On 10 Apr 2008 at 2:52, Holistek wrote:

> The key insight to this whole question of culture is to
> really get that at present cultures are unconscious, by
> which I mean that people are not aware of the processes
> by which they reach their opinions about what is right
> action and right thinking, what those opinions are really
> based on,

I don't think cultures are unconscious in the sense I think you are using it. All one need do is notice the steadily increasing number of people who are aware of what's going on and why. Cultures _can_ be setup, though, to keep as many people in the dark and believing in disconnecting stories as possible in order to retain control in the hands of the few. Connecting the dots is something just about anyone can do who puts their mind to it. We're wired for it, even if that ability has atrophied.

People may not weigh all relevant factors in a particular decision, and most of the time it's actually not necessary that they do. After all, life has evolved to support life. For any species that remains within its ecosystem's carrying capacity, about 99% of its time is spent in abundance, enjoying and finding fulfillment in the unconditional love and acceptance of a nurturing world. This includes acceptance at some level of its own role in the food web.

That we have consciously (and I believe that denial is a conscious, if not admitted, phenomena) allowed ourselves to be put in a situation at odds with life, that we accept this situation as normal, and create complex rationalizations (such as "decision efficiencies" based on the industrial model) for why our created plight is actually superior does little more than nurture the root of global crises. It is hardly conducive to maximizing our potential.

I guess my core argument boils down to the fact that we humans, due to dominator control hierarchies that have intentionally disconnected from the way nature works (and which create our seeming paradoxes and dualisms), have created a dire situation that is headed for catastrophe and massive suffering -- perhaps even the end of life on Earth. While we can't immediately (or on a time scale relevant to an individual human life) reverse the damage we've already caused, we can realize that we've done this based on nothing more than a story we tell ourselves, and we could say to ourselves, "Oh, I guess we've royally fucked up." Upon doing so, we could decide to create a new story that is as holistically integrated with the creative direction of life as we can, based on the rational, emotional, and spiritual knowledge we've gained over thousands of years. It would be both perfectly natural and rational to do so.

The first step on this journey to a sustainable future based on ecological wisdom and social justice is to start implementing the process of relocalization, become fully aware of what all this means and entails, and the numerous ways that it can improve what the majority of people mean when they talk about quality of life. Relocalization is a systemic alternative to the life-threatening and soul-deadening status quo. Just about the only people who will "suffer" from its implementation are central bankers and insurance salesmen.

The evidence is abundant that people can make new choices. This is, after all, the core of the scientific method. The mere fact that people don't always make new or even good choices does not in _any_ way invalidate the fact that they can.

So, it's up to us. Do we want to plan and work on creating a new future, while remaining aware of the fact that people who are disconnected will require differing levels of support in getting reconnected, or do we want to isolate ourselves from the world and plan on a Mad Max transition, if not a totally dystopic future? When it comes to humanity, the overwhelming evidence is that what we plan for is what we get.