This is something I started noticing about 5 years ago.---That the "informed" started giving up in frustration on the "uninformed" and the "misinformed" having realized that a top-down solution was politically unpossible as well as realizing that a lack of education was not the issue as much as not accepting the misalignment between human values and nature.This is not to say we cannot and should not be proactive. It is more about where we direct our ‘proactions.’ Being proactive about resilience means protecting one’s self, one’s family, and one’s community from the trends that make us vulnerable economically, socially and environmentally, as well as to sudden shocks to the system.
Hence a solution should be designed as an emergent behavior of the system rather than a solution designed top-down as a matter of policy. The latter has essentially failed and turned into preaching to the choir due to the value problem above. This bifurcation is something that seems to happen whenever an issue gets mainstream attention. While it does start out scientific/rational and all, as soon as politics, money, and votes get involved, science gets pushed to the backseat.In most cases, the same strategies that contribute to resilience also contribute to a more ‘sustainable’ lifestyle. But where for most people sustainability is largely abstract and cerebral, resilience is more tangible. Perhaps that’s why more and more people are gravitating toward it.
Another issue is that the majority of temperaments are constitutionally unable (meaning they strongly prefer not to) to translate from things that are abstract and cerebral to practical action. The connection does not exist.