A reason for Hope in 2017 – Not everything is doom and gloom – Here is some HOPE!!

This came into my email from AVAAZ. I thought I’d pass it on.

Dear Avaazers,

In 2016, hate was given hope — but now we take it back!

From terrorism to Trump to Syria, it was a rough year. But hidden by all the darkness filling our screens, there’s a simple, beautiful, truth:

The world has never been in a better place.

From poverty to literacy, the rise of women and fall of deadly disease — on virtually every metric — the world is better off than it’s ever been. It’s a powerful reason for us all to have hope, and rise to 2017.

So to kick off the new year, here’s a video of 10 beautiful reasons to have hope — let’s share them, add our own, and together give the world a million reasons to hope in 2017:

Share this on facebook

Share this on facebook

Even on the environment, we’re winning epic progress on everything from historic ocean conservation to an unstoppable revolution in clean energy!

Political extremists and divisive zealots thrive on fear and desperation. That’s why they try to convince us that the world is falling apart.

Master trolls like Trump and Putin have even hired vast armies of both real people and fake “bots” to hijack our social media with smears and lies about how awful everything and everyone else is, except them. (this is true! see sources below). What better way to answer them than a million new year’s posts about what gives each of us and all of us hope:

Share this on facebook

Let’s take this dose of hope, and let it fuel our determination and that of our friends. Because in 2017, together, we rise.

With hope,

Ricken, Pascal, Bert, Emma, Mike, Fatima and the whole Avaaz team.

PS – This new year’s reflection feels so important, for each of us, and for a world that is at a tipping point — between love, hope and wisdom, and fear, anger and ignorance. Here are 5 points of reflection that might be useful for your reflection this year:

        1. Yes,

things are serious

        . A new autocratic world order (60% of Avaazers believe even a second rise of fascism) could threaten everything we love.

 

        2. But this is also

a tremendous opportunity

        . Humanity, like each of us, learns best from mistakes. Much of our greatest progress has been catalyzed by crisis. If we meet this moment right, we can emerge from it stronger and wiser than ever.

 

        3. We need to be strong, and to challenge the forces of regress. But let’s not be twisted by the darkness and act from fear and anger.

We are warriors for love

        and wisdom. We must act from that light.

 

        4. When we do come from love and wisdom, we can see that

our ‘enemy’ is not so much any people, as it is unwisdom

        . Misplaced fear and anger. Lack of awareness and understanding.

 

        5. These are age-old foes of our people. Our grandparents faced far worse with far less, and they won progress.

We have every reason to hope

        , and no excuse for despair.

 

And lastly – all the forces present in our world are present within us. Fear and love. Hope and despair. The choices we make in our personal lives shape our world through billions of acts of kindness or cruelty, wisdom or foolishness. All we can do is our best. Let’s hit that mark this year :).

SOURCES:

99 Reasons Why 2016 Was a Good Year
https://medium.com/@angushervey/99-reasons-why-2016-has-been-a-great-year-for-humanity-8420debc2823#…

How a Putin Fan Overseas Pushed Pro-Trump Propaganda to Americans (New York Times)
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/17/world/europe/russia-propaganda-elections.html

Invasion of the troll armies (The Guardian)
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/nov/06/troll-armies-social-media-trump-russian

Advertisements

30 thoughts on “A reason for Hope in 2017 – Not everything is doom and gloom – Here is some HOPE!!

  1. These two newspaper sources are extremely questionable.
    Clinton and her people owned the NY Times which acted as their public broadcast and all the attacks on Trump.
    As for an objective overview the Guardian is a joke and representative of its readership.

    • I like the Guardian. Right now I read the I but while all the media has a profound bias I find the Guardian is better than most. Which do you think is better?

      • Of course you like the Guardian and think it’s better than most as it’s the no.1 left-wing rag.
        I’ve never been a reader of it.
        I rarely read any of them anymore.

      • I haven’t read the Guardian for a while now. But how you can call it left-wing is beyond me. Most of the media is rabid right. The Guardian is around the middle. I think it is probably your perspective makes you think that.

      • Opher, come off it – the Guardian is as left wing as it gets and the public voice of the slightly better educated Labour supporter. It can’t have a very large circulation…

      • No, sorry, I don’t agree. Pretty middle of the road as far as I’m concerned – still represents the establishment. I’m under no illusions there either.
        All the media has an establishment bias. They are run by rich people putting across their agenda.

      • I’ll leave you with your Guardian fantasy. I suggest you do read it ans all will be clarified for you.
        At least you learned a little more last year and getting up to speed.

      • Oh I’ve read left-wing stuff and it is nothing like the Guardian. When the media is controlled by the elite it expresses the views of the elite. The Guardian is part of that conglomerate. Left-wing politics is anti-elite; it is concerned with the power of the masses. I hardly think the Guardian is proposing a take-over by the people, fermenting revolution or promoting communism. It seems to be a fairly innocuous rag with reasonably neutral reporting, nothing more. In the rant of rabid right-wing crap it gives a harmless view.

      • Perhaps you should read the following self-description blagged off wikipedia.

        The Guardian
        Political stance and editorial opinion:
        Founded by textile traders and merchants, The Guardian had a reputation as “an organ of the middle class”,[108] or in the words of C. P. Scott’s son Ted, “a paper that will remain bourgeois to the last”.[109] “I write for the Guardian,” said Sir Max Hastings in 2005,[110] “because it is read by the new establishment,” reflecting the paper’s then-growing influence.

        The Scott Trust describes one of its “core purposes” to be “to secure the financial and editorial independence of the Guardian in perpetuity: as a quality national newspaper without party affiliation; remaining faithful to its liberal tradition”.[111][112] The paper’s readership is generally on the mainstream left of British political opinion: a MORI poll taken between April and June 2000 showed that 80% of Guardian readers were Labour Party voters;[113] according to another MORI poll taken in 2005, 48% of Guardian readers were Labour voters and 34% Liberal Democrat voters.[114] The newspaper’s reputation as a platform for liberal and left-wing opinions has led to the use of the epithets “Guardian reader” and “Guardianista” for people holding such views, or as a negative stereotype of such people as middle class, earnest and politically correct.[115][116]

        Although the paper is often considered to be “linked inextricably” to the Labour Party,[112] three of The Guardian’s four leader writers joined the more centrist Social Democratic Party on its foundation in 1981. The paper was enthusiastic in its support for Tony Blair in his successful bid to lead the Labour Party,[117] and to be elected Prime Minister.[118]

        Then Guardian features editor Ian Katz, asserted in 2004 that “it is no secret we are a centre-left newspaper”.[119] In 2008, Guardian columnist Jackie Ashley said that editorial contributors were a mix of “right-of-centre libertarians, greens, Blairites, Brownites, Labourite but less enthusiastic Brownites, etc,” and that the newspaper was “clearly left of centre and vaguely progressive”. She also said that “you can be absolutely certain that come the next general election, The Guardian’s stance will not be dictated by the editor, still less any foreign proprietor (it helps that there isn’t one) but will be the result of vigorous debate within the paper.”[120] The paper’s comment and opinion pages, though often written by centre-left contributors such as Polly Toynbee, have allowed some space for right-of-centre voices such as Max Hastings and Michael Gove. Since an editorial in 2000, The Guardian has favoured abolition of the British monarchy.[121]

        In the run-up to the 2010 general election, following a meeting of the editorial staff,[122] the paper declared its support for the Liberal Democrats, due in particular, to the party’s stance on electoral reform. The paper suggested tactical voting to prevent a Conservative victory, given Britain’s first-past-the-post electoral system.[123] At the 2015 election, the paper switched its support to the Labour Party. The paper argued that Britain needed a new direction and Labour “speaks with more urgency than its rivals on social justice, standing up to predatory capitalism, on investment for growth, on reforming and strengthening the public realm, Britain’s place in Europe and international development.”[124]

        Assistant Editor Michael White, in discussing media self-censorship in March 2011, says: “I have always sensed liberal, middle class ill-ease in going after stories about immigration, legal or otherwise, about welfare fraud or the less attractive tribal habits of the working class, which is more easily ignored altogether. Toffs, including royal ones, Christians, especially popes, governments of Israel, and US Republicans are more straightforward targets.”[125]

        In a 2013 interview for NPR, the Guardian’s Latin America correspondent Rory Carroll stated that many editors at The Guardian believed and continue to believe that they should support Hugo Chávez “because he was a standard-bearer for the left.”[126]

        In the 2015 Labour Party leadership election, The Guardian supported Yvette Cooper and was critical of left-winger Jeremy Corbyn, the successful candidate.[127] Although the majority of political columnists in The Guardian were against Corbyn winning, Owen Jones, Seumas Milne and George Monbiot wrote supportive articles about him.[128]

        Looks fairly left-wing to me, Opher.

      • That would have been almost exactly my view of it – a paper serving an intelligent, educated middle-class with a predominantly centre view and slightly left lean though mainly neutral – hardly a left-wing paper.

      • with Labour written all over it, which is clearly seen repeatedly and evidently ever more so today.
        I loved the line “the less attractive tribal habits of the working class”. Classic!

  2. It is nice to think positive and to appreciate any progress. However, saying that humanity is on the right way would be very dangerous. Growth happened at the cost of rising inequality. And increased inequality is the reason for lower subjective well-being. So, asking all people (not only the fewer and fewer with more and more wealth and control), I am not sure whether we should celebrate. Of course, progress in developing countries from extreme poverty to poverty is a good thing, but the still existing poverty shouldn’t be considered romantically. There was un-proportionate more progress in our possibilities than in the situation of people. There are enough food and access to it today for everybody, but still, there is a lot of hunger. We don’t use the increased (technological) capabilities for solving these problems.

I'd like to hear from you...

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s