h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Who diagnoses a nation to be mentally defective and who is offering the cure?

It's common enough for respected scholars and historians to use the phrase 'mass hysteria' to refer to certain times, places and events. Isn't it the same thing?

I can only offer that I know a thing or two about sanity on the individual as well as collective level from personal experience. You don't have to respect my ideas on these matters of course.

For those who do want to know:

In Apartheid South Africa for a time the government succeeded in fooling most white people, mainly during the sixties, seventies and early eighties. But we were during those times open to outside influences. The newspapers and television broadcasts were censored, but we did get news from overseas, we saw American, British, German and French television shows and movies (not so much German or French but certainly lots of American and British). Then as well, we had lots of intelligent white people in government who realised something was not right. But ... they were not heard in the media, for long anyways. There was a bit of 'conspiring' by liberal whites behind the scenes in order to in various ways subvert the Apartheid system or to work towards getting the hard-liners to soften. There were attempts at alternative media, that told us what the mass media didn't. The system started to crack in the mid to late eighties, and more and more white people realized something was seriously wrong. In the late eighties even schoolkids like myself could see the writing on the wall.

Basically I would say what is necessary: openness. The country must remain open to influences and views from other countries; that gives citizens views to counter their own. Just knowing that these other views exist is already a great factor in moderating extreme views.

Also, education. A country with a sophisticated educational system is sure to produce people who will question officialdom.

Things to worry about: censorship, trying to close a country to outside views. On that count I'm very worried about North Korea and also China to a lesser extent, but China is so big and in itself diverse that there's a far lesser likelihood of 'single-view thinking' there.

What worries me about my own country right now: Afrikaans people are 'pulling laager' ... they are in defensive mode, and seeing enemies everywhere. Speaking with each other and with people with the same views, seeing people with different views as enemies. There is hardly any actual political debate, *or* debate about social issues. This worries me very much. I also see a breathtaking naïveté, in all population groups. People are way too eager to trust the new leaders. We still have a problem with education, we are way behind in giving everybody a comprehensive and decent education, so there is little intelligent and informed debate about many things.

A thing I'm noticing on the 'net is people pulling into groups of people with shared interests and views. They reinforce one another's views and in these groups may have little contact with people with different views, and with group members seen as normal, outsiders as weird ... not in itself a harmful thing but in the end *any* views can find a number of people sharing them, no matter how extreme those views might be, and in the groups become 'normalized' and people only maintaining contact with other group members end up not paying attention to other views. This is the start of all sorts of dangerous things.

The niche-marketing of ideas is a good point. The internet is, indeed, full of fora where group-think is reinforced.

>> In Apartheid South Africa for a time the government succeeded in fooling most white people, mainly during the sixties, seventies and early eighties. But we were during those times open to outside influences. <<

In what way did the South African government fool most of the white people? What exactly were the white people fooled into? Where they fooled into believing that "apartheid was right", or something else?

the internet is open to somebut certain counties have mega blocks on what can be viewed etc by it's populous.

paranoia is a good word for some rulers

ps I only had an issue with one of the things Willem said (my earlier comment), I can tell from his personal space etc that he is a good guy, and I generally applaud his approach to life etc. If there were more people like him in the world I think the world would be a better place. Just saying

Noted and agreed on.

I think it's true - because I remember that time - that the South African government did a lot of propagandising to sell the idea of apartheid to its people.

In Europe, meanwhile, talented performers like 'Mitzi Wildebeest' did the opposite - tried to get people to oppose apartheid.

Before you change something like that, you've got to change minds.

re 23:

Some excellent points there, Willem

When I call my postings here "some thoughts" it is because I (quite often) haven't made my mind up yet. Not completely anyway. Why would I take part in a discussion if I were already completely closed to sensible arguments? So I play the s advocate in an attempt to smoke out those arguments, so to speak.

I guess we're all doing the same? Just saying.

Not many years ago it was commonly agreed that other countries should not interfere in a single country's internal affairs. Not until the country in question constituted a threat to its neighbours.

That doesn't mean we should not offer to help North Korea. Unconditionally. Buying peace with grain would turn famine into our political instrument. Not nice. Right?

Not necessarily, I think. Offering to help as a way to win peace can lead to discussion, maybe?

I think that humantarian aid should be offered without any pre-conditions other that there is some kind of agreed monitoring to see that it gets to the right places.

You can argue that even offering famine relief props up a regieme that can needs to be toppled but I don't think that you can steer people into that sort of action in this way they just starve

There are plenty of other economic sanctions that can bring pressure to bear, and these too will not help the poor, a crippled ecomony is not going to have nice results, but you have got to draw your lines somewhere

I take your point.

I think that if you offer aid, you're going to get reciprocity, anyway. It doesn't have to be tit for tat.

Admittedly, some people just take advantage, but by and large, if you offer the aid enough, sooner or later, you'll make friends.

In the case of North Korea I don't think you should or could expect recipocity for offering that sort of aid, the least you could expect is not having it flung back at you that you didn't do anything

For me it just comes down can you live with people starving to death if you can do anything about it, which is a no

There are other ways that I think you can sanction North Korea to bring them to the table, that will obviously hit people at the bottom of the pile but not everyone is there and these actions can be more targetted, they are more empowered to look at other ways to reacting to and inter-acting with the outside world and to influence internal dymamics than the starving ones are, they have little or no influence they 'just' die

one of mankind's favourite saying "what's in it for me"

even down to humanitarian aid etc

Offering help to North Korea might be regarded as interference. Think Mother-in-law saying: "here is some soup" and you imagining her finishing the sentence in her/your own head: "since your husband is not able to provide"

I never had a Mum-in-law like that but I've been around the block often enough to imagine

North Koreans do not like to lose face (who does?) and asking anything in return for helping the common citizen would probably just lead to the latter starving.

...added to which, let's not kid ourselves that our governments particularly care whether the 'common citizen' in North Korea starves or not.

some times the western governments need incentives to send aid and the like - ie: have they oil

I'm listening. Much food for thought, here.

The question may be less, 'How do we deal with North Korea's pride/paranoia?' than, 'How do we deal with our own governments' reluctance to do anything for anybody but themselves and their own cronies?'

Quite possibly. It might be something we, personally, have a greater chance of influencing, anyway.

I've always advocated put the "warring/arguing" fractions in a locked (on suite)room and you don't come out until an agreement is reached.

too many "meetings" and come away blank due to politics and dogma