Amen

It seems to be that your question is a misinterpretation of past philosophies and theologies. Believing in an afterlife isn't even natural for human beings and you can check that out in the work of anthropologist who trace our ancestry to hunter gatherers. Most of them have a really straightforward relationship with death.

What you mean is the thinkers of civilizations, and that's a topic that Lewis Mumford covered in his book The Myth of the Machine. That thinking in the afterlife and all those tools like spirits and gods were used along history for... Power. You can think of that like proto-science or just trying to make sense of the reality, but to assume that all smart people of the past believed in gods, spirits, "the little people" and the afterlife is to picture a really homogeneous (probably greek or egyptian) past of humanity.

I wouldn't say "What's wrong with us modern people?" since today I find really reasonable to be critical of one's and other beliefs. Not for the sake of destroying it, but in search for better philosophical answers. If you say something exists, you better try to explain what it is and how did you conclude that it exists and, if possible, show some empirical evidence. Today we've got science that is to date our best shot at nailing some comprehension of our material realities, yet, it all exists in a socio-political context, so to assume that something is "scientific" and therefore "real" is to have things mixed.

I suggest you to check the history of philosophy, that work of Mumford that I find it to be a masterpiece in sociology that everyone should know, and if possible, maybe understand how serious thinkers think: some are believers, some are not, but a sure thing is that a conversation about the validity of some positions exists somewhere. Like Spinozas god or Descartes god, how magical thinking works, why we believe what we believe, etc.

Here from the South America: Now, Imagine Who Funds The US

Fellas, the FOSS team gets +1 c:

I want you to know that: I always check your post and I want to collaborate sharing academic texts and other sources. And I really appreciate your work so far :) Thanks for your determination friend

Power to that, friend. The change always begins at home.

I believe it is essential to distinguish between "When are we gonna learn?" when talking about these points. It is not that "we didn't learn"; we who understand or are very attentive to the ecological issues are a group of people doing something. Hence, the greens, in general, need to understand politics.

The job of ecologism is only effective if you address root causes (there is a joke about trees over here). Exploiting non-renewable resources is not a choice made by individuals but rather a result of the societal structures that dictate our actions. Currently, those structures are hierarchical.

So I'd like to use this occasion to invite my fellow ecologists and solarpunks to be interested in that spiky thing called "Politics." We must address issues to push our creative minds to build the future.

Found some niche communities with people who do really enjoy sharing some knowledge, artisans and artist. They have a communal spirit that makes my heart go warm.

Then go vote by all means.

Just be clear about what you want to achieve. As far as I know, no matter who gets to the white house, Cop City in Atlanta is getting built, and USA alignment with Israel and its many interventions in the rest of the world hasn't changed in decades. No matter who is the president.

If something is happening to change, it is thanks to people with conscience who organize to protest and riot. Hence, not asking for the politician to change is making things change.

In South America, there are many conversations about this topic, and as far as I've reflected, I don't want Trump to get to the White House. But I'd rather keep working through direct action to make my community goals become reality, and many times, that happens by not asking but doing.

My goal is not for you to vote or not vote. It is to be reasonable on what you can achieve via voting and what requires more than that.

While I hope more people can bring their point of view to assist you in your decision-making, I will put my grain of salt. In times like these, I confess I choose anarchy, and a thinker of this position that covers the topic you are talking about is Enrico Malatesta in his text At The Café, which is free for everyone to read at The Anarchist Library.

The way I see it, like many anarchists, is that electoralism is part of the racket. But I understand why some people may see it as an essential part of politics. I'd rather keep working on those grassroots and direct democracy or consensus organizations that require our daily efforts than try to see who we'll put in the decision-making seat and keep taking more power to the people.

That's true. They don't steal personal property, they steal PRIVATE PROPERTY babyyyyy

I tend to feel this way until I get a good enough feel to say "compañero" hehehe