rigorousintuition.ca

jakell wrote...

Well he hinted a sort of solution, and that is' reducing population growth',

As with reducing income inequality, reducing resource consumption is an imperative rather than being a solution.

I would say this 'system' you mention is something that is largely inherent in ordinary human nature, and therefore largely impossible to remove via a top down scenario. When we speak of elites, we are speaking of a top down thing.

To point to a distinction between our styles of thinking jakell, while you see the ‘system’ as a result of human nature, I see human nature as a modern myth used to obscure the idea that we are driven by human habit mistakenly categorized as being human nature.

It is possible that in a manner analogous to our creating instruments that extend the reach and acuity of our perceptual organs, we may also create new conceptual structures that allow for the recognition of new and greater correspondences (connections) between our categories, thereby providing better information processing capabilities, and hopefully motivation to change our habits.


Because the 'elite' are marked and mark others through existing habits, it can be useful to use them for illustrative purposes without having to attach all blame to them.

Yep, call it human habit if you like. Categories and labels aside, I'm really talking about the same thing.

Trying to remind myself what the thread is about.

jakell » Tue Mar 18, 2014 12:05 pm wrote:
....I did poo-poo the idea of inequality earlier, which was being a bit clumsy, When Westerners talk of equality, they usually mean bringing people up to their standard of living, and it is this that is virtually impossble with our current resources and technology. Equality will work if we in the West were to drop ours considerably....see? I am an egalitarian after all.

Let's face it though, this is not going to happen. We love our energy slaves and won't give them up until they either leave us or become non-functional, this is what is going to happen anyway, but we're still stuck in a cycle of denial and bargaining for the time being.
When they do leave us though, those population questions may start to solve themselves to a degree.

Something that is hopefully independant of semantics.

The solutions would have to be radical; not to lift up the global poor to the west's standards, but to remove the game entirely and replace it with something completely different in order to save lives.

Luther Blissett » Tue Mar 18, 2014 2:29 pm wrote:The solutions would have to be radical; not to lift up the global poor to the west's standards, but to remove the game entirely and replace it with something completely different in order to save lives.

Very true. The short time we have does seem to remove some of the more fantastical solutions, if only people would realise this. Unfortunately, some of the more egregious solutions (die off, aggressive nationalism, totalitarianism) are not that hard to implement, we just follow the easiest path downwards into these.

I've been reading far more of John Michael Greer lately, and his position is that we don't really need to invent much new stuff, which seems to be nearly everyone's 'solution', just take a fresh look at look at older stuff, and find a relatively more gentle path downwards.

Yep, call it human habit if you like. Categories and labels aside, I'm really talking about the same thing.

I beg to differ. Earlier you wrote: 'It also blames the 'elites' for this, that they are somehow preventing the rest of us from living more equitably, I would say that this is incorrect, the problems are inherent in ordinary people'.

While I take the point in the first half of that sentence, in the second half you say the problems are inherent i.e. human nature.

Therefor to my mind at any rate it is more than a semantic difference when I assert that human habits can change, and are more likely to change if we can create/realize a conceptual framework that assists evolution of human consciousness, so we can then dump our current impedance based model.

Given the scale of the problems, and very the short time we have, plus the difficulty of even changing one human, never mind en-masse. I regard these 'habits', and inherent traits to be so entangled as to be functionally identical.

Go back three decades or so, and this sort of thinking might have been regarded as less than wishful, at the present time I regard it as academic. Possibly a useful echo to pick up again when we emerge again from the Dark Ages, that's if some realistic people take the trouble to preserve knowledge through the difficult times.

So then, a distinction you regard as being academic, or does not matter, I regard as being critical.

Each to his own, I guess.

Sounder » Wed Mar 19, 2014 12:16 am wrote:So then, a distinction you regard as being academic, or does not matter, I regard as being critical.

Each to his own, I guess.

By 'academic' I mean the distinction is of little practical use at this point in time. Of course, it can be considered useful if you are only looking at a small group of people who are to undergo this change in consciousness and ways of being, but I assumed that we were talking about the entire human race.

but I assumed that we were talking about the entire human race.

Oh but I am.

We are all conditioned by our split model of reality to submit to coercion. This is (by now) an artificial and counterproductive way to model reality.

The only way to change the conditioning of all people is to change the model (by which reality is represented).

Sounder » Wed Mar 19, 2014 1:33 am wrote:

but I assumed that we were talking about the entire human race.

Oh but I am.

We are all conditioned by our split model of reality to submit to coercion. This is (by now) an artificial and counterproductive way to model reality.

The only way to change the conditioning of all people is to change the model (by which reality is represented).

Considering the context of the thread, let's say that the objective is to alter people's behaviour so that our consumption of resources as a species becomes sustainable, and our immediate future is not so dire.

What sort of timescale do you envisage here?

Above you said:

jakell » Tue Mar 18, 2014 5:29 am wrote:I notice that the above blames 'unequal wealth distribution' for our unsustainable resource depletion, whereas it is the striving for economic parity that has accelerated this.
It also blames the 'elites' for this, that they are somehow preventing the rest of us from living more equitably, I would say that this is incorrect, the problems are inherent in ordinary people.

While I am definitely going to extrapolate a little beyond the context of that original quote, I hope you will allow me that liberty.

Firstly, the elites do definitely have a huge impact on the formation of society, not merely or even necessarily because of the income distribution. The income distribution has always been high. That being said there was definitely a time as the industrial revolution was moving on that overproduction became an issue because the excess surplus had no market, and so the markets were consciously conceived and subsequently sustained (and continue to be so) with enormous amounts of cost and effort.

It's ridiculous to not see the elites as being a huge cause of whatever world state we are in. That being said I don't believe they are the only cause. But to get what I am hinting at, who would have more ability to drastically shape human society, all of the people of native tribes put together with all minimum wage workers at fast food restaurants, or every individual who has attended bilderberg meetings over time? Given just the position of the attendees of bilderberg I would definitely stake my bets in that direction. That is definitely not to say that they are the most powerful people, I am sure they are more, I am just using them illustratively, just like the first set of people are probably not the most powerless people on earth. Beside that, I am also sure that the decisions of this set in their respective positions are not entirely executive decisions but are based off many factors that are also beyond their control.

All of those qualifications taken into consideration, extrapolating on my main idea (not about the bilderberg group attendees but about the elite in general) there is definitely a higher capability to enact concrete change.

How this relates to your above discussion with Sounder:

jakell » Tue Mar 18, 2014 10:47 pm wrote:What sort of timescale do you envisage here?

I would say, if (and keep in mind this is an enormous if) all elite parties in all of their respective fields, underwent a massive shift in direction... so we are talking here not just in advertising, production, politics, education, media, but also agriculture, construction and more, not just in a "sustainable" direction as it is currently envisioned, but something more radical (I will leave just what that is out right now, though it is definitely an important aspect)... I would say that the change in habit that Sounder was talking about would probably take about two generations to completely sink in.

The practability of what I said above is another matter for a number of reasons, and besides that whether it would be desirable or whether it would be downright harmful for some people is another matter and very important ones of course.

What was said above, that we might be drifting to some kind of dark ages, I am taking this from:

jakell » Tue Mar 18, 2014 6:35 pm wrote:Possibly a useful echo to pick up again when we emerge again from the Dark Ages, that's if some realistic people take the trouble to preserve knowledge through the difficult times.

I don't necessarily see a 'dark ages' as needing to be a bad thing entirely. Whether it ultimately would be is a different thing. The reason the dark ages was partly so horrible before was because (imo) there was such a pravalent elite class (the feudal lords, and their vassal knights) who dominated the peasant class and forced them to work and give tribute of their work, and even other things like made it illegal for them to leave their villages or else they could be whipped and sent back... Other things that were horrors of the middle ages was the sanitation, but I think we have come far enough that even if we did drift back to some kind of a dark ages we would be able to take care of sanitation in any case... even the romans had that covered better than the medieval era formal, I think even contemporary China was better with sanitation...

If we entered a dark age full of superstition and slaves to a herd mentality (as we are now), then it would definitely be a bleak prospect.

My questioning of the importance of the 'elites' was not really based upon their effects (or lack of effects) on us up to this point, it was based on the fact that our problems are based upon hard economics relating to energy and resources. The only way they could be deemed to be significant is if they could be said to be actively preventing a solution to these problems, the insistance of which does seem to me a convenient way of dodging the responsibility to change at all.

About the timescales involved. You are probably right about a couple of generations being needed, and only in ideal circumstances. Ideal circumstances are very unlikely to occur though, especially as new elites are likely to emerge from the 'masses' as soon as the present ones are removed. I can't really see the new Boss being very different from the old Boss.
All the talk of a change of direction or leadership does not remove the underlying issue though, which is the fact that there are hard economic limits relating to energy and resource scarcity up ahead.

jakell » Wed Mar 19, 2014 5:39 am wrote:My questioning of the importance of the 'elites' was not really based upon their effects (or lack of effects) on us up to this point, it was based on the fact that our problems are based upon hard economics relating to energy and resources. The only way they could be deemed to be significant is if they could be said to be actively preventing a solution to these problems, the insistance of which does seem to me a convenient way of dodging the responsibility to change at all.

About the timescales involved. You are probably right about a couple of generations being needed, and only in ideal circumstances. Ideal circumstances are very unlikely to occur though, especially as new elites are likely to emerge from the 'masses' as soon as the present ones are removed. I can't really see the new Boss being very different from the old Boss.
All the talk of a change of direction or leadership does not remove the underlying issue though, which is the fact that there are hard economic limits relating to energy and resource scarcity up ahead.

I agree with pretty much all of the above.

A good analogy for the situation at present can be extrapolated with a little imagination from the terms in psychology Enabling and Codependency:

"In a negative sense, enabling is also used to describe dysfunctional behavior approaches that are intended to help resolve a specific problem but in fact may perpetuate or exacerbate the problem.[1][2] A common theme of enabling in this latter sense is that third parties take responsibility, blame, or make accommodations for a person's harmful conduct (often with the best of intentions, or from fear or insecurity which inhibits action). The practical effect is that the person himself or herself does not have to do so, and is shielded from awareness of the harm it may do, and the need or pressure to change. Enabling in this sense is a major environmental cause of addiction.[3]

A common example of enabling can be observed in the relationship between the alcoholic/addict and a codependent spouse. The spouse who attempts to shield the addict from the negative consequences of their behavior by calling in sick to work for them, making excuses that prevent others from holding them accountable, and generally cleaning up the mess that occurs in the wake of their impaired judgment.[citation needed] In reality, what the spouse is doing may be hurting, not helping. Enabling can tend to prevent psychological growth in the person being enabled, and can contribute to negative symptoms in the enabler."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enabling

If we take the enabling on the part of profit making enterprises to provide the materials as well as the arguments and reasoning for the continuance of our modes of behavior, and the part of the 'consumer' (for example) to subsequently provide support and justification on behalf of the producer.

And,

"Codependency is defined as a psychological condition or a relationship in which a person is controlled or manipulated by another who is affected with a pathological condition (typically narcissism or drug addiction); and in broader terms, it refers to the dependence on the needs of, or control of, another.[1] It also often involves placing a lower priority on one's own needs, while being excessively preoccupied with the needs of others"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codependency

A similar process again, particularly if we take into consideration the frequent technique of advertising of creating guilt and subsequently the means of either relieving that guilt or temporarily subduing it.

I think understanding those processes have strong implications for the purposes for education and spreading information as a way of breaking the cycle...

What is left though is finding a substitute, a more constructive way to "fill the void", so to speak.

TBS said:

What is left though is finding a substitute, a more constructive way to "fill the void", so to speak.

In a nutshell. Only - it's an ever-so-slightly, massively Hurculean task. And we are nowhere near anything viable yet. Perhaps it will simply blossom organically, but I doubt it.

coffin_dodger » Wed Mar 19, 2014 8:55 am wrote:TBS said:

What is left though is finding a substitute, a more constructive way to "fill the void", so to speak.

In a nutshell. Only - it's an ever-so-slightly, massively Hurculean task. And we are nowhere near anything viable yet. Perhaps it will simply blossom organically, but I doubt it.

Those are always the most promising tasks, and no doubt the ones most worth the effort. All joking aside, I think there is something admirable about the intrepidation with which thinkers of the past took on the big questions in life and for society. On the other hand they were the elite, and it has all taken us to where we are now... but perhaps that is only the more reason that aspiring minds today should pick up these eternal questions and begin looking at them from a perspective that has rarely if ever been heard in the past. Also, it is sort of curious the way that people are so ready to scoff at ideas, thinking that their skepticism holds them above being fooled, when in reality it seems that today more than ever a majority of the people on earth are easily led, deceived and brought to deep fervor over things that promise nothing (take a moment to examine the countances of most individuals present in the crowd of most any concert).