This world is not ours

[whyBish]

What should be, in my opinion, is less important than what is.

...

This stuff is easy to say but extemely hard to put into practice on a meaningful scale.  What should be, what is, and how the world really works must all be used together to achieve any sort of noble goal.
[right][snapback]77705[/snapback][/right]

I think they have a more equal importance. One is the current state, one is *a* (not *the*) goal state. For "what should be" to have a practical use there needs to be a viable transition path between "what is" and "what should be". If that path is the path of 'least effort'/'lowest energy' then "what is" and "what should be" will be the same thing, but if not, then energy(/money/effort/debate/convincing) will need to be put into the system to get there. If this cost is too great then what should be will not occur.

Personally speaking I'm more interested in the forces that have created "what is"... e.g. personal optimisation (i.e. market forces / 'invisible hand' taken to the extreme) results in environmental damage, harm of others, no investment in public goods.