Just a suggestion from an experienced editor: consider splitting this excellent overview into parts.
That said, you're missing one vital element of that 50-year program of indoctrination. In 1987, in the name of Education Reformâ„¢, Ronald Reagan ended several decades of innovation in education and reinstated the Rockefeller curriculum as the law of the land. Because federal funding for it was essential, especially in inner urban districts,schools had no choice but to bow to the establishment of standardized tests as the sole determinate of educational outcomes.
Thus, we now have an undereducated population trained not to think but to passively receive information from those they are told know what needs to be known and repeat it when called on. More recently, neurolinguistic programming has been applied to install trigger words specific to the main demographics controlled by the two branches of what has been a political uniparty since 1992. Once you know what to look for, those are easily identified.
Don't take my word for it. Just pay attention to what happens if you challenge one of the popular narratives with contradictory facts if those facts are expressed using the standard words and phrases, like "racism" and "right to life". The result is terrifyingly predictable.
Thanks for your input, Liz. This is not only a problem in the US. I am struggling to make students think in Switzerland, where I teach. After 12 years of school, many expect the lecturer to tell them what they need to know to pass the next exam. When challenged with a problem without a well-defined answer, they seem genuinely confused. This means that their "knowledge" can easily be replaced by AI, as pointed out by George Monbiot (https://www.monbiot.com/2023/07/17/thinking-about-thinking/). Bernhard Avishai was right: "The danger from computers is not that they will eventually get as smart as people, but we will meanwhile agree to meet them halfway."
This is brilliant. Excellent prose jam-packed with real whoppers; it even includes plenty of links for delving deeper.
I do believe it correctly identifies some of the fundamental cornerstones of our current predicament. Sadly, there are more than just these, which is why I believe we are fundamentally screwed no matter what (I recently began blogging about this myself). And so, the only thing left to do is try to mitigate the fallout as best we can.
Postman's book was one of my favourite reads this year. Apart from his excellent points, his prose is blistering.
Hiya, the image that followed the paragraph on the dumbing down of Zoo animals was of pigs farmed for humans to eat- very likely crammed into alleys ready for slaughter at about 6 months old.
Not only are they 'domesticated' and 'dumbed down' they unwittingly contribute significantly more to greenhouse gases than plant based diets.
The provision of animal products removed from the realities of life, pain and death has also made the consumer stupid.
Henrik Nordborg, this may be the best integral analysis of the current global predicament and the cultural and political-economic sources, I have read. It captures so much of the elements of the global emergency. Especially important is the integration of some much older essential analyses such as my old favorites, Galbraith, Borstein, and of course, Meadows, et al. This should be a 'must-read' for the many 'environmentalists' who remain trapped in the illusion of solving 'the problem' within the extant system, and who are deceived by the fossil-fuel propaganda re carbon capture, etc., as explained so well by Genevieve Guenther in The Language of Climate Politics: Fossil-Fuel Propaganda and How to Fight It.
Time well spent. It resonates so well with my new book, Holding IT Together: Social Control in and Age of Great Transformation, that I feel I need to read it again.
This is an enlightening post. Thank you, Henrik. I’d like to add a point to your macro view on capital income. Our pension plans also reinforce this status quo. In most countries of the Global North, fear of financial insecurity in retirement keeps us heavily invested in maintaining the current system, making meaningful, sustainable change almost impossible. In this way, we have become prisoners of our system.
Another excellent article from Henrik. Yes, fossil fuels have allowed humans (mainly in the West) to create a monster society which allowed people to become very wealthy and powerful, so who would want to give up that now? The fossil fuel industry has about 1 trillion dollars of profits per year, I think only Nature will eventually defeat this big monster.
"SRF: Society and politics are doing too little to combat climate change. Why?
Jens Beckert: It's a complicated matter. In my opinion, several things are important. The first problem: the fossil energy industry makes around a trillion US dollars in profits per year. They have done so for 50 years. Do you think they'll give up their profits just because the temperature is rising a little, if I can put it cynically?"
No, we would have to force them. The idea is to make the oil companies an offer they cannot refuse: 1) either they pay climate compensation and can continue to operate, or 2) we will go after them will legal action, political measures, and activism. Ideally, an fossil fuel company that does not pay should be treated like a drug cartel. Since paying climate compensation would not hurt the short-term profits of the companies, the shareholders would be likely to vote for option 1. Note that there are only a small number of fossil fuel companies. Why should we let a small number of guys in suites and ties destroy the future of our children?
Henrik- Thank you for sharing these. I particularly liked the side by side comparison on the Vatican and USB architecture as a point on who’s in charge. Hope you’re well this week? Cheers, -Thalia
Here's my simplistic version: too many humans using too many natural resources and producing too much pollution, including GHGs (water vapor is the most important) and heat energy/global heating. Thanks of your laudable efforts.
This is such a wide ranging article and has clearly taken much thought and time in its conception and writing. I feel like my mind has been expanded! I particularly liked the pie charts of global population versus consumption.
By your own argument, though, I should not believe all this to be true without scientific collaboration yet I do. As much as count myself a rational being I believe that all the scientific proof in the world will not turn this around until we capture hearts and minds. Have you ever had to get a sleepy teenager up to go to school?!
Propaganda has been used for millennia to condition populations and has enabled cohesion and adherence to sustainable values in the best cases and greed and belligerence in the worst. We have to tell better stories that create a positive vision for life on this planet. I think people are ready to hear them. God knows, in the global north we are wandering around the burning sun like lost children but it's the child-snatchers who are making hay.
The carbon tax is the obvious solution to induce a change on a more rapid scale and the redistribution of it to those still suffering from the economic fallout of western imperialism is a given. This can only be a short-term solution, though. Gifting money to those in need retains the power imbalance however well-intentioned. How to rectify this without reproducing the might-is-right paradigm of previous centuries is something I have yet to resolve. The best I have come up with is to lead by example. Let's get our own house in order.
Thank you for the feedback. "Thought-provoking" is precisely the sentiment I was going for. I agree with you that more research would be needed to verify some of the claims I make. However, I feel more like a criminal investigator than a scientist at this point. We need to capture the murderer before he strikes again.
Just a suggestion from an experienced editor: consider splitting this excellent overview into parts.
That said, you're missing one vital element of that 50-year program of indoctrination. In 1987, in the name of Education Reformâ„¢, Ronald Reagan ended several decades of innovation in education and reinstated the Rockefeller curriculum as the law of the land. Because federal funding for it was essential, especially in inner urban districts,schools had no choice but to bow to the establishment of standardized tests as the sole determinate of educational outcomes.
Thus, we now have an undereducated population trained not to think but to passively receive information from those they are told know what needs to be known and repeat it when called on. More recently, neurolinguistic programming has been applied to install trigger words specific to the main demographics controlled by the two branches of what has been a political uniparty since 1992. Once you know what to look for, those are easily identified.
Don't take my word for it. Just pay attention to what happens if you challenge one of the popular narratives with contradictory facts if those facts are expressed using the standard words and phrases, like "racism" and "right to life". The result is terrifyingly predictable.
Thanks for your input, Liz. This is not only a problem in the US. I am struggling to make students think in Switzerland, where I teach. After 12 years of school, many expect the lecturer to tell them what they need to know to pass the next exam. When challenged with a problem without a well-defined answer, they seem genuinely confused. This means that their "knowledge" can easily be replaced by AI, as pointed out by George Monbiot (https://www.monbiot.com/2023/07/17/thinking-about-thinking/). Bernhard Avishai was right: "The danger from computers is not that they will eventually get as smart as people, but we will meanwhile agree to meet them halfway."
Excellent article. When revolution?
I'm working on it ...
This is brilliant. Excellent prose jam-packed with real whoppers; it even includes plenty of links for delving deeper.
I do believe it correctly identifies some of the fundamental cornerstones of our current predicament. Sadly, there are more than just these, which is why I believe we are fundamentally screwed no matter what (I recently began blogging about this myself). And so, the only thing left to do is try to mitigate the fallout as best we can.
Postman's book was one of my favourite reads this year. Apart from his excellent points, his prose is blistering.
Delicious stuff. Thank you. SUBSCRIBED!
Hiya, the image that followed the paragraph on the dumbing down of Zoo animals was of pigs farmed for humans to eat- very likely crammed into alleys ready for slaughter at about 6 months old.
Not only are they 'domesticated' and 'dumbed down' they unwittingly contribute significantly more to greenhouse gases than plant based diets.
The provision of animal products removed from the realities of life, pain and death has also made the consumer stupid.
Henrik Nordborg, this may be the best integral analysis of the current global predicament and the cultural and political-economic sources, I have read. It captures so much of the elements of the global emergency. Especially important is the integration of some much older essential analyses such as my old favorites, Galbraith, Borstein, and of course, Meadows, et al. This should be a 'must-read' for the many 'environmentalists' who remain trapped in the illusion of solving 'the problem' within the extant system, and who are deceived by the fossil-fuel propaganda re carbon capture, etc., as explained so well by Genevieve Guenther in The Language of Climate Politics: Fossil-Fuel Propaganda and How to Fight It.
Thanks. I am glad you liked it. I spent far too much time writing it.
Time well spent. It resonates so well with my new book, Holding IT Together: Social Control in and Age of Great Transformation, that I feel I need to read it again.
This is an enlightening post. Thank you, Henrik. I’d like to add a point to your macro view on capital income. Our pension plans also reinforce this status quo. In most countries of the Global North, fear of financial insecurity in retirement keeps us heavily invested in maintaining the current system, making meaningful, sustainable change almost impossible. In this way, we have become prisoners of our system.
Wonderful article . Thanks
One of the
Best articles I have
Ever read! Thank you.
Thank you for these good, big thoughts. It is hard (but necessary) to accept our shadow. I hope you will keep on.
EXCELLENT discussion paper.
Another excellent article from Henrik. Yes, fossil fuels have allowed humans (mainly in the West) to create a monster society which allowed people to become very wealthy and powerful, so who would want to give up that now? The fossil fuel industry has about 1 trillion dollars of profits per year, I think only Nature will eventually defeat this big monster.
"SRF: Society and politics are doing too little to combat climate change. Why?
Jens Beckert: It's a complicated matter. In my opinion, several things are important. The first problem: the fossil energy industry makes around a trillion US dollars in profits per year. They have done so for 50 years. Do you think they'll give up their profits just because the temperature is rising a little, if I can put it cynically?"
https://www.srf.ch/kultur/gesellschaft-religion/fluten-hitze-und-bergstuerze-klimawandel-killt-heimat-warum-juckt-uns-das-nicht
No, we would have to force them. The idea is to make the oil companies an offer they cannot refuse: 1) either they pay climate compensation and can continue to operate, or 2) we will go after them will legal action, political measures, and activism. Ideally, an fossil fuel company that does not pay should be treated like a drug cartel. Since paying climate compensation would not hurt the short-term profits of the companies, the shareholders would be likely to vote for option 1. Note that there are only a small number of fossil fuel companies. Why should we let a small number of guys in suites and ties destroy the future of our children?
Henrik- Thank you for sharing these. I particularly liked the side by side comparison on the Vatican and USB architecture as a point on who’s in charge. Hope you’re well this week? Cheers, -Thalia
Here's my simplistic version: too many humans using too many natural resources and producing too much pollution, including GHGs (water vapor is the most important) and heat energy/global heating. Thanks of your laudable efforts.
Good luck with the sleuthing!
This is such a wide ranging article and has clearly taken much thought and time in its conception and writing. I feel like my mind has been expanded! I particularly liked the pie charts of global population versus consumption.
By your own argument, though, I should not believe all this to be true without scientific collaboration yet I do. As much as count myself a rational being I believe that all the scientific proof in the world will not turn this around until we capture hearts and minds. Have you ever had to get a sleepy teenager up to go to school?!
Propaganda has been used for millennia to condition populations and has enabled cohesion and adherence to sustainable values in the best cases and greed and belligerence in the worst. We have to tell better stories that create a positive vision for life on this planet. I think people are ready to hear them. God knows, in the global north we are wandering around the burning sun like lost children but it's the child-snatchers who are making hay.
The carbon tax is the obvious solution to induce a change on a more rapid scale and the redistribution of it to those still suffering from the economic fallout of western imperialism is a given. This can only be a short-term solution, though. Gifting money to those in need retains the power imbalance however well-intentioned. How to rectify this without reproducing the might-is-right paradigm of previous centuries is something I have yet to resolve. The best I have come up with is to lead by example. Let's get our own house in order.
Many thanks for a thought provoking piece!
Thank you for the feedback. "Thought-provoking" is precisely the sentiment I was going for. I agree with you that more research would be needed to verify some of the claims I make. However, I feel more like a criminal investigator than a scientist at this point. We need to capture the murderer before he strikes again.
Where are my EGGS?