in office only months. The last U.S. President to win this award got it after he was out of office, having actually served time and made influential decisions.

The Nobel committee admitted a chief reason for President Obama to get the award was because he wasn't George Bush (i.e. he represented a fresh environment for world peace relations) and the Prez appropriately, and in a speech that I thought was good, showed humility and common sense when he accepted this award.

[Ultralight]

Meh.

[Ultralight]

I think that we would be able to have more resources to help refugees and others in need if we all lived much more simply.

This is a reason I am a minimalist.

[LDAHL]

I think that we would be able to have more resources to help refugees and others in need if we all lived much more simply.

This is a reason I am a minimalist.

If we have a moral obligation to "live simply that others may simply live", do we also have an obligation to work as long and as hard as we can at whatever pays the most to earn as much wealth as possible for distribution to the less fortunate? If every dollar of "excess consumption" can be thought of as coming at someone else's expense, doesn't every hour of "excess leisure" also come at someone else's expense if the goal is a sort of utilitarian greatest good for the greatest number?

Would it be wrong, for instance, for an investment banker to spend two years in the Peace Corps digging wells in Malawi if his earnings could easily be used to employ several dozen local well-diggers? Should we recognize a sort of ethical opportunity cost for our free time?

[Teacher Terry]

If you did not get to enjoy the fruits of your own labor people would not be motivated to work hard. Yes I think the people with lots of $ should give to charitable causes & many of them do & I think all of us should contribute some but to redistribute resources is not the way to go.

[Ultralight]

If we have a moral obligation to "live simply that others may simply live", do we also have an obligation to work as long and as hard as we can at whatever pays the most to earn as much wealth as possible for distribution to the less fortunate? If every dollar of "excess consumption" can be thought of as coming at someone else's expense, doesn't every hour of "excess leisure" also come at someone else's expense if the goal is a sort of utilitarian greatest good for the greatest number?

Would it be wrong, for instance, for an investment banker to spend two years in the Peace Corps digging wells in Malawi if his earnings could easily be used to employ several dozen local well-diggers? Should we recognize a sort of ethical opportunity cost for our free time?

My answers to your questions in no particular order: No, no, no and no.

[LDAHL]

My answers to your questions in no particular order: No, no, no and no.

So there is some level of moral merit in living a minimalist life style (recognizing that the American version of "minimal" may seem fairly well-upholstered to many around the world) as a sort of benign trickle-down theory, but that doesn't imply a positive duty to act?

[LDAHL]

If you did not get to enjoy the fruits of your own labor people would not be motivated to work hard. Yes I think the people with lots of $ should give to charitable causes & many of them do & I think all of us should contribute some but to redistribute resources is not the way to go.

I'm inclined to agree with you, which is why I think of capitalism, with all it's flaws, as a basically ethical system.

[Ultralight]

So there is some level of moral merit in living a minimalist life style (recognizing that the American version of "minimal" may seem fairly well-upholstered to many around the world) as a sort of benign trickle-down theory, but that doesn't imply a positive duty to act?

I guess I'll bite. It depends on what "acting" means.

[LDAHL]

Yesterday was my family's little Thanksgiving dinner. Mom, dad, sis, BIL, and me.

The topic of the Syrian Refugees came up.

The score is:

3 to 2, with xenophobia ruling the day.

My dad, sis, and BIL all want to shut out any and all refugees. My mom and I are okay with allowing refugees in.

Microcosm for America? Thoughts?

Anyone else having these convos during the holidays or do you anticipate having them?

The Democratic National Committee has created a web site (YourRepublicanUncle.com) that provides talking points for Democrats in holiday discussions. They feel that this will allow liberals to win any argument as long as the wifi is up.

[Ultralight]

The Democratic National Committee has created a web site (YourRepublicanUncle.com) that provides talking points for Democrats in holiday discussions. They feel that this will allow liberals to win any argument as long as the wifi is up.

That is kinda funny!

But I am not a Democrat.

[LDAHL]

I guess I'll bite. It depends on what "acting" means.

My question was if refraining from consumption means "we have more resources" that can be used for good purposes, is it not better still to work to create more resources in the most efficient way to can? The first implies a static quantity and a passive zero-sum distribution. The second implies that we can increase the resource base by our efforts.

[ApatheticNoMore]

I don't believe in consuming less to donate it all to the refugees, but if you donate a lot to help them, I do think it's very kind thing to do. It is a sad situation. I do believe kinda in consuming less for the environmental benefit. Oh yes the environmental cost of my leisure time, it's so ghastly and horrible isn't it? I mean look if I had really environmentally costly leisure activities I suppose the case could be made, but not otherwise.

And I don't believe money is what fundamentally motivates people, sure fear of starvation motivates up to a point (and it's a pretty darn poor motivation at that, it will motivate doing the least amount possible to avoid starvation, and some of what it motivates will be unethical behavior - some unethical behavior is motivated by greed for more money or even fears for economic security - just read the news) just like any other base fear, and then people want more from life than just basic bottom of Maslow's hierarchy of needs. But money won't really buy that (it can help, but it's not really it).

[Ultralight]

My question was if refraining from consumption means "we have more resources" that can be used for good purposes, is it not better still to work to create more resources in the most efficient way to can? The first implies a static quantity and a passive zero-sum distribution. The second implies that we can increase the resource base by our efforts.

I don't think we create resources. I think we extract them. ;)

I suggest that if they must be extracted then they be extracted not for the excesses of selfish and gluttonous folks but so that others can live enjoyable but simple lives with "enough."

Let me illustrate.

[Ultralight]

If we have a moral obligation to "live simply that others may simply live", do we also have an obligation to work as long and as hard as we can at whatever pays the most to earn as much wealth as possible for distribution to the less fortunate? If every dollar of "excess consumption" can be thought of as coming at someone else's expense, doesn't every hour of "excess leisure" also come at someone else's expense if the goal is a sort of utilitarian greatest good for the greatest number?

Would it be wrong, for instance, for an investment banker to spend two years in the Peace Corps digging wells in Malawi if his earnings could easily be used to employ several dozen local well-diggers? Should we recognize a sort of ethical opportunity cost for our free time?

Here is my illustration.

Suppose your investment banker does a lot of investment "work" in bottled water. And the source of this bottled water is Lake Malawi. So he empties the lake to fill bottles of water to sell to people in the first world (expensive exotic water for Whole Foods customers). Then he uses a portion of his earnings to dig wells in Malawi (Got to! The lake was drained!).

This was not helpful.

Now obviously I don't want you to take this illustration literally, but rather to help you imagine how extracting and exploiting certain resources on the front end to make a profit is not made right by "charity" on the tail end.

I think it is best to refrain from extracting resources whenever possible.

[bae]

Let me provide another example.

Lovely trees grow all over my land. They grow fast, they grow tall, and they grow strong. If I "extract" the resource of the wood, I have huge supplies of firewood, and marketable timber for producing wood to build other peoples' homes. If I don't "extract" the resource, the high winds here will eventually topple the nearby trees and crush my house and outbuildings, assuming a wildfire doesn't sweep through first and burn everything down. If I do "extract" the resource, it grows back quite swiftly - it is a never-ending struggle not to be overrun by trees here.

The same line of thinking goes for the deer on the land here.

And pretty much every drop of water that lands here from the sky.

[Ultralight]

Perhaps, if wilderness could talk, it'd say: "It is a never-ending struggle not to be overrun by humans here."

[bae]

Perhaps, if wilderness could talk, it'd say: "It is a never-ending struggle not to be overrun by humans here."

If I did not maintain this forest, it would be quite unhealthy, with frequent fires, disease, downed trees making the landscape impassable for wildlife.

The First Nations folks used to just come over here every few years and burn the whole island down to keep it in shape.

The trees themselves are a relatively recent arrival on scene, 11 thousand years ago the place was covered in a mile-thick sheet of ice.

But I get your basic message, humans are bad and should just die out. Are you going to lead the way?

[Ultralight]

If I did not maintain this forest, it would be quite unhealthy, with frequent fires, disease, downed trees making the landscape impassable for wildlife.

The First Nations folks used to just come over here every few years and burn the whole island down to keep it in shape.

The trees themselves are a relatively recent arrival on scene, 11 thousand years ago the place was covered in a mile-thick sheet of ice.

But I get your basic message, humans are bad and should just die out. Are you going to lead the way?

Nanny G of the forest. haha

[LDAHL]

Let me provide another example.

Lovely trees grow all over my land. They grow fast, they grow tall, and they grow strong. If I "extract" the resource of the wood, I have huge supplies of firewood, and marketable timber for producing wood to build other peoples' homes. If I don't "extract" the resource, the high winds here will eventually topple the nearby trees and crush my house and outbuildings, assuming a wildfire doesn't sweep through first and burn everything down. If I do "extract" the resource, it grows back quite swiftly - it is a never-ending struggle not to be overrun by trees here.

The same line of thinking goes for the deer on the land here.

And pretty much every drop of water that lands here from the sky.

That makes sense to me. Human labor and intellect must be applied to resources occurring in nature to give them value. In many cases, the "extracted" portion is nearly trivial. Modern medicine, a smartphone app, major league baseball or The Maltese Falcon all derive little of their value from ore taken from the ground or plants grown in the soil.

Simply assuming that every cheeseburger I refrain from eating will mean more grain available in South Sudan with no effort on my part doesn't strike me as a reasonable ethic.

[JaneV2.0]

That philosophy always reminds me of "Finish your vegetables; children are starving in Biafra." Not very compelling.

[catherine]

Here is my illustration.

Suppose your investment banker does a lot of investment "work" in bottled water. And the source of this bottled water is Lake Malawi. So he empties the lake to fill bottles of water to sell to people in the first world (expensive exotic water for Whole Foods customers). Then he uses a portion of his earnings to dig wells in Malawi (Got to! The lake was drained!).

Now obviously I don't want you to take this illustration literally,

You mean like this?

http://www.mintpressnews.com/nestle-the-grinch-illegally-bottles-68000-gallons-of-water-a-day-in-drought-stricken-california/211565/

[Ultralight]

That philosophy always reminds me of "Finish your vegetables; children are starving in Biafra." Not very compelling.

I don't expect you to be compelled. I expect you to do what most people would do.

[jp1]

I don't think there's a true either/or regarding bae's example and Ultralight's. The reality is that some resources are quite renewable and there's no reason we shouldn't be taking advantage of them. However, there are plenty of situations where non-renewable, or slowly renewable, resources get used solely for profit or because people can afford to waste them. For example, how many single driver SUV's are cruising up and down the freeways in this country at any given time. Dinosaurs aren't growing as fast as the trees in the pacific northwest.

Another example, farmers in the central valley of California with the financial ability to do so are switching from lower profit, lower water usage crops to the higher profit, higher water usage crop of nut trees, and in order to have sufficient water for this new, more profitable endeavor, they are hiring oil well diggers (because the water well diggers don't have equipment to dig far enough) to dig massively deep wells to suck up what's left of the water table.

Using resources isn't the problem. Using resources faster than they can rejuvenate is.

[bae]

Using resources isn't the problem. Using resources faster than they can rejuvenate is.

I like the Natural Step folks' approach to laying out system conditions for long-term sustainability:


1. Substances from the Earth’s crust can not systematically increase in the biosphere.

2. Substances produced by society can not systematically increase in the biosphere.

3. The physical basis for the productivity and diversity of nature must not be systematically deteriorated.

[Ultralight]

I don't think there's a true either/or regarding bae's example and Ultralight's. The reality is that some resources are quite renewable and there's no reason we shouldn't be taking advantage of them. However, there are plenty of situations where non-renewable, or slowly renewable, resources get used solely for profit or because people can afford to waste them. For example, how many single driver SUV's are cruising up and down the freeways in this country at any given time. Dinosaurs aren't growing as fast as the trees in the pacific northwest.

Another example, farmers in the central valley of California with the financial ability to do so are switching from lower profit, lower water usage crops to the higher profit, higher water usage crop of nut trees, and in order to have sufficient water for this new, more profitable endeavor, they are hiring oil well diggers (because the water well diggers don't have equipment to dig far enough) to dig massively deep wells to suck up what's left of the water table.

Using resources isn't the problem. Using resources faster than they can rejuvenate is.

I think this is a smart explanation.

I try to see comprehensive systems. So sunlight is pretty darned renewable, but the stuff we use to build solar panels might not be. Also, if we have missile factories powered by solar energy we're missing the point. These things connect. How do we harvest a "renewable" energy? What do we do with the energy after we harness it?

[catherine]

Let me provide another example.

Lovely trees grow all over my land. They grow fast, they grow tall, and they grow strong. If I "extract" the resource of the wood, I have huge supplies of firewood, and marketable timber for producing wood to build other peoples' homes. If I don't "extract" the resource, the high winds here will eventually topple the nearby trees and crush my house and outbuildings, assuming a wildfire doesn't sweep through first and burn everything down. If I do "extract" the resource, it grows back quite swiftly - it is a never-ending struggle not to be overrun by trees here.

The same line of thinking goes for the deer on the land here.

And pretty much every drop of water that lands here from the sky.

Yes, but you are a member of the society in which you live--a small community that seems to be interdependent with a vested interest in maintaining the quality of life there. Good stewardship of your property is what motivates you.

That's different than someone coming in and deciding that your trees will make them lots of money if they log them all and take them to the mainland and sell the logs to Lumber Liquidator for the benefit of strangers and stockholders with big profits as the only raison d'être.

[jp1]

I try to see comprehensive systems. So sunlight is pretty darned renewable, but the stuff we use to build solar panels might not be. Also, if we have missile factories powered by solar energy we're missing the point. These things connect. How do we harvest a "renewable" energy? What do we do with the energy after we harness it?

What about the gas station I saw the the other day with solar panels on the roof...

[Ultralight]

What about the gas station I saw the the other day with solar panels on the roof...


:treadmill:

[bae]

That's different than someone coming in and deciding that your trees will make them lots of money if they log them all and take them to the mainland and sell the logs to Lumber Liquidator for the benefit of strangers and stockholders with big profits as the only raison d'être.

We take steps here to make sure that doesn't happen.

http://sjclandbank.org/protected-lands/

[LDAHL]

What about the gas station I saw the the other day with solar panels on the roof...

Wouldn't you prefer it to a gas station without solar panels on the roof?

I'm not arguing against environmental sustainability, however you care to define it. I'm arguing against a sort of lifeboat ethic based on a zero sum view of the world where Peter must starve to feed Paul. I believe that "sustainability" is more likely to be achieved through technical means than some sort of mass enlightenment.

[catherine]

We take steps here to make sure that doesn't happen.

http://sjclandbank.org/protected-lands/


To preserve in perpetuity areas in the county that have environmental, agricultural, aesthetic, cultural, scientific, historic, scenic or low-intensity recreational value and to protect existing and future sources of potable water.

Great mission statement: every community would do well to adopt it.

[Ultralight]

Wouldn't you prefer it to a gas station without solar panels on the roof?

I'm not arguing against environmental sustainability, however you care to define it. I'm arguing against a sort of lifeboat ethic based on a zero sum view of the world where Peter must starve to feed Paul. I believe that "sustainability" is more likely to be achieved through technical means than some sort of mass enlightenment.

I'd prefer it not be a gas station.

We live on a finite planet.

[LDAHL]

We live on a finite planet.

For now. I'm optimistic about the infinite power of the human imagination.

[rodeosweetheart]

Yet you drive. So do most of us. Or are driven.

What do you do to promote the mission you set for others, to bring resources and greater social good to people you perceive as oppressed and suffering? I am curious.

How are you making the world a better place, as you indicate that others should do?

[bae]

Is biodiesel OK, if not made from tax-subsidized GMO industrial monocrops?

I'm trying to get my hairshirts in order here.

[catherine]

Wouldn't you prefer it to a gas station without solar panels on the roof?

I'm not arguing against environmental sustainability, however you care to define it. I'm arguing against a sort of lifeboat ethic based on a zero sum view of the world where Peter must starve to feed Paul. I believe that "sustainability" is more likely to be achieved through technical means than some sort of mass enlightenment.

Technical solutions won't help if we don't go into it with the right mindset. I'm not saying mass enlightenment, but perhaps more like promoting common values along lines of a mission like bae's rather than the mission of "as much money as we can make." Mindful consumption and balance might be what we strive for, using technology to help us achieve balance. ETA: And policy change.

[Williamsmith]

There is a political and economic order that is ruled by resource management and resource control. Control the resources and you control the world. If you live in the United States, you are a part of that whether you want to be or not. You enjoy opportunities a large percentage of world citizens don't because of your citizenship. Much of our efforts go towards convincing other potential competitors not to try take control of resources. That's why we have our armed forces across the globe and why we strive to maintain financial and economic advantage with our currency and our banking. That's one reason we drop bombs on other people, not the only reason but as it turns out, it keeps people from taking our resources.

One way to make a statement about the proper use of so called limited resources is to move to a country that doesn't alledgedly exploit resources like the United States. Opportunities for comfortable living are limited in those countries but you could certainly experiment with some extreme minimalism and you would have a moral high ground when you start pontificating about how evil it is to exploit the worlds resources.

[JaneV2.0]

Is biodiesel OK, if not made from tax-subsidized GMO industrial monocrops?

I'm trying to get my hairshirts in order here.

I'm working on a tastefully tailored hairshirt accessorized with a small penitential scourge...:devil:

[ApatheticNoMore]

Opportunities for comfortable living are limited in those countries but you could certainly experiment with some extreme minimalism and you would have a moral high ground when you start pontificating about how evil it is to exploit the worlds resources.

actually if you are part of something whether or not you want to be just by occupying a specific part of the earth's surface (the U.S.) you don't need to leave it to have the moral high ground. If something is not in any way a choice then morality has nothing to do with it. Might as well blame someone if a gut microbe in their stomach dies or something. Now you could advocate trying to change or undermine or overthrow the government, but it won't be easily achieved. Now if the U.S. government could actually be dispatched of by everyone deciding to leave the country then maybe ...