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

I want to start with a quote by Environmental Lawyer/Activist James Gustave Speth (I hope this quote is accurate and indeed his ... since there's so much stuff falsely attributed by people these days ... but this sounds like a sincere quote):

"I used to think the top environmental problems were biodiversity loss, ecosystem collapse and climate change.

I thought that with 30 years of good science we could address those problems.

"But I was wrong. The top environmental problems are selfishness, greed and apathy ...

"...and to deal with those we need a spiritual and cultural transformation -

"and we scientists don't know how to do that."

Now folks ... please bear with me. Here I am, crazy and alone and alienated here in South Africa ... and I DO KNOW HOW TO DO THAT. I've been studying the matter essentially since I was five; I've been into nature in a spiritual way for essentially my whole life. I know with my head as well as with my heart: I've been building my knowledge base by reading and by personal experience over all these years. I've engaged with politics and culture in my own way, and in religion/spirituality, always essentially the outsider, never letting myself be limited by the views of others, but getting the info in as much as I can. I know the good, bad and ugly of religion, and once again, by massive amounts of reading as well as by massive amounts of personal 'exploration'. I can harmonize science with spirituality and I can harmonize both of those with politics. Looking out over the world right now, I cannot understand *everything*, but there is so much that I do understand. I have built myself a conceptual framework over the years that can rapidly accommodate pretty much every new bit of information. It is vast and not rigid, I've built it in a way so that every crucial piece has numerous supports, so that if one support fails, the whole thing doesn't come crashing down, and yet, the structure itself can change and grow and respond.

I keep reading a lot ... and I don't know of any other person in entire the world who can do what I can do, in terms of doing that thing Speth spoke about, namely effecting a spiritual and cultural transformation (and the RIGHT spiritual and cultural transformation, that is) of all of modern humanity. I absolutely know that I can do this - at least I can't make it happen, but I can supply human society with the knowledge, the ideas, the mental tools, with which indeed precisely that can be done.

What will it take? It will take writing several BIG Books, ranging over ethics, human psychology, evolutionary theory, the philosophy of science, a good look at the practice of human politics over the course of history, an examination of the nature of spirituality ... and I can absolutely do all of that. I can write the books, I can make them easily readable and understandable, I can illustrate them, I can even make them fun and interesting and inspiring and motivating ... I hope. With a little bit of help!

And that's the problem here. I can help ... but I also need help. I can't write those books unless I'm in a situation where I have the available time to write them ... and I still need basic necessities to survive. I need advice! Every bloody day the world situation is getting worse! I know for a fact my writings can help! But so long as I'm a 'nobody' I can write - once I've set the time aside for the writing - but I have no way of getting the writing to the audience - the whole bloody world, starting with the people in power that still have a conscience left - the precious few. And I'm going mad because I know there's something I can do that will work, that will change everything, but I'm not in the position to do it, not in the support system within which I can do it, and I've no idea how to get there! Can anybody help?!

This might not very useful, but it might provoke more comments. What you need is a figurehead a sponsor (not necessarily a financial sponsor) who would open doors and get you help and get you into the public eye somehow.

Your art should open a few doors if you are prepared to get it published, but that could be a slow start.

I hope you get a better response than this post Willem!


One question have you had any ideas that we could discuss?

A link that might help, and confirm I am on the right track.


https://www.huffingtonpost.com/asher-jay/art-as-a-medium-for-actio_b_11727070.html

I think you may need to work with, or through organisations. I don't know what organisations there are in South Africa - the World Wildlife Fund perhaps?

Here, in the UK, I belong to the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, Friends of the Earth, Sussex Wildlife Trust and the Green Party. I know of others such as Greenpeace and the Woodlands Trust working in the environmental field.

What about universities? There might be bursaries or prizes you could apply for.

Best wishes

Hi Bobstafford, no, there's nothing wrong with your ideas and suggestions, I welcome them! And we could speak about them for sure.
Minorvogonpoet ... the thing is, most organizations would likely not like most of what I have to say because they'll think I go too far. My message is not just about ecology, it's about economy also, about science - physics, chemistry, biology - it is an all-encompassing, holistic, philosophical thing, that can't easily (or in fact, at all) be fit into any of the sort of limited agendas such as of those societies you mention. I do belong and interact with many conservation societies here in Polokwane ... but the message I have goes far, far beyond anything they can accommodate .

In essence I want to argue that the problems we humans are experiencing, and causing, are due to us being completely wrong about our own nature and about the very nature of reality and the world we are living in. Correcting and solving the problems will entail an absolutely massive re-conceptualizing of ourselves and everything. It will be a transformation, a revolution. But it is something individuals will have to go through one by one. But once we have enough individuals who've gone through it - and we start connecting them together, with the incredible communication tools we have today - we will have a start of a social revolution on this planet, indeed the kind of social and spiritual revolution the quote with which I started with, speaks of. Once we have communities living according to new - and positive, and empowering - ideas and values, they can start influencing others by practical example rather than merely through words.

And there's a method I want to introduce ... opening an 'idea-space'. This is used for contentious ideas, the idea of an idea-space being a conceptual kind of room inside of which a certain idea can be discussed from scientific, philosophical and spiritual angles, without fear of ridicule - but with everyone involved being *responsible* for trying to get to the real and actual truth, if at all possible.

I also want to discuss the very idea of truth and reality in depth ... because there's more of a problem to it than most people realize.

OK it sounds a strong possabilty if you create a working prototype and invite comments.
The first thing to sort out is who is invited and how do you propase to get them onboard.

Hello, could you perhaps explain what you mean with 'working prototype'?

Opening an 'idea-space'. How do you propose it will work, as there will be some* who ave not participated before.

*Me included

You could try airing some of your ideas here, this being a relatively safe space.

Oh, OK! Well ... it's not a very formal sort of thing, but my idea of the 'rules' for an idea-space would be:

First of all, like I said, a conceptual kind of room for discussion ... but it can happen online, on a 'blog', or offline with people coming together to discuss ... probably with the result of such a discussion then later posted online, or published in a book ... so basically a discussion that can happen over multiple forums. But with the idea that ultimately - or periodically - results and progress can and should be reported somewhere.

Everyone coming to the idea-space brings knowledge and particular points of view. Now, all knowledge being brought into the idea-space must be acknowledged. Suppose we're in a space discussing the implications of quantum physics. If an actual quantum physicist joins the discussion, he or she should be respected for coming with actual knowledge and experience, from an 'insider' point of view. But also there must be some respect and acknowledgement for 'outsider' points of view. Me, as a philosopher of science, may bring some perspectives from the 'outside' that can throw a different light on the perspective of the quantum physicist who works on the 'inside'. Careful work must be done here, because 'outsiders' may simply lack the understanding of what goes on 'inside' and thus their perspective may not illuminate anything at all.

In the idea-space we will aim at truth but in pursuing that aim must need to be 'allowed' to fantasize. All kinds of 'what-ifs' must be allowed to stimulate people to think in new directions. So also here must be an acknowledgement: nobody knows anything with 100% certainty. So we can imagine something which 'everyone' believes to be true, might in fact not be true. But at the same time we must acknowledge that some things are very, very likely to be very, very close to the truth. In some cases, imagination and debate might lead to fruitful new ideas, even 'truths', but we must not frivolously challenge accepted truths. But neither must we be afraid to challenge established beliefs.

But I really believe that responsibly working through many 'what-if' scenarios can indeed in many cases help us to understand things better. We need to figure out why things are so and not otherwise ... thinking how things might be otherwise, and thinking through the consequences if they were otherwise, can either lead us to understand why things are so, OR to realise that actually they can't be the way we thought they were.

Just a few ideas for now ... like I said, anyone should be able to participate. All that's important, is that knowledge, experience, relevant questions, and fruitful ideas be brought into the 'space'.

I'm glad you say 'nobody knows anything with 100% certainty.' I suspect the search for absolute truth, which goes back at least as far as Plato, is misleading.

I wonder whether you see your idea-space as needing some kind of management or guidance. A list of subjects for discussion perhaps, and moderators, who can assure that contributions are treated with respect?

Hi Minorvogonpoet! Well this 'idea space' idea is just one of many ideas I have ... it can work on a small scale, with a few friends discussing amongst themselves, up to a very large scale, as a large social/government institution. The important thing is the principles according to which it functions. I'll mention a few more soon ...

So basically the management/guidance happening in the idea-space will be scale-dependent. In a small discussion there might not be much need for guides/managers ... if we're speaking of a huge institution to which say a hundred thousand people or more are contributing, then probably guides/managers will need to be elected. At such a scale such a position would be one of extreme responsibility.

'Responsibility' is going to be a key thing we humans are going to need more and more of in the coming decades ...

I'm thinking in terms of the challenges our society is going to face over some decades to some centuries. We desperately need two things: first the realization that we absolutely have no idea what we're doing; secondly, some kind of structure/process to take us towards some kind of idea what we're doing. The idea of an 'idea space' is just ONE idea that I think can indeed take us closer to that...

OK just a few more ideas relating to 'idea space'. The first is: earning disrespect!

In my vision of how to run an idea space, the default would be to respect anyone coming into the space. But if any person in there should be acting irresponsibly/disrespectfully, that person can (after some warnings) 'earn' the status of being disrespected. Those guides/managers we spoke about, might have the authority to confer disrespect upon someone. But that would be only for really gross abuses like trolling, insulting/disrespecting others, being pigheaded and generally taking a dump on the spirit of the discussion.

This 'disrespect' would mean that the other members no longer need to pay attention to what the disrespected person is saying. No silencing, no restriction of freedom of speech, but just not being considered worth much notice. A disrespected member can still regain respect but that will take a great effort and suddenly talking a heck more sense than before.

Now for people not having earned disrespect, enjoying the default respect, the rule would be to carefully ponder what they're saying. Here is a principle I don't know if I've ever seen it mentioned ... conceptual compassion.

The idea of conceptual compassion is to try to understand *why* another person has certain ideas/beliefs/attitudes, even if you disagree with them. So you're putting yourself in the other person's head and getting a 'holistic' sense of their belief system. Every person's belief system and conceptual framework is shaped by an entire life full of experiences. That, too, needs to be respected. And indeed a good way of understanding why a person believes certain things is to *ask* him or her. With conceptual compassion you can have a kind of 'sympathy' even for views you vehemently disagree with. And it can be the start of changing another person's views. You can more easily persuade someone if you really know and *feel* where they come from.

The opposite of conceptual compassion would be hearing of someone's views and then saying or thinking, 'what kind of idiot would believe that?'

That brings up another point: in a respectful discussion of ideas, you don't insult people directly *or by implication*.

Oh and yet another principle of fairness. If you imagine being able to persuade someone else and correct his or her 'wrong' views, *you must have the same attitude to your very own views*. That is to say, you must be open to your *own* views being changed and corrected in the same way. You must imagine yourself to be equally persuadable as you imagine or would like to imagine other people to be.

I like the idea of conceptual compassion. I guess people like counsellors need this - the ability to understand the origins of views or ideas that are pretty repugnant in themselves.

Hi Minorvogonpoet! I would say *everyone* should have conceptual compassion. In my ideal society you would need to qualify as having a certain base-level of conceptual compassion so as to be considered a responsible adult with rights and responsibilities such as voting. But anyways ... it is not just for understanding the origins of views as such - it is for having different perspectives from which to look at *your own* views - and thus being in a position to ameliorate them.

As the ideal can never be achieved, I believe in aiming for the 'Good Enough'.

If aiming for the Good Enough, one would set realistic objectives and monitor progress, celebrate successes and reconsider one's policies if they fail. This sounds very dull and managerialist, but it is more acheivable!

Hi Minorvogonpoet! Well I think we absolutely need ideals. It doesn't matter if they're achievable in practice or not. Just note that prior to really trying, it is impossible to accurately judge whether something is achievable or not. When it comes to ideals, there's not 'the ideal', there are a large variety of ideals that can be conceived, and then based on how well they are conceived, and the circumstances in which they're applied, they might possibly be achieved - or not. It might be that we could even surpass the ideal we conceived. It's not necessary to set limits.

There have been incredible human accomplishments, which go beyond what some people would have believed possible. Some "impossible" things that have actually been achieved, include Isaac Newton's Principia, Albert Einstein's theories of relativity, Stephen Hawking's entire career, the music of Bach and Beethoven, many achievements in the world of sports, for instance Nadia Comaneci's perfect score in gymnastics when she was just 14 years old ... and so many others. Where human ingenuity and creativity are concerned, it seems to me that we should aim for the stars; we might surprise everybody and ourselves too.

Imagine you're in an archery contest. You've never archered before. Do you aim at the edge of the target, just because you're sure you couldn't possibly hit the bull's-eye ... or do you aim straight at the bull's eye and hope for the best?

So basically I see ideals as vital: we aim to hit the target right in the bull's eye; we might not actually hit it, but given our best try, we might come close. We might even have a stroke of good luck and actually hit it.

The ideal is what is aimed for, it is the principle which guides what we do in practice. In many cases we need ideals *so as* to be able to evaluate our performance in practice. Suppose our ideal is a rape-free society; maybe we never achieve that, but we should still try to; we can indeed try to reduce the incidence of rape, as much as possible, perhaps lowering it to a tenth of a hundredth of its earlier frequency. Would that be 'good enough'? Perhaps not, perhaps we can try even harder and do even better.

When it comes to human society and its dysfunctions and abuses, we should bear in mind that every little fault at the upper systemic level causes massive suffering down at the lower levels where most ordinary, mainly powerless, people have no choice but to live. For their sakes, I have to do my absolute best in conceiving of better ways of doing things. And if smarter people can be brought on board, then the ceiling gets raised. We haven't yet applied true genius to the field of social and political systems - not the kind of genius that has for instance produced the Sistine Chapel's paintings. The potential is there - there is no reason why we should *not* have a group of geniuses ready and able to tackle the problems. And failing a small group of geniuses, the same thing can be done with a larger group of not-that-clever people ... PROVIDED they go about it in a way that's disciplined and well-considered. Think of science ... most scientists are not very smart, but they work according to a system that has been really well thought out, a system where each person can build upon the achievement of others and whose achievements can themselves be built on - and the results get communicated world-wide, stimulating new achievements. And it's worked incredibly well (so far). Thus I try to do what I do: conceiving of the various necessary principles for a coherent philosophy of social, political and cultural institutions, that has a chance of getting us through the horrible challenges that are going to face us in the coming decades and centuries.

~ ~