Skip to main content


The name of this blog is “Do we already have the solutions” for a reason.  My earlier posts on Identity and their link to values have shown that the solutions often lie in being able to removing barriers to reveal what we already know. Culture, identity and personal ego and indoctrination issues often lead do being emotionally aligned and  motivated to draw a line in the sand and choosing sides.  Nowhere is this more apparent than with getting behind a cause.

The vast majority of causes are non-issues.  The way society deals with the issues is the real problem, often creating two opposing sides defending their particular positions and my personal experience has shown me that many of us are indiscriminately being PRO or ANTI a particular issue.

This makes little sense of course, because the elements at play are never simple and broad decision of personal PRO or ANTI policy should ever be applied without due consideration of the context.  As obvious as this sounds, is very uncommon to encounter either side investigating the merits of the opposing camp, or taking the time to understand the application of their cause in each scenario.  This has the fascinating effect of producing loyalties and hostilities along with all sorts of ridiculous barriers to solutions that are so often right in front of us.

For example:

Recently the issue of trophy hunting has exposed how much emotion your average armchair activist is prepared to invest to stop a particular trophy hunter, Melissa Bachman, from plying her nasty trade.  Public opinion has likely achieved part of its goal, leaving conservationists frustrated that another hollow victory based on sentiment has achieved nothing for Lion Conservation.  The conservationist approach was for a long time perceived as PRO trophy hunting in their efforts to highlight the real issues, the issues that would achieve real success, were regarded with suspicion and prejudice. See here:

The issue of fracking has become so sentimentally polarizing, that in some cases where fracking is potentially the least environmentally impacting way to meet energy demands, there is serious talk of shelving the idea, or not even getting data on it, in favor of more harmful ways of producing power IN THOSE PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES.  It also fails to address the issue that ever growing needs for power come from our failure to manage or population, lifestyle or impact on the environment. See here: and here: IT’s not clear what the facts on this issue are yet, but it quite clear that there is a public desire to move forward without due consideration of the facts due to sentimental attachment to a cause.

The vaccination issue is a prime example where issues are again being confused.  There is so much evidence for vaccinations saving lives and doing much good for society, but because there have been instances in the past where some bad vaccines were discovered, or where unscrupulous pharmaceutical companies and their political lobbyists have been found pushing legislation in cases where untested or unnecessary vaccines where to be made compulsory, some have turned against ALL VACCINATIONS.  For the same reason many in the PRO camp have taken to defending all instances of vaccination indiscriminately.  It’s completely unnecessary and avoidable, but until we learn to weed out the separate issues we will never focus on the real problems. Here is a potted and superficial look at the issue:

The danger of all of this sentimentality is that it affects political will to make real change, politicians run for office based on these emotive issues often more than the real issues of the day, and often their policy is shaped by taking stands on these issues designed to resound with one group or the other in order to win over a voting section of the population tied into the issue.
Politics is not so much sick because of politicians, it is sick because politicians have to get elected, and we demand they take a stand on these matters to get our allegiance and  satisfy our agendas over finding solutions for the ails of society.

I call indiscriminate activism “slactivism”, because of the poor fact checking as well as the lack of interest shown in researching and understanding an issue one claims to feels so passionately about. Sometimes it is harmless; other times when there are consequences it is irresponsible and hypocritical. regularly cites cases where sudden public reaction and hostility spreads misinformation and lies, often harming innocent people, by outraged armchair activists who couldn’t be bothered to check their facts, spreading vitriolic hate parading as an internet meme.

It’s often been cited to me that slactivism can achieve results because of the attention drawn to the issue, but attention drawn to incorrect issues can often harm a cause or provide only a sense of self satisfaction those seeking to exploit the issue in order to demonstrate their righteous moral indignation to those listening.  I cannot reconcile it with the work done by those responsible activists spending their own time and resources campaigning for real change, it just does not ring true.
I will concede that if slactivism bring the issues out, and those who better understand the issues challenge the material with intention to show better understanding, then some progress can be made, but it cannot work unless the facts are corrected sensibly and politely which places personal responsibility on all of use to question and understand with open minds, and not to argue to defend our position at all costs.  The internet and social media has given everyone a platform, I think it’s time to stop going around high-fiving and siding with each other and instead learn the art of the polite disagreement and healthy debate.  We learn more about each other in respectful disagreement that we do in awkward comprise.

Popular posts from this blog

Scientific Consensus is that Consensus is overturned 100% of the time

Everything you know is wrong. There is a very good reason why science succeeds more often than politics does.  Unlike politics, It's not a consensus or a vote,  it's actually method.  The scientific method. Anyone who has read this blog before probably knows I'm a lifelong science junkie as well as someone who spends thousands of hours breaking down the the political and economic agendas behind the special interest groups that guide public policy.  In many ways I'm actually uniquely qualified to tie these angles together in ways not well understood by the overwhelming majority of people.  That actually includes scientists. Scientists are notoriously naive in the political and economic forces that drive the human world.

First and foremost,  what is this so called 'consensus' anyway.  You will be horrified to find out,  it's not specifically that global warming is man made.  It's simply that humans contribute to climate change in an unknowable way and to…

CO2 is not a pollutant, it is greening the earth!

Whatever your persuasion is on CO² and AGW, nobody disagrees on the tremendous benefit it provides plant life. Many of the past famine disasters and desertification has CO² decline listed as a contributor.

I feel I've already blown the notion that humans are the main cause of climate change out of the water. Or rather I've used the reasoning of others and put it together in a convenient outline. See my previous post above for starters.  However, I recognize that humans do increase CO² levels, no matter how tiny. Increases are likely to be very short lived because the earth has an effective feedback mechanism, but we can apparently get small increases, and it's been put forward on very poor science that this is a bad thing. That assertion hinges completely on bad models. More on that in the bottom most link.  Model's and the measurement sample dates are dubious at best.

Furthermore, the main increase in CO²  as…

Dīvide et imperā: How To Defeat The Most Effective Social Control Weapon In Human History

Many different empires, cultures and nations have existed in history and while the details, styles, values and aesthetics keep changing, the core structure remains unchanged. In order to benefit from social coperation and steal reward in excess of the labour and value you invest, you cannot take it by brute force for extended periods of time without facing the wrath of the crowds. The crowds need to give it to you willingly or unknowingly. There was one exception to this synopsis, the Feudal System  but there is more to that than people realise, it's a post for a later day and deserves full scrutiny and parrellels do manifest. The support of the home crowd is also needed to win wars. No army has ever been effective fighting under duress, they would assemble, arm  and immediatly turn on you.

Before the current reigning Judeo-Christian Anglo American Empire of today there were other more monolithic empires that the loosely ideologically aligned old money banking dynasties, globalis…