I was talking with a group of supposed environmentalists about a future sustainable society, and what struck me was how they kept going back to talking about a centralized global system to make everyone do the ‘right’ thing, namely being sustainable. I remember feeling a tad stunned that they felt mandating people to do what they perceived as the ‘right’ thing for sustainability was similar to the jab mandate we are in at the moment. I asked if they had really thought it through and after I mentioned a couple of specific things about totalitarianism, I could see the light bulb go off, but at the same time, because they felt justified “for the sake of the planet,” – they felt it was OK. Heaven save us from people who believe that the end always justifies the means. I really do not believe that you can mandate a sustainable society into existence. What I realized was that many of these people I was talking to were really privileged consumerists who wanted to have a green world but obviously hadn’t really considered the broader picture of how energy, resource usage, and a corrupt economic system were driving our social inequities and imminent series of ecological failures.
“If you have to be persuaded, reminded, pressured, lied to, incentivized, coerced, bullied, socially shamed, guilt-tripped, threatened, punished and criminalized … If all of this is considered necessary to gain your compliance — you can be absolutely certain that what is being promoted is not in your best interest.” Anon
What sparked my blog this week has been how the term ‘The Greater Good’ has been thrown around as justification for mandating the jab. While I do not want to focus on the why’s and wherefores’ of the jab I will focus on the idea and problems of the ‘Greater Good’ that apply across the board. This is a really complex idea so I will keep it simple to illustrate a point: Do the rights of the many outweigh the rights of the individual? An example from the Eunoia site, “If a doctor can save five people from death by killing one healthy person and using that person’s organs for life-saving transplants, then the greater good theory implies that the doctor should kill the one person to save five.” Alternatively, 99 people dispose of their trash responsibly and recycle everything they can, but one person throws their trash into the street as a form of rebellion against the system. Is it justified to fine that person to make them dispose of their trash properly? We all have our built-in moral compass and could debate the endless examples of the expectations and rights of society versus the rights of the individual.
“Collectivism – Does the individual exist for the sake of society? Or does society exist for the sake of individuals? At first sight, Collectivism seems the virtuous path to take – after all it implies empathy but the fallacy of misplaced concreteness comes into play – society is just a concept not a concrete reality. Society is nothing but a term, a concept for the symbiosis of a group of human beings. It is not carrier of life” Carl Jung. This illustrates the Problem with the greater good. The term ‘Society’ is just a descriptor of human thinking, not a real entity. We create it by how we live and work together with our vision of who we are, not the dystopian vision of how others push us to react. So many think of themselves as modern work slaves, but it doesn’t have to be that way. Imagine your work being play. The hokey film ‘Braveheart’ with its famous scene of William Wallace shouting ‘Freedom,’ didn’t become popular just because of its inaccurate history (although the Scots loved it because they kicked English butt – a little national irritation that has been going on for centuries) or the campy acting, but because of the theme of not surrendering to a cruel oppressive regime. I think that’s why the similar theme in the comedy SciFi film Galaxy Quest, “Never give up, never surrender!” was also popular. Wherever we are, we have an inherent love of freedom to be ourselves. Standing up to oppression and self-expression are a part of most of us that we want honored. In return we need to honor it in others.
All totalitarian despots used ‘the greater good,’ or ‘utilitarianism’ as it is often referred, as justification for the horrors they perpetrated (e.g., Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot). Our societal laws tend to be moral applications of rights that can and cannot be enforced, and we all make social contracts in accepting those laws. But what if laws are made that split acceptance within a society? What if some law was made that all blue-eyed people are enemies of the state? Obviously, some intense discussion would (ought) to occur to find why such a law was enacted to begin with and a more rational resolution found. But if such a law was handed down from a hierarchical system, do the rights of the individual come into play at all. This is when Orwellian thinking becomes normal.
I have alluded that the idea of utilitarianism has some value at times (e.g., the US Forest Service), but it has to come with continual oversight and transparency and be able to be dismantled, if necessary, after thorough debate. Technocrats love to make regulations and laws but hate to debate why they do what they do – after all, they usually believe they know what is best and right for what they are controlling. But as my long-term readers will know from this blog, ‘Belief is the enemy of knowledge’ – we are too often fed beliefs, which are then passed off as absolute facts, when they are only what we know for now.
Beliefs are useful in YOU believing in your own sovereignty and power to create change, and having the freedom to make decisions. Yes, there is a moral component, but if we are truly listening to each other with open and critical minds, we avoid the problems of separation and tribalism. We can respect everything and hear alternate views without having to agree. But we have to make that conscious choice (there I am again with that word – choice) to be consciously awake enough to actively listen and to use your innate empathy (see previous post Resolving Environmental/Justice/Equity Issues Through Empathy – But What is Empathy Really? {August 2020}). That is personal power. You choose your attitude regardless of external circumstances (see last post). When you follow your own moral compass, that is personal power to do what you think is right. Don’t have to justify it, because it is you. Just be willing to find common ground to find a positive way forward.
Tyrants are defeated when individuals are free to use their own personal power – the power to control one’s own life. To exhibit non-compliance, civil disobedience, and to resist commands that are immoral. At this time, there is so much tyranny is all walks of life. We currently have medical tyranny, but there is also agricultural tyranny, economic tyranny, etc. We have all become disposable pieces of human flotsam to the hierarchical systems that control us. That great activist Vandana Shiva says, “The idea of dispensability is equal to the idea of extermination.” The psychopaths that currently run the world for their power and profit do not care. We care. We know what we need. We need to exercise our god given freedom. It is up to us to wake up and do what is right while we still have the ability to exercise our free will. I dream and imagine a sustainable world with equity, freedom and harmony. Greater good is fine, but we must never relinquish our personal power. It may be a fine line but transparency, unfettered truth, debate and active listening are tools to help us gain that freedom back. What you didn’t know you are losing it – rapidly?
“So long as the people do not care to exercise their freedom, those who wish to tyrannize will do so” Voltaire.
To Be Continued ……………………
0 Comments