So, do economic values trump everything?

Dec. 20, 2011

Want to be spoon fed an apologist's resolved defeat in an all you can eat, bottomless barrage of fatalism?  If this sounds like something you could go for right now, read today's TIME Science article "Winning the Conservation War: How to Manage the World We're Stuck with"

It really crystallizes so much of what's wrong, and what cannot be made right in the world.  The mainstream mentality so often heard now, complacency. 

So, Time's piece encourages us to be complicit to a "reality" to which we are subjected and of which we are subjects at once;
From the article:

"...a recent scientific review that looked at 240 studies of different types of ecosystems following major disturbances like deforestation or oil spills, and found that the abundance of plant and animal species recovered at least partially in 72% of them."

They call this "winning."
How very Anemic and pathetic.
In this Time article, the most solemn and sickening sentence I see is this:

"In a world where economic values almost always trump environmental ones this may be the best we hope for"

So, do economic values trump everything?  Maybe in a world to which the apologists would damn us all.  In that world, those who would think of revolting, the message is, "You Lose."

It seems to me there is often displayed in certain corners of the media, this arrogant agreement toward conciliation. A "bow" to moneyed interests which seemingly prevail in all aspects of the physical world to a degree that is disheartens if you know of no other reality.

There is certainly a tense resolve in our collective situation that can urge most of us toward denial and distractions a-plenty.  The burdensome sense of truth is met with what must surely be the ultimate, "Fuck It!" a la the Bohemian Grove's infamous "Cremation of Care" ritual. 

Some folks really know no other way than the one they're in, and the one that is also, in effect, doled out to us.   Some, likely most, folks wake in the morning to a reality that more and more, they did not choose for themselves; they wake to a life that is less and less of their own design. We are born into a prescribed sense of fatalism, we are defined. We are defeated.

But are we damned?

If not, then, what does saving ourselves even look like?

We cannot choose to walk, or ride Bicycles instead of driving a car because, in many areas there are too many dangers.   Limited or nonexistent access to this option or many others leads some to fight for bike-lanes and awareness.  Some take this front and a few in some more progressive urban areas make it their life's work.  It is one battle in the war.

We can seek out or work to build up alternative economies, smaller, local economies.  Worker  Co-ops.   Local barter groups,  "hours exchange" programs,  local currencies.   Buy from makers you know.  Make for ourselves, DIY.    Skillshares.   Many actively reject the extreme specialization that creates dependency on the destructive system.  "Don't be a cog."   Some take this front.  It is one battle in the war.

We look for ways to reuse things, recycle, use it up, make do.... but then we learn that recycling garbage into fabric and selling it back to us is bad for the oceans... It's all garbage.  A plastic world.  Garbage in, garbage out. The laws of conservation of matter are a real bitch.
Solution: Choose local, organic foods. Organic fibers. Natural organic fibers. Flax. Hemp. Cotton. Wool. Non gmo.  This is another front.

We innovate, cut back, shore up and access renewable energy. Some opt for wind, photovoltaics, masonary stoves, coppicing managed woodlots, use of passive solar, fuels made from recycled vegetable oil, alternative building, alternative lifestyles, public transport, rail...
Another front.

In the city, programs are underway to figure out how to grow food vertically, or to reclaim and remediate such nastiness as mercury and lead in unused lots through a process of chelating pollution by growing sunflowers. Growing healthy food nearby. Security from fluctuating food prices, and processed foods that make us sick... Food justice.  It is one of life's greatest pleasures to understand what there is to appreciate about the ability to eat healthy, tasty, slow food. When more people come to see what factory farms are really up to, we can choose to become vegetarians or vegans, even for only one day a week, and it cuts the problem by 1/7th.
Another front.

We can demand, or build our own, homes that are within the landscape, not on it. We can build with natural materials, locally sourced, renewable. We can live in homes that are scaled down, comforting, nurturing, protective. As it turns out efficient and small is also smart. The opportunity to adopt minimalism is always at hand. Give away "stuff", and stop buying more. Far more people can choose to go with a low tech lifestyles, head on back to the earth. Alternative building. Rammed earth. Strawbale.   Another front...

So the more this information is shared, becomes known, becomes our first hand experience, then the more support for our own industriousness at hand instead of industry imposed upon us we shall see. (Unless we're repeatedly denied access to such occasion, experiential learning, information, and resources, which is why co-ops and community initiatives are of vital importance now.)

It is in us, we have evolved to sow and grow, and it is still with us since long before marketplaces, or our propensity to sell and buy.

As it turns out, it's helpful, healthful to green things up, and it's not "rocket science", though science is immensely helpful when applied to something of use.

Back to the earth.

Will more and more of us move away from the technology, refusing to be "in on it",  or will we continue to play along nicely?

It is becoming harder for the dungeon masters to convince the players to continue on with the status quo.  It's becoming obvious that human beings will fuck a majority of their own selves out of existence on the current trajectory.

By creating my own life, right where I am and wherever I go in the future, I can increase my own "environmental values" in all the ways I possibly can find to do so. Breaking from a world where economic values trumps all else. Finding out ways and means to make my whole life, everything about it, into an endeavor of activism and protest.
over 30 years ago,  my dad abandoned my mom and I.  When he came to get his remaining things, I questioned his cold stare. I mustered the guts to ask him how he could sit there and watch his own daughter cry like that and not even flinch. He said, "That's just the way it is"
To this day, these words lift me out of complacency, out of apathy, and move me to action, because that was how it was to him, in his world. In my world, what was happening was inconceivable, and remains so to this day.
I am sick of having the values of the world explained to me, being told, this is just how it is.

When I make up my mind that I simply refuse to be complicit in predefined, status quo, traditions that support the reality that was created for me without my say, that alone eliminates a reality that has been dictated to me, and all in my society.      I strive to see, and hope to understand the world, not based on what I've been told, or what others believe, but solely on face value.  I want to see the reality in the world for what it is; Not for what others see, or what I'm told it is, So often there is a pre-arranged lie everyone agrees upon.  Everyone goes around telling each other these same lies again and again.   

The path less chosen...

Something is happening on the planetary scale. Humans have caused a lot of damage to our planet over the course of very short time. We have withdrawn from having direct experience in nature, and turned toward symbolic realities; we have a tolerance for being crowded, we can get by in managed artificial environments, we survive through commercialization, relying solely on socially facilitated constructs of nature.  We are at a crossroads, and one way continues on the status quo, the other will be very challenging.  Change is difficult and even when one wants it, it is hard won.

Seven Tactics for Denying The Truth

Seven tactics for denying the truth:
Source: Consumerism, People Systems, Society, Village Development — by Nikos A. Salingaros February 9, 2011

by Nikos A. Salingaros, The University of Texas at San Antonio

1. The “Ostrich” technique — (Tuning Out, Selective Exposure).

Comes into action when you — the questioner — are talking to a person — the subject — and present evidence that his or her beliefs about a topic are wrong. Cognitive dissonance creates a high state of stress, which is unpleasant, so the subject responds by blocking what is being said. In a common physiological response, the subject tunes out the message and severs the channel of communication, just staring back with a blank look. Withdrawing from reality ends further engagement with the questioner. [A popular myth is that the Ostrich reacts to threats by digging a hole and hiding its head in the sand; in fact, the Ostrich lies down to look like a lump.]

2. The “Rhinoceros” technique — (Source Derogation).

involves attacking the questioner while ignoring the question. This action could range from politely disputing the questioner’s credentials and expertise, to implying a corrupt or dishonest motive (i.e. a deliberate ploy), to outright insults and violence. The questioner could be accused of being brainwashed, even though the subject is more likely the one holding onto mistaken beliefs in this instance. Any pretext that can justify a personal attack on the questioner is useful. A real or imagined social, religious, or racial difference between the questioner and subject can be brought up in a classic prejudicial attack: for example, the questioner is accused of being fascist, totalitarian, communist, anarchist, etc. [When annoyed or threatened in any way, the Rhinoceros just puts its head down and charges the source of annoyance.]

3. The “Eel” technique — (Displacement, Disputing Rationality).

a response that engages at some minimal level, but the response is founded upon irrationality. The person holding the false belief — the subject — answers that the issue does not depend upon facts, but is instead purely a matter of opinion. Clinging to this absurdity, however, any rational discussion would be extraneous to the topic and logical argument is futile. There is some minimal engagement but no analysis. The existing false belief is maintained intact and free of any threat from revision because it has been displaced into the realm of opinion as far as the subject is concerned. [The skin of an Eel is covered by slimy mucus so that when someone tries to catch one, it slips out of grasp.]

4. The “Squid” technique — (Irrational Counterarguing).

invents evidence that obscures what the questioner is claiming. In protecting an irrational belief, the subject who holds such a belief is forced to introduce many irrelevant arguments. The problem is that the subject is supporting an irrational belief against the questioner’s competing rational thesis backed by logic and facts. Using verification as the basis for arguing could settle the argument very quickly, but that is never the case. The strategy’s goal is to fully engage in order to confuse the issue and retain the false belief, not to allow it to be questioned. It is impossible to produce a coherent logic to defend an irrational held belief. [The Squid frustrates its predators by releasing a cloud of ink in the water, making it impossible to see anything and facilitating its escape.]

5. The “Lizard” technique — (Selective Support, Attitude Bolstering).

a method of ignoring the evidence presented against a false belief, and instead bringing in other peripheral and distracting pieces of information that might seem to support the false belief. Here the subject tries to build up a logical but tangential edifice for supporting his or her false belief, skirting around the main logical objections to the belief itself, and employing a diversionary tactic. There is no direct engagement on the fundamental issue, only clever side-stepping. [The Lizard drops its still-wiggling tail to divert attention elsewhere while it escapes.]

6. The “Chameleon” technique.

utilizes basic deception to agree with the questioner. The subject listens sympathetically to the arguments. Possibly, the subject may be impressed at that instance by the logic, facts, and rational arguments, but even if this is an honest conviction, it is totally superficial and fleeting. The moment the subject is back in his or her usual milieu, he or she reverts to the original basis of misinformation. [The Chameleon changes its skin color to adapt to its environment and to social situations, responding to temperature, light conditions, mood, and sexual attraction. The change is temporary, and changing color for camouflage is only one aspect of this behavior.]

7. The “Self-justifying Prosecutor” technique — (Inferred Justification).

justifies believing misinformation because it is accepted by authority and/or by the group majority. Presumably, something that is settled should not be questioned. No rational reason is needed for the initial acceptance of misinformation, just groupthink. What happens next is crucial, however: the subject’s brain evolves circuits to create a seemingly rational explanation after the fact. Once that stage has been accomplished, then to the subject holding the false belief, it appears natural and obviously true. The subject claims that the consequences of this false belief (which may be substantial and even catastrophic) actually justify the belief itself. This thought process follows a perverted inverse logic, which assembles a fictitious backwards chain of reasoning to justify misinformation. The colorful label “Self-justifying Prosecutor” is drawn from the criminal justice system. Researchers documented the refusal of judges, prosecuting attorneys, detectives, and police officers to admit to error after a conviction was later reversed through DNA evidence (Tavris & Aronson, 2007). It is very common for the involved parties in the system to stubbornly dismiss the DNA testing and to reinterpret the old evidence so as to justify the original verdict, getting very angry with others in the same system who are re-opening cases already closed. The bottom line — which is never openly expressed — is that admitting error puts the entire system at risk, thus every effort must be made to deny the mistake. The need for self-justification leads prosecutors to use an inverted logic by which if a person actually went to jail, or was executed, then this outcome in itself is sufficient to justify the process that led to that person’s conviction.