The Unjust, Conscience and Happiness...

It's been said that ignorance is bliss, because when the unjust remain ignorant of the nature of their acts, they can be happy.  But the deliberate unjust seek temporary and selfish satisfaction sowing seeds of strife with others and abide with the knowledge of the harm that they do.  We have conscience and laws to answer to.  Where either is lacking, injustice thrives.  Some are of the mind that appearances and self satisfaction are enough to be happy in life.   Others believe that freedom to act within our personal rights is a greater good than justice for all.  When we are shown to be self serving, we may be just if it does no harm to anyone, but where these interests compete, the greater good must be determined and must prevail for society to function.  Individual interests do not a happy society make. 
The more injustice a society has injected into it, the unhappier it becomes for all.  I  believe the unjust man is not ultimately happy.  The actions of the unjust create suffering for the just and the unjust alike.  Suffering injustice leads the unjust to become so.   The unjust do not trust others or situations enough to be just or believe that being just is going to bring happiness.  I believe that the unjust experience happiness in a selfish and temporary way.  The unjust seek personal ends, but have a kind of contempt and distrust for their fellow man.  Their actions may provide temporary gains to themselves, but would not make for the most happy circumstances necessary to constitute a happy life. Their actions take away from happiness in society. 

Socrates asked if the just compete with the just, and Glaucon determined that they do not.  So the just can abide with the just, and increase harmony, or happiness for a society.   He also then postulated that the unjust will compete with the unjust or the just, the same.   This part of Socrates reasoning resonates with me as key to understanding how competing interests create strife.  I think it's important to consider that "The Republic" is utopian theory, or a view toward a perfect society.

I think that the views of Socrates are not flawed, but are inconclusive.  Socrates does not offer perfect reasoning, but reasoning can never be perfect because nature is not consistent.  Instead, he provides a framework with several ways of viewing what can be considered best practices.  He is correct in that to be just and to have the knowledge that one is just is beneficial to many in the most circumstances, and creates the most good relations in society, which in turn leads to the most possible "net" happiness.   Even if our "gross" actions are thought unjust by some, we can gain personal satisfaction and happiness knowing we did our best to do the right thing.  However, this personal satisfaction must not be the goal of the just, as that gives no thought to the benefit to society, or what is for the good of the whole.  What others perceive is relative to their position on the matters at hand.  Thus we are presented with the Allegory of the Cave.

The Allegory of the Cave holds much relevance to society today.  Particularly American society, where we are now each exposed to so much of the same things through the media. Our reality is subverted in this way, but few pause to consider the implications.  We must remain alert to things that would chain us to concepts, ideas, conclusions about ourselves, each other, and about the world.  When thinking becomes outdated and no longer useful, or worse, harmful to our fate, it's because we fail to consider the nature of things from a different perspective.  We do things how they've always been done.  We stick with ideas that we are taught by our parents and grandparents.  We vote the same way our neighbors vote.  We believe things because of popular sources, not because of the substance.   When crisis comes, do we have the capacity to solve problems, or might our “little world” shatter because we cannot think outside the box?

  

This conference has been a good place for conservation psychology
research.

>>> Human Ecology <humanecology@coa.edu> 6/19/2012 8:04 PM >>>

XIX International Conference of the Society for Human Ecology
jointly with
IV International Conference on Sustainability Science in Asia
February 5-8, 2013 The Australian National University Canberra,
Australia


Decisions that Work: Linking Sustainability, Environmental
Responsibility and Human Well-being
Register your interest at http://societyforhumanecology.org/ or email
she.icssasia@gmail.com


On behalf of the organizing committee, you are invited to contribute to
SHE XIX / ICSS-Asia conference Decisions that Work: Linking
Sustainability, Environmental Responsibility and Human Well-being. The
conference will bring together a diverse group of educators, researchers
and practitioners interested in interdisciplinary and ecological
approaches to humanity’s relationship to the natural environment. The
2013 conference will focus on the co-benefits that actions to increase
environmental sustainability have for the health and well-being of
people. This broad theme will be further refined through four special
plenary panel discussions that will each introduce a sub-theme.
Conference Sub-Themes
a) Reinventing the Future: How can we develop the holistic and
integrative knowledge required for tackling sustainability problems,
what is the role of design, and what contribution can institutions of
education make?
b) Global Food Security: How can we sustainably and equitably manage
global food systems to reduce the vulnerability of urban populations and
increase the resilience of rural communities and landscapes?
c) Co-Benefits of Sustainability and Human Health: How can we improve
the links between policies and sustainability interventions to emphasize
that these are co-beneficial for both the environment and human health
and wellbeing?
d) Responsibility for Change: The primary obstacle to sustainability is
not lack of knowledge but an inability to act based on what we know.
What are the respective responsibilities of formal policy institutions,
NGOs, informal citizen groups and individual consumers for achieving the
necessary behavioral change? How can collaboration between these
elements of society be fair and equitable?


4 Ways to Contribute


1. Organize a Session

Organized Sessions should fill a 1½ hour block and involve up to 4
speakers. Session organizers are invited to propose a theme or set of
papers that expand on the conference themes. Other session topics are
also welcome. The organizer is responsible for the coordination of
participants. At this point, only provide session summary information
and the names of your intended sessions speakers. Abstracts for the
individual speaker’s papers are not yet needed.
2. Contribute a Paper

Individual papers will be grouped by the organizing committee into sets
of four papers on similar issues. Paper presentations typically follow a
format of 15 minutes talk plus 5 minutes of discussion.
3. Facilitate a Workshop

You are invited to propose a workshop or roundtable discussion. These
hour and half long sessions are in a looser format than formal papers.
They are designed to encourage exchange of ideas among participants and
to discuss different approaches to knowledge integration. Please include
a description of your session’s format and objectives and target
audience.
4. Student Online Workshop

Local and international students are encouraged to participate in a
pre-conference workshop to be held 4 February with the theme “Sustaining
People Sustaining Places”. The workshop will feature short pre-recorded
powerpoint presentations (pecha-kucha format), suitable for on-line
delivery. A further 5 minutes will be available for discussion,
including by skype for remote student delegates. Limited funding for
international travel may be awarded to the best presentation proposal.
Teachers of programs of human ecology who would like their students to
participate in this initiative for course accreditation in their home
institution are encouraged to email she.icssasia@gmail.com
Register your interest at http://societyforhumanecology.org/ or email
she.icssasia@gmail.com
For all session types, please provide your name, affiliation, a title,
30 word summary description and 250 word abstract.


Please forward this email together with the attached flyer to any
relevant lists.
Who look forward to seeing you in Canberra in 2013!

Regards
Rob Dyball
SHE President elect, on behalf of the organizing committee

Greatest Danger to Capitalism? (Hint: It isn't "Treehuggers")

The main dangers to the success of capitalism are the very people who would consider themselves its most ardent advocates : the investors who insist on profits, the management of these companies, and the politicians who tirelessly insist that they are 'pro-business'."

From The Economist:

"Many of the corporate scandals that America, especially, has endured in recent years reflect outright criminality. A lawful order knows what to do with criminals, and pro-business politicians are in truth militantly anti-capitalist if they flinch from cracking down on bosses' crimes."

"...widespread and quite outrageous abuse, by capitalists, of capitalism... The danger exists everywhere in the world, but it matters most in the United States."

The Economist, Special 160th Anniversary Issue, A Survey of Capitalism and Democracy, June 26-July 4, 2003

..............................................

Politicians strain to outdo each other with promises to 'get tough' on crime and to bring law and order back to the streets.There is no question that common street crime is an important social concern. But its image has become so bloated in the mirror of public opinion that it blocks our view of the white collar crimes which are both more costly and more dangerous to society."

James Coleman. The Criminal Elite. 1985. St. Martin's Press

.............................................

Here's an example of that beloved unfettered capitalism....

Groundwater depletion and sustainability of irrigation 

in the US High Plains and Central Valley. 

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA
www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1200311109

Bridget R. Scanlona,  Claudia C. Fauntb, Laurent Longuevergnec, Robert C. Reedya, William M. Alleyb, Virginia L. McGuired, and Peter B. McMahone

Bureau of Economic Geology, Jackson School of Geosciences, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX 78713-8924;

Geosciences Rennes, University de Rennes, Rennes Cedex, France

Edited by William A. Jury, University of California, Riverside, CA, and approved March 14, 2012 (received for review January 10, 2012)

Abstract

Aquifer over-exploitation could significantly impact crop production in the United States because 60% of irrigation relies on groundwater. Groundwater depletion in the irrigated High Plains and California Central Valley accounts for 50% of groundwater depletion in the United States since 1900. A newly developed High Plains recharge map shows that high recharge in the northern High Plains results in sustainable pumpage, whereas lower re-charge in the central and southern High Plains has resulted in focused depletion of 330 km3 of fossil groundwater, mostly recharged during the past 13,000 y. Depletion is highly localized with about a third of depletion occurring in 4% of the High Plains land area. Extrapolation of the current depletion rate suggests that 35% of the southern High Plains will be unable to support irrigation within the next 30 y. Reducing irrigation withdrawals could extend the lifespan of the aquifer but would not result in sustainable management of this fossil groundwater. The Central Valley is a more dynamic, engineered system, with north/south diversions of surface water since the 1950s contributing to higher recharge.  However, these diversions are regulated because of impacts on endangered species. A newly developed Central Valley Hydrologic Model shows that groundwater depletion since the 1960s, totaling 80 km3, occurs mostly in the south (Tulare Basin) and primarily during droughts. Increasing water storage through artificial recharge of excess surface water in aquifers by up to 3 km3 shows promise for coping with droughts and improving sustainability of groundwater resources in the Central Valley.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

So we can see how capitalism will push businesses to eat their seed stock to maximize profits in the short term.  I suppose those trading in derivatives of these markets are thinking they can gamble their way out, or perhaps this leads to businesses who need to be bailed out by the taxpayers later on.  This is obviously unsustainable, and will inevitably be challenged.  Investors and those profiteering from the depletion of non-renewable resources are their own worst enemies.

Der Spiegel's Victims of Extreme "Green"

It seems Germans have taken it upon themselves to become martyrs for the cause of environmental degradation, and are suffering for it greatly… The whole article is a huge whine fest about how all of Germany is suffering under the weight of their own green – extremism. Sounds like a high school science project gone amuck.

Notice how nothing you hear about is ever being done in moderation. It’s all or nothing… overreacting, hysteria, burdensome impositions...

...and then, of course the resentments and backlash from those opposed to stopping the collapse of the ecosystem we rely on for our existence..

Also, notice how there has been no onslaught of grass roots efforts to reduce environmental impact of our behaviors... No ‘bottom up” solutions, such as “community gardens." 
In Germany, it can be argued that "Veggie Thursday" is more aptly named "Expensive Guilt Reconciliation Thursday" leaving everyone feeling a bit anemic in the nation famous for sausage.  Are there express misgivings over preparing vegetarian meals for a small fraction of their existence? It's probably not making many gourmets out of them, is it?

As I read the scathing criticisms for all these "literal" translations of what amounts to experimental solutions, I easily conjure up practical, and basically FREE solutions for nearly every one of these “complaints” as I read them…

The regulations from above that are enforced onto people are going to be huge let downs… and we're surprised by this, why?   Are people really so helpless and hapless in the face of environmental challenges? Simple solutions at home seem quite salient and realistic.

Have Germans lost their “edge” when it comes to innovation and engineering?  And never mind that, a better question is, why on this green earth would anyone rely on “industry” at any rate to solve these problems?  Think about that for a moment...

Germany's citizens are sounding a lot like beleaguered guinea pigs for industrial solutions. 

Not that there may be some solutions that are applicable on a wide scale, effective, and successful in a wide distribution... I'm sure there are... but are too many just going to rely on that?

But wasn’t it Einstein (A German) who said that the thing that causes the problem is unlikely to be the source of its solution, or some such pap?

Traditions and Cultural Evolution

Cultural traditions evolved because they carry a people forward. Too many cultural traditions no longer serve the purpose they once did, but have been carried around like a cross to bear.  We are now splintered, being bogged down, held back, confounded, and controlled. Technology, mobility, and advances in education and available knowledge have rendered very much of our great grandparent's worlds completely foreign to us, so why do we still dust off so many of the same beliefs, traditions, habits that they held in order to continue to tell ourselves nothing has changed, while the world outside is on fire with changes? We might begin to look at these changes with wide open vision, and examine our beliefs, our traditions in the light of this fire, and do what we can to create new understanding. Where once there was trust and belief, we must find new ways of coping. Where once there were rituals fit for a world that is behind us, we need new ways to make sense of the world in which we now live.