Friday, October 16, 2020

Weekend Literary Supplement: The Climate Trials, Part Three

In this week's instalment of The Climate Trials, we learn a little more about the trials themselves, why the help Mikhail has received from Isabeau isn't more widely available, and, some hints about who the Old Ones are.

&&&&

Court Procedures Used By the Climate Trials

Preface by Conrad Splitzer, JD, Phd, Monash University, Australia.

The “Climate Trials” that marked the end of the “age of destruction and desolation” and the beginning of the present time of “preservation and restoration” were a radical departure from the jurisprudence traditions that reached back to the Roman Empire. The essential differences came about due to the following changes in emphasis and court structure:

  1. No attempt was made to try individuals. Instead, the defendants consisted of ideas and institutions.

  2. Court proceedings did not follow the dictates of case law, but rather that of inductive and deductive logic.

  3. Decisions were presided over not by individuals with a background in law, but instead in science and philosophy---who had a proven expertise in inductive and deductive logic.

  4. The verdicts rendered had no actual direct impact on law, but were designed to exert maximum force of moral suasion throughout the entire human race.

The Climate Trials were specifically based on the idea that the best way to change human behaviour is not through the coercive power of the state, but rather through the persuasive power of culture. They literally were trials in “the court of public opinion”.

The people who organized the trials realized that humanity was not only facing an unprecedented existential threat in the form of climate change, but that as a result it was also facing an equally unprecedented rapid change in human culture. This was the emergence of a universal human civilization based on the World Wide Web.

The first element of human civilization to understand the importance of the Web was the academic and scientific community. But shortly thereafter it became recognized by the forces of international capital as being a new community that could be colonized and exploited for financial gain. Almost immediately afterwards, reactionary forces desperate to preserve the supremacy of the nation state recognized that the Web could be weaponized as a means of controlling mass populations. This was not done by restricting the information “signal” (which was impossible to do in the Web), but by “jamming” it (like jamming a radio signal) in an avalanche of nonsensical pseudo-information “noise”. As political commentators pointed out while this was happening, the aim of the populist/neo-fascists wasn’t to keep people from finding out the truth---it was destroying people’s belief that there was any such thing as truth at all. This was widely manifested in a general, non-specific belief that “all politicians are the same” and “all news is bullshit”.

If everyone thinks all politicians are the same, then no new political movement can emerge to threaten the status quo. And if all news is bullshit, then no one bothers to pay attention to what is happening around them.

In retrospect it is now obvious that the rise of the populists happened because the so-called “neo-liberal consensus” had out-lived it’s usefulness. (Indeed, if it ever did have any utility at all.) Politicians all over the world had no answers to the problem of wealth-stratification that became “super-charged” in the Web-based, tech “gold rush”. Nor were they capable of providing any sort of answers to the climate emergency. Finally, under neo-liberal leadership, democratic institutions proved incapable of predicting, reacting, or, dealing with the threat offered by the culture jamming signals emanating from organizations like Cambridge Analytica and the Russian-financed “Internet Research Agency”.

There were several reasons for this failure to respond. For example, the neo-liberal consensus was based on a fundamentalist belief in free market solutions. In fact, this ideology was so “locked in” that most government leaders were psychologically incapable to understand the importance of redistribution for a functioning democratic society. Moreover, their commitment to the status quo meant that they were bound to always choose incremental over radical solutions. The result was a seemingly infinite number of “baby steps” that led nowhere but to a cliff that was increasingly obvious to anyone outside of the ruling class.

Liberal democracy was especially incapable of dealing with Web-based propaganda because one of it core principals---freedom of speech---had become “weaponized” through the creation of an implicit doctrine of “free-speech absolutism”. This ceased being about allowing the down-trodden the right to speak “truth to power”, and instead became about allowing the wealthy and powerful the right to drown out any other voices. It was as if a New England Town Hall Meeting had decided to allow a heavy metal band to come in and crank it’s amplifiers to “11” while the community was trying to work out it’s school budget.

It became evident to the people who organized the Climate Trials that what was needed was not a return to the old, discredited, and, obsolete mechanisms of neo-liberalism, but rather a new set of institutions that were egalitarian, post-capitalist, and, based on the Web. To that end, when Mikhail Bookchin created his web-channel, there was a tremendous hunger for anything that could break the logjam that stopped reform. He did this through the simple idea that the outward form of a criminal trial could be used show that the existing system was strangling humanity’s future. The fact that he had assembled a team of brilliant communicators to act out this drama allowed billions of people to clearly and precisely understand the core problems that humanity now faced. And this---finally---released the blockage and swept away the old “culture of destruction”.

&&&&

Here I am putting out my begging bowl. I know many people are down-and-out right now. I don't want anything from you. But other folks are doing OK. For you, why not buy a subscription? It's easy to do with Patreon and Pay Pal. This blog is an attempt to prove that it is possible to create an independent media that isn't beholding to corporate sponsors, government bail outs, and, doesn't have to hide itself from low income people by using a pay wall. Whether or not this business model proves itself all comes down to you---the readers. 

&&&&

Mikhail received another essay from the Old Ones expanding on the previous one.

Sub-Populations in Altruistic Species

One of the implications of selfish gene theory is that within large populations of altruistic species there may exist sub-populations of parasites that take advantage of altruism while not reciprocating. This is called the “free rider problem”. Popular language describes the altruistic instinct as being “a conscience”. Free riders are, in effect, people without consciences.

This won’t happen with species like ants or bees, where the entire hive has the same mother. This is simply because none of the truly selfish individuals (as opposed to the genes) have the opportunity to reproduce because all workers are sterile. And any queen termite or ant that produced significant percentages of selfish workers would place her colony at a survival disadvantage, so evolution would select against that specific genetic trait.

In species like humans, however, the free rider problem comes into play because selfish individuals are able to reproduce. In small tribes where each individual is known by every other, this doesn’t become a problem because it soon becomes apparent who is working for the good of the tribe and who is not. Individuals without an instinctual altruistic conscience either learn to mimic the helping behaviour of other individuals, or, they end up banished from the tribe---and thereby removed from the gene pool.

Free rider parasitism only became a significant issue when humanity started the transition from tribal organization to larger groupings such as cities, empires, and, states. From this point onward it was possible to effectively hide past and present behaviour from other individuals, allowing free riders to hide their true intentions. In effect, among other developments, civilization facilitated the ability to convincingly lie to other human beings.

From a strictly evolutionary point of view, free riders have the ability to steal more resources than they are entitled to from the general population. This increases their ability to survive periods of scarcity. In addition, they are able to shirk dangerous duties, which also increases genetic viability. Finally, the males are able to reproduce with females when they have no intention of ever helping raise the offspring (either through seduction or rape.) While it’s true that this will decrease the survival rate for the children, and the mother’s genes---it will increase the number of children that the male will be able to produce---which increases the success for his genes.

It must be understood, however, that there is a specific maximum percentage of free riders in any population. This is because lacking a conscience is only an advantage in a population where the majority of people have one. Any population that consisted of a free rider majority---or even a particularly dominant minority---would spend so much of its energy in wasteful competition that any group of genuinely altruistic people who bonded together would be sufficiently efficient to out-compete it. (Think about, for example, a military contest between a functioning modern democracy and a third-world “kleptocracy”. It would obviously be a totally one-sided contest.)

Unfortunately the hierarchical structures of cities, empires, and, states have created further problems beyond anonymity. That is to say, people who lack a conscience have an advantage in the political power-plays that control access to the top decision-making positions. This can cause disastrous problems when the culture is under stress---such as the current Climate Emergency. People without consciences lack the ability to consider the good of the entire community when they make decisions.

Fortunately, there is another sub-population besides those with no conscience. These are others who have a super-abundance of altruistic instincts. These individuals almost always put the good of the community ahead of their own well-being. The popular language identifies these people as “saints”. This would not appear to be a winning strategy for reproduction, but because the altruistic genes do have an overall value in the whole population, another mathematical equilibrium asserts itself the same way it does with free riders. Saints will never be more than a small segment of the population, but the advantage altruism conveys to all individuals ensures a high enough percentage of the necessary genes to ensure that there will always be saints in any population. (Remember, benefits accruing to the entire population will also result in increased reproduction of the genes carried by brothers, sisters, nieces, and, nephews. All of which overlap to a greater or lessor degree with those of the “saint”.)

And like the free riders, civilization has also created a mechanism that allows saints to assert influence beyond their mere numbers would indicate. Culture, in the form of philosophy, religion, literature, and so on , which allow saints to amplify their influence through memes.

&&&&

Who are the Old Ones?

One day Mikhi asked Isabeau exactly who the Old Ones are. She explained that she wasn’t one of them, so what follows was speculation based on her own personal observations, but she didn’t think that they were “superior beings” or possessors of anything magical. They were simply people who were part of a tradition that reached back for thousands of years.

I suppose you could say that in the beginning they were something like proto-scientists who never made the transition to using the modern scientific method. What I mean is that modern science is objective, whereas what they do is subjective.”

Think about your arthritis. If you’d gone to a regular doctor, she’d have probably prescribed some sort of medication. As a general rule---actually sort of an gross over simplification, but just forget about that for the purposes of this discussion---the pills she could prescribe would work equally well for everyone. The exercises I’ve given you would only work for about one person in 1000. That’s not because of anything that can be seen in your physical body, but rather because of your particular personality. Most people wouldn’t do the work. And even if they did, they wouldn’t be able to grasp the subtle details that make them really effective. Instead, they’d just consider it something to rush through---like the push-ups they endured in their high school phys ed classes.”

Seen from the totally objective viewpoint of modern medicine, the exercises only have something like .1% success rate. That makes them fundamentally worthless for modern scientific medicine. But what if someone was able to identify the one person in 1,000 who would be able to actually benefit from the exercises? If everyone they taught the exercises to had their arthritis helped, wouldn’t the success rate be 100%?”

The problem is, however, that it takes a special type of insight---that personality thing---to be able to recognize those particular individuals who could benefit from the exercises. Again, let’s say one person in 1,000. If only one person in 1,000 can identify the people who would benefit, then we’re back to only 0.1% effectiveness.”

And there is a significant wrinkle that you need to consider. How does someone who is one of the 0.1% that could benefit from the exercises know that the person who is telling them to do something---like the exercises I taught you---is actually one of the 0.1% who actually knows what they are talking about? There aren’t any universities awarding special diplomas to people who can recognize and teach stuff like this.”

Let me correct myself, there aren’t any credible institutions awarding diplomas. There are, however, schools that do purport to be run by “Masters” of esoteric wisdom. The problem with the concept of ‘Mastery’ is that once it steps beyond the very mundane examples of ‘Master plumber’ or ‘Master of science’, the title becomes a trap. Pretty much all human beings---to a greater or lessor degree---have an instinct that pushes them to have their ego reinforced and built up. In addition, human beings---also to a greater or lessor degree---seek someone that can answer all their questions and save them from the uncertainty and ambiguity of life.”

These two innate tendencies create very unhealthy group dynamics. They are so unhealthy that even if the teacher and the student both are members of that one in 1,000 types that I am talking about, they will inevitably waste most of their potential dancing around the “Master-student” relationship. Even if a person is a “real Master” and has genuine insights to teach they will often succumb to the temptations that come from being surrounded by students that will do anything that they say. Similarly, students who might benefit greatly from learning a real esoteric teaching are often---at least partially---also looking for a “big daddy” that will tell them how to live their life. Things could start out well, but they usually degrade over time and the group becomes more and more dysfunctional and counter-productive. This is how most cults and the world’s religions came into being.

The original Old Ones identified this problem and found themselves stuck on the horns of a dilemma. If they tried to spread what insights they’d gained widely, they knew that they would quickly become twisted into something that was at best worthless and at worst down-right destructive. But if they kept what they had learned to themselves, they knew that it would eventually die out with them. This would mean that the human race would have no opportunity to build upon the work of previous generations and create an advancing historical movement.”

Isabeau quietly poured both of them a cup of tea to let what she had said sink in.

So what they decided was to be content publishing clues and hints in a few books and remain a totally secret group otherwise. The books are out there, and really bright individuals are able to figure out bits and pieces on their own. If members of the secret society of Old Ones came across an individual that seemed to be able to understand what they had to say, they were approached and tested to see if they could become part of the group. Slowly---very slowly---the Old Ones spread across the world and became embedded in every culture on the planet. But they have always remained a tiny fraction of the population.”

Then the Internet came along. This gives the Old Ones a new ability to communicate among themselves and reach out to potential new members---like yourself. Unfortunately, at the same time the human race is going through a bottle-neck in it’s evolution. Our alienation from the ecosystems that sustain us have reached a crisis level. We need to deal with the Climate Emergency, dramatically shrink the human population, preserve and restore wildlife, deal with imbalances in the nitrogen cycle, and so on. The Elders have initiated crash programs aimed at engineering “fixes” to our culture that will make these projects a priority. They want you to help just one of many---although there is a hope that it might be particularly useful.”

Mikhi was pensive for a few moments. He then decided to ask what he feared might be a “career limiting” question. “Wow. This sounds like a real conspiracy. How do these guys decide on what to do, who to talk to, etc? Is there an election? A governing committee? Annual conventions?”

Isabeau smiled. “Nope, nothing like that. Or at least nothing I know about. (I get mysterious information by email just like you.) But there’s no coercion. And I’ve never been asked to do something “just because” and the explanation why it needs doing always seems to make perfect sense. And it’s never been anything of a sinister ‘the ends justify the means’ sort.”

I asked the same question as you when I was first recruited. As it was explained to me, throughout most of its history the group was under threat of being denounced and destroyed as a danger to the rulers. There have been Old Ones who lived in empires, theocracies, totalitarian states, etc. And most of these governments were protected by paranoid, brutal security apparatuses.”

Did you know, for example, that the late Roman Empire was so afraid of citizen-based movements that it outlawed volunteer fire departments? In most states any rumour that the Old Ones existed would have led to pogroms, crusades, witch-hunts, etc. Indeed, how many of these stains on history may have come about because of poorly understood stories about the Elders that leaked out to the general public? Indeed, how many Old Ones did end up burnt at the stake while being denounced as being something very different?”

As a result, information has tended to be spread simply on a ‘need to know’ basis. Luckily, the Old Ones really do seem to believe that people shouldn’t do anything unless it makes sense to them. This means that I’ve never seen anything like an ‘order’ in the sense of something I have to do without explanation. Another important issue is that when they ask people to do something it’s not because the person has proved to be obedient, but rather because they have a known level of expertise. This means that they get asked to do something, not told how to do it. (To do otherwise would go against just about everything the Old Ones stand for.) So I’m told to help someone with their arthritis, not told how to do it. This is very different from how terrorist cells operate---if that’s in the back of your mind.”

She smiled at Mikhi.

And, of course, it should be.”

&&&&

Moreover, I say unto you the Climate Emergency must be dealt with!

No comments:

Post a Comment