Is the land acknowledgement for native peoples, at the start a meeting, or party, a waste of time?

It does remind people that this land was basically taken from people who lived here before modern USA or Canada. That could be worth something, but it does seem like just another ritual of going through the motions to appease the guilt.

If I had more artistic skills, I could draw a cartoon about the land acknowledgement.

It's at a meeting, or better yet, a party in a politically liberal setting.

The event starts with the land acknowledgement stating that land was taken from people who came before us.

Then the person at the microphone says, "Okay, time to party."

As the participants start in on the wine and cheese, someone has a thought bubble saying, "It's like going to church on Sunday and then going to the bars and drinking 6 days a week."

Sometimes I add other things to this idea, like the mic on the stage going live again and the host announcing that there was an accident closing the freeway so after the party, folks will need to leave by another route.

Basically, life goes on in its fun, or also its potentially destructive ways.

Life for the yuppies and others continues only to pause a moment to acknowledge some guilt and use some precious time, from participants who are there, for face to face networking.

Maybe it's a waste of effort since face to face, community networking can be rare in itself.

51% worldwide commutes by car. Catching up with 92% in USA. Now over 8 billion people in the world. Likely a problem.

A new study of urban transport finds that most commuters globally are getting to work by car, fueling pollution, particularly in wealthier regions. Worldwide 51 percent of commutes are made by car, while 26 percent are made by public transit, 16 percent by bike, and 6 percent on foot. That's a big change since my college days.

In USA, I read that 92% is by car. It's been that way for decades, so in USA it hasn't changed that much compared to worldwide.

According to an article I found, electric vehicles are growing in popularity, helping to curb tailpipe pollution, but a study warned that heavy reliance on cars still contributes to urban sprawl, road traffic, and particulate pollution from wear and tear on tires. “The burden of cars in cities is huge and goes beyond the combustion of petrol,” said Prieto-Curiel. “It is also the parking space required, the driving infrastructure, the noise they produce, the toxic materials used in manufacturing and road pavement, the crashes they cause, and others.”

Interesting article that I excerpted from plus my own research about USA.

I'd like to see goals set for reducing car dependency. For instance in USA, maybe reducing car dependency to 70% from 92%. Just a small change could do a lot for relieving traffic congestion on I-5, for instance.

Goals like this at the local levels might mean more than setting worldwide targets for reducing carbon emissions. It seems like it doesn't matter where we set the carbon emission targets as they are not followed anyway. In USA, under Trump, the government has given up on carbon emission reduction goals anyway.

We need to figure out how to make these changes at our various grassroots levels in each part of the world. The various components which could add up to the large carbon emission number could be where the discussion needs to be focused.

Yale study I found at.

https://e360.yale.edu/digest/cars-commutes-study
E360 Digest, March 19, 2024, More Than Half of Commutes Globally Made by Car, Study Finds.

Violence is a bad strategy for overcoming oppression because oppressors usually have the biggest weapons and will win in the end.

Violence is usually a bad strategy for overcoming oppression because those with the most powerful weapons are the one's who usually prevail. The violence that Hamas brought against Israel was met by a far more powerful response from Israel killing many times more people.

There are better strategies. New inventions and economic conditions can disrupt established orders and bring big changes.

The gradual change that the gay liberation movement and feminism has brought in American culture, over the past few decades, is another example. These things are sometimes thought of as subversive ways to gradually erode and change an existing order.

Things seem to be improving in Syria.

I'm hoping normalization of relations between US and Syria is a good idea. Things seem to be better in Syria since the brutal Assad Regime was overthrown a while back. My information just from following news.

Yes, population growth is a problem as most people in poor countries aspire to consume more; eventually becoming more like Americans.

Some people say that criticizing population growth is unfair to poorer countries as they think the main problem is over consumption in rich countries.

Problem is, it seems like most people, in poor countries, aspire to consume more. China is a good example. It now has a higher carbon footprint than USA due to 1.3 billion people industrializing, versus USA's 0.34 billion. Of course much of China's manufacturing is consumed in USA and other countries, however.

Still 1.3 billion has a big footprint even when the average Chinese citizen still consumes less than the average American. They do still have billionaires, in China, as do many other countries, in the world, including third world nations.

One big change that has happened in the last 50 years, since I entered college, is a huge rise in the consumption levels of people all over the world. Many folks have risen out of poverty in China and other places. This is a bigger change than the population growth, itself, though world population has doubled since then. Over the same time period, consumption has gone up far more.

Population growth is now slowing down, but it is still growing.

Even though many folks, in USA, feel guilty about our level of consumption, I don't see a huge trend toward voluntary simplicity. That can still happen and some folks embrace voluntary simplicity, but it doesn't seem to catch on in a big enough way.

These days, China may be doing more than USA to make it's economy greener. High speed rail, solar power, electric cars, even nuclear power. China has an easier time organizing on a big scale. In USA there are lots of citizen groups who fight changes.

I'd still rather live in USA in spite of democracy's inefficiencies, but it would be better if our self interests could bend a little more for common good.

Let us build that green infrastructure, for the most part at least. We are kind of gridlocked when it comes to making transformational changes. Trump wants to break the gridlock, but he and his supporters want to take us back in the wrong direction.

What would my past self think of my life today?

If the Robert of my senior year in high school were to see how my life has turned out now, the first thought might be disappointment. I had visions of a career in radio. Possibly being a talk show host. Comparing some high school visions to my life now is like comparing apples and oranges, however. The world and what they call the media landscape has changed dramatically. What they call social media didn't even exist back then.

Besides a tinge of disappointment, my high school self would also be fascinated in how the world and technology has changed. That self would be full of questions.

My big desire, back then, was to express my opinions and share of my authentic self; something that's done on social media. The ability to share thousands of my photos and observations, on a media channel that's worldwide at practically no cost, was inconceivable back then. I can pretty much say whatever I want without a boss looking over my shoulder, or the need for catering to a market. The audience is, most likely, a lot smaller, however. Again, it's a case of comparing apples to oranges.

Back in high school, I had visions of maybe someday being a talk show host, or a news commentator on a station like KGO, in San Francisco. It had an audience in the hundreds of thousands reaching up and down the entire west coast, at night, due to ionospheric skip.

Today, my signal can reach around the world, but do very many people tune in, given the millions and millions of other channels bombarding the world with their messages?

Transmitter power is no longer as relevant as it was back then; in fact, the entire AM radio band is almost fading into obscurity.

While I had some big dreams during my childhood, I also had lots of doubts and anxieties. I wasn't sure I would even make it through college. These days there are more terms for these conditions such as anxiety disorder and autism spectrum. Much of the time, during my childhood, I felt like I wouldn't be up to the task for great success anyway.

Since those days, I have seen many more flaws in the places I aspired to as well. Touring some radio / TV stations left me with a feeling that they can be stressful workplaces. With my mental condition, I probably couldn't work there anyway. Expressing one's authentic self would be difficult as well. Working one's way up from the bottom of a large organization was seen as a common route to more authentic self expression, after one gets closer to the top. I now have a somewhat more cynical view of the world around me.

Meanwhile, what happened to KGO Radio would be more of a dissapointment. It's kind of imploded, or at least it's not what it once was. It went to a sports gambling format that didn't last long. Last I saw, on news websites, it has new call letters and right wing talk from a national network. See article from my column in a small local publication called The Betty Pages about KGO.

Where I have ended up does make sense to me, given what I have learned along the way. Things don't necessarily turn out the way one expects, but I feel like excepting how the journey has been turning out is, at least, okay.

It has been an interesting journey so I'd hope that my high school self would be more full of questions and interest, in what the future has brought, than full of harsh judgements.

Supporting LGBTQ rights and other human rights might be the best way to boost your country's population. Talented workers will be seeking refuge in your country.

So many folks have been trying to get into Europe, Canada and USA that it's overwhelmed the borders.

On the otherhand, many countries, such as Russia, are trying to raise their birth rates. Who wants to live there? Not me, for sure. Talented people, who think outside the box, are trying to flee that country.

Some folks, like Elon Musk and Puin worry about low birthrates. They worry that there may not be enough young workers, being born, to pay for the social security and drive economic growth as world populations age.

My solution, to the so called problem of underpopulation, is to make one's country a place where people want to immigrate to.

There are certain countries, such as USA (before Trump) Canada, Australia and many European countries that have been overwhelmed by millions of folks trying to immigrate there. People don't want to immigrate to places like Russia in search of personal dignaty and human rights. It can be said that USA might never have a shortage of young workers because all it would have to do is open the borders and they will come. There is the phrase, "vote with your feet."

Ironically, many of the most desirable countries, to live in, are closing their borders, or at least they are restricting immigration. Are too many young folks wanting to live in these desirable countries? It's true, so many have been coming that it's overwhelmed the infrastructure and the affordable housing.

Rather than promoting births, I would rather see the nations of the world strive to become places where people want to live. Ironically, supporting LGBTQ rights might be the best way to increase one's population. Persecuted people are likely to be seeking refugee status in those countries.

I still think the environment would be in better shape if there were less people on the planet, but there is a legitimate worry that there may not be enough young workers, to pay for social security as populations age.

Making your country a desirable place to live is the solution. This should be the strategy for each nation on the national scale. On the global scale, the environment would still be easier to protet with less people on the planet as a whole.

The world would be better if, rather than a race to the bottom, countries competed with one another in creating desirable places to live. If there was ever a shortage of people, the most desirable countries would win in terms of attracting taleted workers to their economies.

Democracies would have an advantage if there was ever a shortage of people because they would have less shortage of people when people choose where they would prefer to live. Betty Pages article.