Change and anger

One of the conclusions I’ve reached lately is that we need drastic changes starting immediately if we expect society and the planet to survive.

I’ve been trying to volunteer my time towards practical changes but it seems to me like most groups are desperately clinging to an untenable status quo in their approach. It feels like denial. I need them to at least admit we’re taking on buckets of water before handing me a thimble to start bailing with.

But preferably we would prioritize a better long-term plan. A sustainable approach, or at least a less obviously, catastrophically unsustainable one.

I wonder what strategic planning sessions are like these days. What is the ratio of “basically status quo” to “we are heading straight at an iceberg” participants? It’s not comfortable to speak out against a culture that’s so heavily invested in its own mythology. There are consequences. Rarely are those consequences “you’re right, thanks for pointing it out” followed by concerted effort.

Another opinion I’ve formed is that there’s a lot of legitimate anger about contemporary issues but many people direct it at the wrong targets. It’s easy to get angry at someone with less power than you who is competing for finite resources; it’s hard to get angry at the powerful systems creating that unnecessary competition in the first place and then vilifying non-conformity for good measure.

Anger can rage out of control and cause significant harm, but it can also be motivating. The trick, I think, is in figuring out the appropriate target for anger, what the real-world problems and solutions are, as cognitively dissonant and non-status quo as they may be.

I suppose another part of the trick is in being heard.