Camp Motorpsycho » General

Motorpsycho and Rush

(39 posts)
  • Started 1 week ago by Punj Lizard
  • Latest reply from supernaut

Tags:

  1. Punj Lizard
    Member

    Although I was aware that Bent and Snah are fans of Rush (it's mentioned in the liner notes in the AADAP boxset, I think), I had never heard any obviously comparable tracks or passages in MPs music. And now their recent announcement regarding the upcoming album, which ends with the quote "To forge a new reality ...", rightly identified by supernaut as a line from Rush's "Closer to the Heart", has piqued my interest even further.

    Recently my MP album of choice has been Child of the Future, which I early on dismissed somewhat as being rather ordinary. Repeated and more attentive listens have given me a new view of the album, which I now think is tremendous. Anyway, yesterday evening I listened to Rush's last album Clockwork Angels, which I happen to think is one of their best, and suddenly I was smacked upside the head with the realisation that Bent's bass sound and playing really does have echoes of Geddy Lee's work in it. Of course, as both bands are trios of bass, guitar and drums (with occasional keys) there are similarities in soundscape, but it seems to me the influence on, or appreciation by MP, might be greater than I had thought. Given the announcement, I wonder if we're in for an album with even more noticeable Rush influence?

    Any other Rush fans out there? Anybody else have any thoughts about how or where MP might have been influenced by the Canadian trio?

    Posted 1 week ago #
  2. supernaut
    Member

    Just for the record (ha!): The new album was recorded in the vicinity of Rockfield Studios where Rush made A farewell to Kings in '77 which featured Closer to the Heart.

    Now this might be a stretch but I read about a chord Alex Lifeson loves to use. For example he uses it as the first guitar strum on the album Hemispheres and it's quite similar to the short arpeggio in Feedtime just before the vocal sets in. And since it's not an every day rock formula chord...

    Besides that I guess it's more of an overall influence like many others. Hitting the bass hard in the mid to upper register also comes from Entwistle, Butler and Chris Squire. Classic rockers who liked to play upfront. I can't think of a specific Rush lick or riff popping up in Motorpsycho as much as some Sabbath stuff for example.

    Keep on dorkin'!

    Posted 1 week ago #
  3. supernaut
    Member

    btw I don't consider myself as a Rush fan, compared to their quite nutty hardcore following. "Best band ever! Best guitarist ever! Best drummer ever! Best lyrics ever!" Especially the last one there I find quite debatable... Anyways I like the 1st album, Permanent Waves and Moving Pictures. On some others like Signals, Grace Under Pressure and all the albums from the 90s till Clockwork there's briiliant but also quite cheesy stuff. I rather watch their live DVDs than listen to the records because they ARE amazing live and only then and there I eventually found out about their sense of humour. Lifeson cracks me up.

    But don't get me started on their mid to late 80s phase.

    Posted 1 week ago #
  4. otherdemon
    Member

    @PunjLizard: I don't know if you've ever seen the music video for Now It's Time To Skate. But Snah himself said (in the audio commentary on Haircuts) that that video reminds him a bit of Rush's video for Distant Early Warning. I'm guessing because of the melting/burning doll heads. There's not too many other similarities; especially not the 80's fashion choices

    Posted 1 week ago #
  5. Punj Lizard
    Member

    @supernaut I became a Rush fan in about 79, and saw them that year and in 80 and 81. After Hold Your Fire I lost touch altogether as, like you I guess, I thought they really went downhill. I picked up again many many years later and saw their last two European tours, which were great, but Geddy's voice was not. I guess my faves are AFTK, Permanent Waves and Moving Pics.

    During the last week there has been a great debate on a Prog Magazine Facebook thread regarding Peart's lyrics - some strong opinions in both directions Some of his lyrics hot the spot for me; but some are clumsy and clunky and the early Ayn Rand-inspired stuff is politically questionable IMHO - moreover, he's no Dylan or Joni Mitchell, that's for sure. I have to admit to having been a great fan of his drumming though.

    I absolutely agree regarding the bass players you mention and how Bent seems to fit that mould. But indeed there is not the same cheeky nod to Rush like there is to many other bands (Sabs, Velvet Underground, Allman Bros, Joni Mitchell, Sonic Youth, etc.). Great pick-up on the Rockfield Studios link - I didn't know that.

    Posted 1 week ago #
  6. Punj Lizard
    Member

    @otherdemon I don't think I've seen either of those videos - I'm not a big music video fan to be honest, though I've seen some of the MP ones during the last several months - and last week I met up with an old friend in Oslo who worked with Kim Hiorthøy back in day on some of their video output. I also don't have and have never seen Haircuts - hopefully one day a copy will find its way to me somehow. As for the 80s fashion choices - nooooooooooooo! In that regard, MP were lucky to have been a band that started after all that bollocks had passed.

    Posted 1 week ago #
  7. Neil Tesor
    Member

    Isn't there's some YYZ somewhere in TDDU ? I think they did a cover of it too..

    Posted 1 week ago #
  8. Oh yes, true. That was the 2nd half of "Mutiny!". That was like a 1:1 cover part as far as I remember.

    Posted 1 week ago #
  9. TAF
    Member

    Huh. That's interesting, I've never thought "Mutiny!" had much of a Rush feel - to me the 2nd half reeks heavily and intensely of King Crimson.

    Speaking of influences, I've also noticed lately that the bass in Dreamhome feels similar to Geezer Butler on some songs on Sabbath's "Master of Reality" album. For some reason I get a strong "Into the Void" or "Lord of this World" vibe, even though back to back they don't sound entirely similar. Of course, the strongly leslie'd vocals and flutes also harks back to Sabbath, as well as the simple chord sequence in the slow sections (straight outta Solitude, for instance) so I guess it's inevitable. And that's not even mentioning the Sabbath influence in Bartok.

    Back to Rush influences though, there's always X-3 (Knuckleheads in Space) and its spiritual brother of sorts, Cygnus X-1, which is also about space travel. In fact, the ending lyrics to X-1 has some resemblance to the last part of Little Lucid Moments, so I guess it's all a part of the same tapestry:

    Nearer to my deadly goal
    Until the black hole
    Gains control

    Spinning, whirling
    Still descending
    Like a spiral sea
    Unending

    Sound and fury
    Drowns my heart
    Every nerve
    Is torn apart

    Posted 1 week ago #
  10. supernaut
    Member

    That polyrhythmic part in Mutiny has more in common with Yes' Changes I'd say: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6jAMwK-4QU&ab_channel=vzqk50HD

    @TAF
    wow! Absolutely! I never realized that LLM connection

    @Punj
    yeah we better ignore that Ayn rand stuff. Peart distanced himself later on as an adult. The lyrics to "Anthem" are just wrong. Some lyrics are just too - how I do I put this - stereotypey? And quite unpersonal (if that's an english word), more like commentaries and observations, which is no bad thing at all, of course, but for me also lacking something somewhat because of this. Of course that changed a lot after his personal life's tragedies in 97. I've only seen them once a few years ago on the Time Machine tour. What I admire about them is their sticking together through 40 years and still be best friends. That IS an achievement! And Geddy is somewhat influential to me since I play Rick bass and Moog Taurus meself, and then you can't go around him. I even have a Rush songbook for bass, but... ehm... phew

    Posted 1 week ago #
  11. supernaut
    Member

    also kinda interesting: in a late interview Geddy Lee stated that they don't see themselves as a prog band despite all the complex arranging and skillful playing, but rather in the tradition of The Who and Yardbirds and the like. I suggest to lend an ear to their cover album "Feedback" from 2005ish where they prove that, playing their old favourites from adolescent years. There's The Who, Clapton, Buffalo Springfield and the like.

    Posted 1 week ago #
  12. Punj Lizard
    Member

    YES! supernaut nails it - that section in Mutiny is Changes by Yes. I knew it the first time I heard it. In fact I was a little disappointed that they "ripped it off", but that was in my early days of listening to MP. I now have a much better understanding of their playful quoting and paying homage to their favourite bands. It's not ripping off at all - unlike so many prog bands these days who just seem to be prog wannabees (B O R I N G). To me there's a big difference between prog (which I see as like a genre with particular tropes and sounds) and being progressive, which is moving forward, ever-inspoired and alert to new possibilities instead of being stuck in a 70s Genesis/Yes/Crimson/Floyd soundalike timewarp. MP are definitely not a prog band (IMHO), but a progressive band - they progress, they don't stand still, they're a truly creative force. (I could write a bloody thesis on prog vs progressive - lol)

    @supernaut - I also admire and love the Geddy/Alex/Neil friendship - it's very special, and rare in rock music. I see the same in Bent and Snah. Feedback is the other Rush album I was reminded of while listening to Child of the Future this last week or so, except of course Child is all original material.

    When I first heard Rush (All the World's a Stage) I thought "Zeppelin wannabees". Then I heard Farewell and thought "Yes wannabees". During the 70s they always seemed to be a couple of years behind the wave, but as the 70s ended they had progressed to the point of being in the vanguard among the the prog bands who were trying to deal with the upheaval caused by punk. In that repect they had the advantage of not being British because in Britain punk was waging a very vocal war with prog and briefly it won. In my last high school years (1978-80) you were treated like a pariah if you continued to like prog, even if like me you also liked punk. The British prog bands were all knocked off balance, which was not a bad thing and in the 80s they reinvented themselves, becoming progressive again (except the Gilmour-led Floyd - who sound like an 80s Floyd wannabee band). Rush however, showed their progressive skills and by Permanent Waves somehow managed to write concise epics - Jacob's Ladder being the greatest example IMHO. By the mid-80s though I think they just jumped on a fashion bandwagon with those bloody 80s drums and rolled-up sleeves! Anyway ... I digress.

    By the way, supernaut, the word you were searching for is "impersonal".

    @TAF - Nice spot with the X-1 and X-3 connection, And I'll definitely have to listen more closely to the LLM and Cygnus X-1 lyrics as there are times when sonically LLM reminds me a little of Cygnus X-1 Book II.

    As for the Crimson conenction - well to me it's loud and clear in The Tower - especially the recent live versions of The Tower. And coincidentally, while The Tower was the last song I saw perfomred live (Drammen), Crimson will be my next gig

    Posted 1 week ago #
  13. Johnny_Heartfield
    Member

    This discussion is way to esoteric for me, having digested Rush only sporadicly in my adolescent years. But if they release "A Passage To Trondheim" on the next album I'm convinced

    Posted 1 week ago #
  14. TAF
    Member

    Ah, nice, in-depth dissection of Mutiny! here. I love it.

    @supernaut: Having never really listened to Changes before I wasn't aware of that particular connection, but that's a pretty verbatim homage right there. To be clear, this is referring to the parts 2:48-3:04 and 4:08-4:24. Again, 4:24 onwards is pure KC to my ears, particularly the breakdowns at 4:49, 5:17 and 6:10, and would fit really nicely as a "Lark's Tongues in Aspic, part V".

    The Changes connection reminds me a bit of the way "Where Eagles Dare" by Iron Maiden - specifically, the drum break - was weaved into Kvæstor. This is typical rehearsal room stuff - "Hey, this new section sounds a lot like [famous song]!". Of course, most of the time you'll want to add something that makes your composition sound different from the inspiration, but other times it just sounds too good not to leave it in.

    Since Yes was mentioned though, there's a very big Yes influence running through Into the Mystic as well, particularly in the arrangement of the ending section and the way the lead synth comes in at 5:19.

    @Punj Lizard: King Crimson still packs a punch live! I was fortunate enough to catch them live in Oslo last year, really would have wanted to see them again, but life sometimes gets in the way. (Of course, your user name also seems to be somewhat KC related.)

    Posted 1 week ago #
  15. Punj Lizard
    Member

    @ TAF - I'm sorry to say my name has no intentional connection with KC. Just a coincidence. I like the way you think though. I saw them too a couple of years ago. They were incredible. It was so expensive though that I didn't imagine I'd go again, but this year a friend wanted to go and he wants me to go with him. So ...

    I'll give another listen to Into the Mystic. I'll listen out for the Yes influence.

    Posted 1 week ago #
  16. Norman_Gold
    Member

    @supernaut:

    yeah we better ignore that Ayn rand stuff. [...] The lyrics to "Anthem" are just wrong.

    Sure you can make it simple for you to just "ignore that Ayn rand stuff". But you should not generally condemn a concept, an opinion as "wrong" only because it doesn't match with your own personal preferences.

    Which comes as no surprise though. People on the opposite spectrum of Rand's thinking naturally consider themselves as superior in every way.

    Posted 1 week ago #
  17. Punj Lizard
    Member

    @ Norman_Gold:

    Which comes as no surprise though. People on the opposite spectrum of Rand's thinking naturally consider themselves as superior in every way.

    This is very interesting. I was just today reviewing a talk about how people in positions of power manipulate discourse to make it appear as if they are the victims. Currently in the USA, Trump is doing this by making men look as if they are victims of women and citizens the victims of immigrants. It's an insidious technique that is used by the powerful whether they are politically of the right or the left. In particular it is used by those who hold or support an extreme or authoritarian position when they feel threatened.

    What strikes me here is that you have taken offence at supernaut's criticism of Ayn Rand's thinking and have used this to put forward a classic argument that the person making the criticism somehow thinks they are superior, whereas all supernaut has done is voice an opinion. Your use of the expressions "no surprise" and "naturally" adds weight to the idea that Ayn Rand supporters are always being treated like this, and that they are victims. Assuming you are a believer or follower of Ayn Rand's ideas, I would suggest you push that bottom lip in, wipe the tears away, and get over yourself - your lot are doing quite well at the moment.

    PS. I will add that my understanding of supernaut's usage of the word "wrong" was idiomatic - i.e. it coincides with the way it is defined in the urban dictionary: "What one says to oneself or to a companion upon seeing something perpetrated by another that is disturbing, distressing, or just plain nasty." This does not imply that Ayn Rand's ideas are incorrect. In this context, I understood supernaut to voice an opinion of something s/he doesn't like. I don't see anything bad about doing that. No doubt supernaut will correct me if I'm wrong (by which I mean -if my interpretation of her/his usage of "wrong" is incorrect).

    PPS:
    Pray your leaders are the wisest of men
    Pray they're not so easily riled
    Pray they seek concord and never go looking for fights
    Pray their aim is to reconcile

    Posted 1 week ago #
  18. Johnny_Heartfield
    Member

    It doesn't take much too feel superior intellectually compared to many Ayn Rand supporters. Don't see why this should be wrong in any way, as long as one doesn't get corrupted by the feeling of one's own superiority. This would be indeed an Ayn Rand trap for Ayn Rand opponents

    Posted 1 week ago #
  19. supernaut
    Member

    @Norman
    basically what Johnny & Punj wrote

    I'm aware of Ayn's backstory and origins and how they might have let her to her conclusions and views and those are opinions I don't share. I'd critize not so much her but the neoliberalists her "philosophy" (which to my understanding pretty much promotes the idea of superiority of the individual) spawned and their take on the world. And they ARE wrong and that is not my opinion but a fact. Period. Scientifically proven by the dark time we live in thanks to them.
    Do I feel superior? Well I consider myself having evolved further than neoliberalists. By putting down my one statement above as nothing but a typical rambling of a member of some brainwashed homogenous group who naturally thinks so and such, aren't you putting yourself a little bit above others?

    Anyways, I'd rather have this topic go back to its original intention...

    Posted 1 week ago #
  20. supernaut
    Member

    TAF

    4:24 onwards is pure KC to my ears, particularly the breakdowns at 4:49, 5:17 and 6:10, and would fit really nicely as a "Lark's Tongues in Aspic, part V"

    Absolutely!

    Posted 1 week ago #
  21. Punj Lizard
    Member

    @TAF
    I listened to DDU this afternoon (the whole thing of course; I'm not one for cherry picking tracks very often), and finally made it through to the synth solo at 5.19 of Into the Mystic. I agree completely - it sounds totally like Topographic Oceans era Yes/Wakeman. Well spotted!

    Posted 1 week ago #
  22. supernaut
    Member

    As soon as the drums set in, Barleycorn feels Yesish but the low acoustic parts feel early Genesisish as in their pastoral Trespass/Nursery Cryme era.

    Posted 1 week ago #
  23. JERO
    Member

    Since all you symphonicprogrockers are having a field day here, I feel it's high time to mention another power trio that was highly influenced (...not) by MP; Emerson Lake & even Palmer !
    Gimme Tarkus over the Unicorn, everytime I'm dishwashing !
    But seriously, I've never regretted the loss of any of my old Genesis, Rush and Yes albums after my 16th birthday, and although I think a musical quote or wink to their music by MP is fine, MP transcends all that and at the same time respects them and kicks their asses as well! YES they give me a RUSH and ARE, in our time, in fact the only real Crimson King, who, as Robert Fripp so mystically explained, is nothing but a musical powersource that can be tapped into by dedicated musicians (even a group without a Fripp in it I suppose!...)

    Posted 1 week ago #
  24. Norman_Gold
    Member

    About Rush: Saw them first time live in 1983. Not knowing their music at all, I was into Hardrock and NWoBHM then. It was one of those concerts where you go with your peer group, just by going out together. Not knowing their songs, it was over the top for me. The voice irritated me the most.

    Then again in 1991 or 1992, not prepared much better, only with a few songs on one side of a TDK 90 a friend gave me days before the concert.

    Didn't see too much similarities of Rush and MP as of yet.

    Will be back soon.

    Posted 1 week ago #
  25. Punj Lizard
    Member

    @ JERO
    I've been thinking about how to respond to your post - but I still can't imagine how to do it without getting into another long post. lol.

    Palmer was always my favourite of the three - I never really got on that well with ELP. A few tracks are great, but mostly ... meh. I saw Palmer with his current trio (guitar, bass, drums) four or five years ago and they played the best version of Tarkus I've ever heard - really vital and vibrant.

    I always used to say to my Beatles-loving friends, they were great, groundbreaking and all that, but Yes took it all to a much higher level. Like MP respecting Yes et al. Jon Anderson and especially Chris Squire really respected The Beatles. But the bands that follow always have the opportunity to take what their forebears did and run with it. It's only a few special ones who actually do.

    These days I find it a little pointless to compare the bands I love and consider real greats. There are three bands in my life that really have my heart like no other - Yes, Solstice (little-known British folk-prog est. 1980s) and MP. Who knows why we love the bands we do, or why we think they're head and shoulders above others as far as our personal feelings are concerned (though I could make a good case in all three instances). I'm just thankful I found MP while I'm still able to appreciate them and I plan on appreciating the shit out of them as much as I can.

    Posted 6 days ago #
  26. Norman_Gold
    Member

    Assuming you are a believer or follower of Ayn Rand's ideas, I would suggest you push that bottom lip in, wipe the tears away, and get over yourself - your lot are doing quite well at the moment.

    Punj, I’m not a firm Rand afficionada, much more into classic european liberalism instead. With your semi-insult, you show who you are. Oh, you only wrote "I would suggest", right? I’m deeply grateful on your kind and surely well-meant would-suggestion

    Johnny proves my point best with his first sentence where he implies that most Rand supporters are stupid, while certainly his intelligence is above theirs. Classic. It's what I observed for a lifetime: The majority of people on the left side of the political spectrum consider themselves as generally superior against individuals with contrary opinions. But these leftists are not better educated overall, nor do they have more experience, slyness, awareness, deeper/broader interest, knowledge whatsoever. Their patronizing way of self-assurance is because they are naturally convinced to stand on the "good", the "correct" side. They’ve been told so by the mainstream media, celebrities, artists and the majority of the so called intellectuals and experts.

    I’m a strong Trump supporter. About 90% of what he achieved so far is congruent with my values. I'm excited about Brexit, AfD, Salvini, Bannon, Orban too. So supernaut, I very much enjoy the way history leads us now! I'm delighted that this shift of gravity already proved that it serves well for the majority of the average working common people. I'm one of those, btw.

    Certainly I would prefer the opposite a) if I would (selfishly manage to) directly cash in from the benefits of social democratic politic or the effects of globalisation - which both went out of control in parts of the western world, and/or b) getting information only from the likes of Spiegel, Süddeutsche, taz, CNN, Guardian, NYT. They hail themselves mutually as high validity, thruthful quality media outlets. But if you really don’t realize their sheer left-ideological siding, their utter bias, paired with their brazeness to conceal specific facts while totally exaggerate others, then I would suggest... No. Nothing I would suggest then.

    Also here: They condemn the ones on the other side as being uneducated, homophobes, xenophobes, islamophobes, sexists, angry white men, frustated haters, racists, fascists, and a whole lot of funny things more This is the most ugly, arrogant side of their conviction of superiority. They go that low because of their lack of arguments and persuasive power: Neither they can't counter the opponent with facts in a calm manner anymore, nor they're not willing to handle dissent.

    It’s everyone’s own choice to ignore the opposite, to stay in your bubble. In my opinon, it’s a bit simple. It definitely doesn’t help to broaden one’s intellectual horizon.

    Not only to denote an opinion as "wrong", but also to weight this rating as a fact (as by supernaut in his latest post) however goes in line with the methods of radical hard-left protesters who intend to prohibit a discussion, aggressively fighting to totally shut down any debate they don’t like. Because everyone has to think, talk and behave in (their) one specified, correct, - "right" way.

    @Johnny: Do you know Rand’s thinking, concept, theory beyond Wikipedia? Do you know about its historical, economical, cultural background and context? How many "Rand supporters" do you know to come to your judgement against them? And while talking down their intelligence: How about to set the grammar in your first sentence right?

    @supernaut: The term Neoliberalism is as equally irrelevant and hollow, commonly used only as a bugbear in a populistic way for oversimplification. Its current meaning has little to nothing to do with the mindset of the new leaders mentioned above that horrify you so much.

    Posted 5 days ago #
  27. Valderrama
    Member

    One of the best books I have ever read is the Shock Doctrine by Naomi Klein. As far as possible, it has made me understand the state of the world as it currently is, based on recent history and including the development of modern day geopolitics.

    Posted 5 days ago #
  28. Punj Lizard
    Member

    @ Norman - Fantastic post! Thanks for taking the time and effort. There's so much here to work with. However, I've been down that road so many times it's like banging your head against a very dense brick wall because regarding "lack of arguments and persuasive power", whenever I try that with people who match your self-description, by putting forward intelligent arguments drawing on the academic literature that I read day in and day out and avoiding reference to the press and TV news, both of which are over-rated and too narrowly focused to see the big picture, their response is that I'm acting like I think I'm better and more intelligent. It's a no-win situation. By what you've expressed in your post you're quite clearly all the things you claim to see in the people you describe on the left.

    As for you feeling insulted by my suggestion that you get over yourself: seriously, quit whining, get over it.

    Posted 5 days ago #
  29. Valderrama
    Member

    One of the things I fail to understand is how continued (economic) growth in the long run could ever be consistent with the fact that our planet does not increase in size.

    Unless from evolutionary perspective we accept that sooner or later our species will collapse.

    What's striking to me is that there does not seem to be a single country that substantially explores this problem, let alone substantially transitions into the new balance that would be required. Yes, plenty of great initiatives on climate adaptation, plastic soup, eating animals, poverty reduction, sustainable entrepreneurship, etc., but in the end most likely futile as long as economic growth is perceived an axiom we cannot do without.

    I'd be interested in Norman & Punj's views on this. Is any of us here familiar with the concept of doughnut economics?

    Meanwhile, lets's not forget why we are here, so please do continue the much more interesting discussion on how Rush is inspired by Motorpsycho

    Posted 5 days ago #
  30. Punj Lizard
    Member

    @ Valderrama
    I agree with you. The current direction is unsustainable. But reaching this point was somewhat inevitable. While humans have the facility to be caring, friendly, sharing, helpful and all the other so-called positive traits, we're also greedy and selfish. Unfortunately it is nearly always the case that the greedy and selfish win out because the friendly, caring people don't want to rock the boat while the greedy and selfish don't care. So we've been heading in this direction since the beginning. The current state of affairs (as described by the Doughnut Economics video) of neoliberal economics, as ushered in by Thatcher and Reagan - and coninued by Blair, Clinton and all those around the world that either jumped on board or were cajoled, bribed or blackmailed to join in - is a kind of heightenend version of that and is epitomised by consumerism and the idea of continued growth that you point to. And indeed, there does not seem to be any large enough group of people in a position of power willing to challenge it.

    In my opinion we face and will inevitably experience the breakdown of society as it currently exits and see billions of people die over the next hundred years - through climate change, lack of resources, lack of food and water, and the concomitant wars that will follow. Am I being overly dramatic. I guess my grandson will find out.

    I'm not familiar with doughnut economics but I watched the set of videos to which the article pointed and it seems to me it's heavily based in socialism - but I guess updated for the current climate. It makes sense to me, but the videos didn't seem to offer practical solutions only a theory. However, I'm a big believer that theories are a good place to start. The videos talk about sustinability (though without using that word), distribution and resdistribution of wealth, sensible use of the commons to everyone's advantage and engaging in personal economic common sense (i.e. living within your means and dialling way back on the consumerism).

    Personally I live like that to a fair degree and would like to move further in that direction. I think a really big change could be made if we start by changing the emphasis in education - but that has to go hand in hand with a sincere adoption of new lifestyles by those who have already left education. I would see people

    - learning to grow their own food, and raise their own livestock (if meat is what you're in to - though a surge towards vegetarianism is really what's required at the moment)
    - walking, cycling and using public transport rather than having personal motorised vehicles, whether fossil or electric
    - working and trading within smaller communities
    - valuing work more equitably
    - community ownership of the commons
    - more cooperatives
    - and so on.

    However, even though much of this will be forced on us, there will still be selfish, greedy individuals who won't play and they will most likely be the ones with the guns. So, well we all know what that means.

    Posted 5 days ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply »

You must log in to post.