| |
|
Under Gore, the Earth changes and economic problems resulting from an
uptick in disasters would have been the central issue, and his approach to
handling this would likewise have been vastly different from the
Bush/Cheney tack. Gore, as Kerry, entered the fray in Vietnam, and did not
step away into safe zones as did both Bush and Cheney, who evaded service.
This points to a key difference in personality, the ability to face a
frightening situation, or the reverse, an inability leading to the need to
create a blockade, a safe zone for the self. Both Bush and Cheney exhibit
a personality that would themselves run for safety at the first
hint of danger, would themselves forgo their responsibilities to
the greater good, and would themselves consider only their
personal safety and comfort during times of duress. This is what they did
during the Vietnam era, and they assume the public would react
as they are prone to do, and thus anticipating a public that would desert
their responsibilities at the first hint of danger, they insist on a tight
cover-up. Gore and Kerry exhibit different personalities, able to confront
and engage a threat, and thus would assume a public that would
do likewise, an extension of the self that affects all perception. How
would the world differ, if politicians controlling NASA and the USGS and
able to lean on media outlets within the US with National Security
directives, had been under a more stable and mature leadership, as Gore
and Kerry represent?
Human cultures are under constant threats, violent weather, droughts and
floods, volcanic eruptions, wild fires, plagues, warfare, and earthquakes.
All of this is outside of the average human’s control, and most
of this outside of the control of the power structures. Would an uptick in
these threats, from nature, cause humans to leave their jobs, their
families, their homes, and run screaming in the streets? The common man
waits until the threat is upon them, else economically they cannot
continue to make a living, pay the bills, care for their assets and attend
to their responsibilities. If this were not true, then how does
much of the world live under constant threat, yet go through their
day-to-day? A steady uptick in these threats does not change this
paradigm. Look to the villages on the sides of volcanoes who delay
evacuation until the eruption overtakes them. The goats must be fed and
the fields tended. Look to the cities along rivers likely to be flooded by
deluges upsteam, where evacuation is forgone for a fight against the flood
tide with sand bags and neighbor rescuing neighbor. This is the
reaction of the common man, who have their hearts with their communities,
and like Gore and Kerry do not run from this.
Thus, a frank discussion of increased Earth changes, and the potential
threat this represents, would not create a change in the way the world
runs, only increased awareness of potential threats and what steps to be
taken in the event. Leave the coastlines and river basins. Plan on self
sustaining communities with gardens and flocks and herds. Expect to
rebuild new homes and barns, using scrap from the devastation along with
carefully chosen supplies. Faced with the potential of losing
homes and livelihood, and having to live in a more primitive manner, the
public would consider their options. How does this differ from today, when
they anticipate a volcanic eruption or a flooded city? Today, they expect
shops to be open, insurance to cover losses or neighbors to offer help in
restarting a homestead devastated. The potential being discussed
would differ in that no such rescue would be possible, as all
would be devastated. Thus, the plan would change. Not just run for cover
when the disaster struck, but run for safety with key supplies.
Not just run to a spot just outside the danger zone, but run to a place
where rebuilding a community in safety might be possible. Thus, discussing
the potential of a worldwide cataclysm allows the public to plan
and prepare in a logical manner.
Boom boxes and video games would be left behind, but the seed stock and
gardening tools would be treasured. Cosmetics and high heeled shoes would
not be packed, but Vitamin C and first aid supplies would. The stove and
refrigerator requiring electricity would be replaced by wood burning
stoves and dried beans and rice, and frozen meat with fishing rods and
nets. If electricity is a commodity the planner cannot do without, life in
the dark or back into the age of candles and torches, serious plans for
wind or water mills and their construction or purchase would be laid. The
throw-away mentality, where one can always buy another pair of shoes or a
new outfit, suddenly concerned with the durability of wool and leather
clothing, and how to construct these with a treadle sewing machine or hand
tools. Barn raising techniques, such as the Amish employ today, where
teamwork and leverage and hand tools do what a crane or forklift might do,
will be studied and these hand tools suddenly taken out of the garage and
well oiled. The attitude changes, and when the time comes that
those with their hearts in their communities are forced to leave, they are
already well on the road to rebuilding sustainable communities elsewhere.
This is what Gore would have offered, by being more open about
the Earth changes and less rigid in an increasingly brittle cover-up, and
this is what Kerry would likewise offer and Bush unable, due to
his personal inability to deal with threatening situations.