Welcome back! I'm curious about the cover slide for the Percy Sledge video... Nicolás Gómez Dávila is not so widely known in his (and mine) native Colombia, so I wonder how you came across his writing.
So happy to have you back! And thankful that you’ll be visiting the U.S.; I can’t make it there to meet you, but I’m praying that your being at that conference will make ripples of blessings throughout our land ❤️
Welcome back, though I must say it's always a bit disappointing when people who care about the ecological situation and the ever-grinding Machine decide to fly around the world, whether for fun or profit.
Yes, we should leave the internet, too. None of this stuff is sustainable, and Paul has often written about these matters. It is not just about the carbon emissions – it's the whole Machine.
We are in a predicament without easy "solutions". But that doesn't mean we have no agency, or that we must adhere to the disastrous culture we were born within.
My take is much the same as Gert's on this matter. I don't fly often, but when I do I try to do something useful with it. I know people who don't fly at all, which I respect, but like Gert I will question why flying is singled out for its impact. There are many people who make a virtuous noise about the destructiveness of flights but who are Very Online (how else would their complaints be heard?!) I regard the Internet as much worse for humanity (and the Earth) than flight.
It is correct to say that the Internet emits as much CO2 as the airline industry, and the Internet's impact is growing. As Jaron Lanier has pointed out, if everyone closed down their social media accounts it would have a significant impact on reducing emissions. Every environmental impact has to be taken in the round. I think we should all think about the potential impact of everything we're doing, and then make a judgement.
You regard the internet as worse for humanity, but you depend on it for your livelihood. You've literally called it a demonic force that is feeding off our attention and enslaving us. Isn't it hypocritical to continue feeding this system?
Yes, we should consider all of our impacts, but neither you nor I will be the one who makes the final judgement. Like I said before, humans are very clever and will convince ourselves that everything we're doing is right.
Hmm - except those of us who make our living using the internet are now dependent on it. I do all my work ‘remote’ so my daily 80 mile commute is negated (emissions) as well as reducing my need for fossil fuel. So how does one take all these ‘carbon footprint’ calcs into account to find ‘the moral highground’? Seems a fool’s errand to me. This is the world we live in and we all have to make the best choices we can with the hand we’re dealt so to speak. Too easy to find fault with everyone else’s choices while justifying our own me thinks. (Not saying you are - just a general observation.)
It's not about tallying up carbon footprints. Nor is it about having a totally clear conscience. We're stuck in this binary where we have to believe that we're doing ethical things, even when they're not. It's alright to recognize that we're doing something wrong. It's even alright to keep doing it! After all, who's going to stop you?
I think “we” all agree with how wasteful and intrusive the machine/internet/power sucking tech is. But in order for “we” to have any impact whatsoever on the culture and in order for that “we” to disrupt the machine and re-order the culture to become pro human and pro ecological sustainability we must first GROW the numbers of “we”. If we grow in number through persuasion and appeals to a better life then WE can collectively jump ship, ditch the internet forever, and make a real difference. The importance of growing “we” can’t be overstated. If you and I just as isolated individuals just give up the internet etc we become just some crazy nut that can be dismissed as a Luddite. But if we can influence the culture AWAY from waste, abuse, and ugliness then maybe just maybe there’s some hope for mankind and the earth we share.
I agree, and I try to use the internet to influence others. But it's also important to be very honest with ourselves and our motivations.
Humans are very clever and will find ways of justifying whatever we want to do. Everybody wants to feel like they're doing the right thing, whether it's Al Gore flying off to the next climate conference, or Jeff Bezos running his empire, or somebody commuting every day to a BS job.
The other part about being honest with ourselves is paying attention to whether we're making any difference by communicating in this way. Remember: the medium is the message.
You make valid points and I’ve struggled with these seeming contradictions myself. The only “remedy” I’ve come up with is to accept that my progress (detaching from the machine)will necessarily be incremental vs all at once. Little by little bit by bit day by day.
It's not a fair point, nor is it worthy of the Abbey's comment section. It's hypocrisy pointed out by a hypocrite for the sake of vanity. It's intellectual preening.
Christianity is not about having 'high standards in the morality department', Dave.
You suggested above that your justification for remaining online, despite its vast and destructive impact, is that you 'try to use the internet to influence others.' I could just as easily say the same thing about flying to the US (though that is not my motivation.) It's hard for me to see why you are critical of my 'ecological consciousness' while going easy on your own.
True Christianity, I would say, can only be ecological. It is also about self-examination, and non-judgement of others. We have enough to do dealing with the beams in our own eyes, without hunting down specks in others'.
Believe me, I don't "go easy" on my ecological consciousness. But why would I talk about my own wrestling with these issues, in your comment section? You probably wouldn't even read it. I'd love to have a chat, but I'm not going to fly to Ireland...
I say that Christianity involves a higher moral standard than modern, secular culture. "Turning the other cheek" was a radical idea, for instance. And many modern Christians can't even follow that one.
That said, I'm not a Christian, and I don't go for the excuse that we shouldn't "hunt down the specks in others". Authority figures have used that idea to avoid responsibility for their own misdeeds.
Besides, much of your writing here is dedicated to hunting down specks.
You could hunt. Or you could talk. If you choose to hunt, all you're going to get is a predictable comment section squabble. More heat than light. And very much a waste of fossil fuels.
I think that if you were going to continue this conversation honestly, you would need to lay out your own choices for people here. So far all you have done is attack those of others. As you acknowledge, it's all compromise and choice. What choices do you make? What do you do and not do? How are we to decide what is a compromise and what is justifiable and what is not? Maybe somebody would find your choices or definitions useful or interesting.
Anyway, I am going to bow out here. This is all a waste of fossil fuels!
I don't have enough subscribers to afford a private jet yet. Maybe a private rowing boat though. I could try crossing to the Americas on that, like St Brendan.
Seriously though, one of the problems with the modern world of massive amounts of free online content is, I think, that people don’t value writers so much. Both in terms of the hours of work they put in for any particular piece, and the years of experience and learning they draw upon as part of the creation of that piece.
We expect everything to be free. Even the really good stuff! 😁
So like others, I wouldn’t blame you, but I would miss your words very much, which is why I’m a paid subscriber.
Welcome back!
Pleasant surprise to find this in my inbox.
The closest Orthodox Church to campus is St Cyril and Methodius: https://madisonorthodox.com/
Welcome back! I'm curious about the cover slide for the Percy Sledge video... Nicolás Gómez Dávila is not so widely known in his (and mine) native Colombia, so I wonder how you came across his writing.
That's fascinating, I had no idea.
I've come across him in numerous places over the last few years. His fame is spreading with the times, I think.
So happy to have you back! And thankful that you’ll be visiting the U.S.; I can’t make it there to meet you, but I’m praying that your being at that conference will make ripples of blessings throughout our land ❤️
You could also come to Milwaukee and visit my parish !
(Does fist pump, starts playing "Eye of the Tiger" in the boombox of the mind)
He he, only you Graham, only you :D
Hello ! Thank you for giving us some videos to watch ! I just might have to find a way to get to Wisconsin. It would be fun to see you in person
Welcome back, though I must say it's always a bit disappointing when people who care about the ecological situation and the ever-grinding Machine decide to fly around the world, whether for fun or profit.
Yes, we should leave the internet, too. None of this stuff is sustainable, and Paul has often written about these matters. It is not just about the carbon emissions – it's the whole Machine.
We are in a predicament without easy "solutions". But that doesn't mean we have no agency, or that we must adhere to the disastrous culture we were born within.
It'll be a bit disappointing (it always is) if he doesn't considering his care for the ecology
That's a passive aggressive way of telling me to shut up because you'd rather not think about what I said.
We could all stand to be more mindful about how we use this energy-intensive medium. What are we trying to communicate? What is our impact?
But the vast majority of internet communication is junk, triviality, vulgarity, noise. Just because it's normalized doesn't make it right.
My take is much the same as Gert's on this matter. I don't fly often, but when I do I try to do something useful with it. I know people who don't fly at all, which I respect, but like Gert I will question why flying is singled out for its impact. There are many people who make a virtuous noise about the destructiveness of flights but who are Very Online (how else would their complaints be heard?!) I regard the Internet as much worse for humanity (and the Earth) than flight.
It is correct to say that the Internet emits as much CO2 as the airline industry, and the Internet's impact is growing. As Jaron Lanier has pointed out, if everyone closed down their social media accounts it would have a significant impact on reducing emissions. Every environmental impact has to be taken in the round. I think we should all think about the potential impact of everything we're doing, and then make a judgement.
Flying is highlighted because the emissions per passenger are enormous, and typically, people are traveling unnecessarily. Making a weekend trip across the world would've been unthinkable in the recent past, yet we now consider it some sort of human right. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/ng-interactive/2019/jul/19/carbon-calculator-how-taking-one-flight-emits-as-much-as-many-people-do-in-a-year
You regard the internet as worse for humanity, but you depend on it for your livelihood. You've literally called it a demonic force that is feeding off our attention and enslaving us. Isn't it hypocritical to continue feeding this system?
Yes, we should consider all of our impacts, but neither you nor I will be the one who makes the final judgement. Like I said before, humans are very clever and will convince ourselves that everything we're doing is right.
Hmm - except those of us who make our living using the internet are now dependent on it. I do all my work ‘remote’ so my daily 80 mile commute is negated (emissions) as well as reducing my need for fossil fuel. So how does one take all these ‘carbon footprint’ calcs into account to find ‘the moral highground’? Seems a fool’s errand to me. This is the world we live in and we all have to make the best choices we can with the hand we’re dealt so to speak. Too easy to find fault with everyone else’s choices while justifying our own me thinks. (Not saying you are - just a general observation.)
Some time ago, Paul came up with a "land ethic" that I think is a good guide:
"Any action which hinders the advance of the human industrial economy is an ethical action, provided it does not harm life.
Any action which knowingly and needlessly advances the human industrial economy is an unethical action."
https://orionmagazine.org/article/life-versus-the-machine/
It's not about tallying up carbon footprints. Nor is it about having a totally clear conscience. We're stuck in this binary where we have to believe that we're doing ethical things, even when they're not. It's alright to recognize that we're doing something wrong. It's even alright to keep doing it! After all, who's going to stop you?
I think “we” all agree with how wasteful and intrusive the machine/internet/power sucking tech is. But in order for “we” to have any impact whatsoever on the culture and in order for that “we” to disrupt the machine and re-order the culture to become pro human and pro ecological sustainability we must first GROW the numbers of “we”. If we grow in number through persuasion and appeals to a better life then WE can collectively jump ship, ditch the internet forever, and make a real difference. The importance of growing “we” can’t be overstated. If you and I just as isolated individuals just give up the internet etc we become just some crazy nut that can be dismissed as a Luddite. But if we can influence the culture AWAY from waste, abuse, and ugliness then maybe just maybe there’s some hope for mankind and the earth we share.
I agree, and I try to use the internet to influence others. But it's also important to be very honest with ourselves and our motivations.
Humans are very clever and will find ways of justifying whatever we want to do. Everybody wants to feel like they're doing the right thing, whether it's Al Gore flying off to the next climate conference, or Jeff Bezos running his empire, or somebody commuting every day to a BS job.
The other part about being honest with ourselves is paying attention to whether we're making any difference by communicating in this way. Remember: the medium is the message.
You make valid points and I’ve struggled with these seeming contradictions myself. The only “remedy” I’ve come up with is to accept that my progress (detaching from the machine)will necessarily be incremental vs all at once. Little by little bit by bit day by day.
That’s the best I can do.
It's a fair point. I don't do it casually.
It's not a fair point, nor is it worthy of the Abbey's comment section. It's hypocrisy pointed out by a hypocrite for the sake of vanity. It's intellectual preening.
No need to insult someone you don't know.
I would say just the opposite, having read his comments thread, but it is your 'stack.
Well, I'm guessing that unlike our overlords with their private jets, Paul is probably just flying on a commercial airliner or something.
I would definitely be more impressed if he opted to cross the Atlantic in a sailboat, though!
There's always going to be somebody doing worse things.
Last I heard, Christians aim for a pretty high standard in the morality department (though their ecological consciousness is sorely lacking).
Christianity is not about having 'high standards in the morality department', Dave.
You suggested above that your justification for remaining online, despite its vast and destructive impact, is that you 'try to use the internet to influence others.' I could just as easily say the same thing about flying to the US (though that is not my motivation.) It's hard for me to see why you are critical of my 'ecological consciousness' while going easy on your own.
True Christianity, I would say, can only be ecological. It is also about self-examination, and non-judgement of others. We have enough to do dealing with the beams in our own eyes, without hunting down specks in others'.
Believe me, I don't "go easy" on my ecological consciousness. But why would I talk about my own wrestling with these issues, in your comment section? You probably wouldn't even read it. I'd love to have a chat, but I'm not going to fly to Ireland...
I say that Christianity involves a higher moral standard than modern, secular culture. "Turning the other cheek" was a radical idea, for instance. And many modern Christians can't even follow that one.
That said, I'm not a Christian, and I don't go for the excuse that we shouldn't "hunt down the specks in others". Authority figures have used that idea to avoid responsibility for their own misdeeds.
Besides, much of your writing here is dedicated to hunting down specks.
You could hunt. Or you could talk. If you choose to hunt, all you're going to get is a predictable comment section squabble. More heat than light. And very much a waste of fossil fuels.
I think that if you were going to continue this conversation honestly, you would need to lay out your own choices for people here. So far all you have done is attack those of others. As you acknowledge, it's all compromise and choice. What choices do you make? What do you do and not do? How are we to decide what is a compromise and what is justifiable and what is not? Maybe somebody would find your choices or definitions useful or interesting.
Anyway, I am going to bow out here. This is all a waste of fossil fuels!
Take care.
I don't have enough subscribers to afford a private jet yet. Maybe a private rowing boat though. I could try crossing to the Americas on that, like St Brendan.
I love that poster! 😄
Can just imagine walking through the woods and out of nowhere pop you two! 😳
🤣🤣🤣
Welcome back Paul. I’ve reread some of your essays over the summer and am looking forward to whatever is coming next.
Well said
Glad to see you back! Thought you might not return after tasting the freedom from the Machine. Blessings to you!
I nearly didn't ...
Whilst we'd all have no doubt been disappointed, would any of us have TRULY blamed you? I suspect not.
It is rather good to have you back though, nonetheless :)
(Probably the understatement of the day!)
😱😱😱
Seriously though, one of the problems with the modern world of massive amounts of free online content is, I think, that people don’t value writers so much. Both in terms of the hours of work they put in for any particular piece, and the years of experience and learning they draw upon as part of the creation of that piece.
We expect everything to be free. Even the really good stuff! 😁
So like others, I wouldn’t blame you, but I would miss your words very much, which is why I’m a paid subscriber.
I appreciate that. Spot on.
Welcome back!
Nice surprise.
I have a feeling the next stage of your journey is going to be full of surprises.
God bless you and keep you in stillness upon your return! ❤️
Welcome back Paul, I hope the Ashes experience was not too frustrating for you - those pesky Aussies!
I look forward to hearing you in Madison, I too shall be venturing "across the pond" to meet some people face to face at the conference.
Oh, I do love me some Davila. My day is off to an excellent start. Glad you're back.