You said: You are also right that the government are significantly responsible for why many "mentally ill" people are so distressed in the first place. Although, they're kind of caught between a rock and a hard place there. There's not much they can change without inflicting new misery on a whole lot of other people. It boggles my mind why anybody would ever want to live here; but what I'm starting to understand is that a large portion of our society like the structure, norms and boundaries of our society just the way they are. And even amongst those of us who don't like it, there's no consensus on what we want to change, and what it should be changed to.
I love this comment. I have several comments to make in reply:
I suggest that we are going to get a big change in society and a lot of people, namely the sheep- who enjoy and endorse modern society- are not going to like it. The forces of nature are more powerful than any structure or institution or rich individual that exists in society- so it makes no difference whether people from different backgrounds can agree on various aspects of life. What unites us all regardless of race or religion is the need to survive and reproduce in order to endure. As a society we are seeing signs of survival stress (homelessness, mental illness, suicide) and low rates of reproduction. Modern society is essentially an experiment- and it is failing in biological terms. Nonetheless the propaganda machinery promotes the idea that modern society is superior, that is, more evolved than Indigenous culture- but this idea doesn't stand up to reason. Civilization is not the indicator of the success of a society in biological terms, endurance is, and nobody has endured more than the indigenous people on any given land area. Moreover, the land is more powerful than any of us or any ideology to shape us. I can't see why it wouldn't be shaping us in the same way it shaped the indigenous over many generations- so gradually, over many generations we will come to be more like indigenous people. This means that indigenous culture most likely holds the key to us surviving into the future. I am not suggesting a return to traditional Aboriginal culture, I am suggesting that society begin to adopt Aboriginal processes and principles of running community that are PROVEN to promote survival. It follows from this that all newcomers to a land need to look to the local people, the indigenous, to get advice about how to survive on that land. However, this frequently doesn't occur. The newcomers tend to take the land by force and install their culture and institutions which ironically are often failing in the home country, prompting the need to overtake new land. This is what has happened in Australia.
Some examples to illustrate why it might be wise to incorporate aspects of indigenous culture into future governance models:
1. Principle of limiting waste and preservation of environment. Indigenous cultures are characterised by habits that limit the wasting of any resource. For example, any animal that is killed is fully utilised. Animals are recognised as being part of an ecosystem and so their numbers are preserved to ensure that food supply is maintained over time. By contrast, modern society promotes consumerism and the industrialisation of food production which generates an enormous amount of waste, and is creating environmental disaster- jeopardizing our survival long-term.
2. Process of collective decision-making and goals. Indigenous cultures are genuinely democratic in that decisions are made by engagement of all the members of the community to discuss issues until consensus is reached. This ensures that all perspectives are taken into account in any decision-making process. Modern society however has a tokenistic democracy where we are often forced to vote for representatives that do not fully match our values. People with money have more power to influence society, and they are currently shaping it by seducing the sheep in the middle class to endorse their system of capitalism, which is essentially a pyramid scheme- this is how they increase their wealth and power. Rather than promoting collective decision-making and the setting of shared goals, individuals are encouraged to compare themselves to others and compete with them (divide and conquer).
3. Trade business. Direct exchange of goods and services without the use of money has advantages- for a business to survive in trade business (in a local setting), its goods and services must be of intrinsic benefit to the community- that is, they must promote survival and reproduction. Unless goods and services meet our basic or primary needs, they will quickly be discarded as wasteful and useless by a process of natural selection. Modern society by contrast promotes the use of money, which will always be secondary because it is merely a representation of value. It has no intrinsic value, hence the popular phrase: you can't eat money. Importantly, in modern society, the use of money disconnects people from an awareness of what is intrinsically valuable. This allows people to be more readily manipulated through advertising about useless and perhaps even harmful goods and services that are nonetheless touted as the latest "must have" in society- which of course leads to massive waste. If we moved to a system where we had a mix of both trade business and cash business, there would be less available tax dollars for the government (trust me, a good thing- but more on that later), as trade business is harder to tax by a centralised government. Another benefit of trade business is that it strengthens community connections because the direct nature of the exchange of goods and services unambiguously announces to each party the benefit to self by the what the other party has to offer. This promotes community cohesion and empathy as people are aware of the mutual dependence they have on each other. It reinforces the idea that we need to work as a team in the community, towards the common goal of survival and endurance of that community. Capitalism tends to limit community cohesion as people increasingly access their goods and services through corporate entities that monopolize the market, limiting the exposure of any individual to other individuals in the community, which would naturally promote cohesion and empathy (divide and conquer again). Hence people now don't naturally endorse the idea that we are mutually dependent on each other for survival as social animals. Instead, the idea of a competitive dog-eat-dog world is endorsed- which is a bastardisation and misapplication of a scientific concept (survival of the fittest). This allows people to interpret disadvantage in the community as a sign of biological inferiority, which is totally incorrect. Although it of course serves the purpose of inhibiting people from assigning blame to the government and the structures of society itself- it is easier to blame the victim.
4. Oral communication as the preferred mode. Oral communication is more efficient than written communication because it is direct and fluid. Information is received by the ears and interpreted by the brain. Written communication by contrast requires the learning of reading and writing- additional skills- which requires an energy investment, not generally favoured by nature, which tends to select for energy efficiency. Writing things down can have negative consequences- it tends to freeze information in time, obstructing the natural flow of the evolution of ideas in a community. I believe the ludicrous level of documentation we have in society is in part due to the agenda of the legal system- a parasitic entity that has established itself by capitalising on divisions in a community and convincing people of the need for written contracts to govern any relationship. This of course provides them with continuing income and power in society. If levels of cohesion and empathy increase in society, there would be little need for written contracts and lawyers, so of course the divide and conquer agenda benefits the legal industry most profoundly. Ultimately, reading and writing is favoured by the power structure because it is an effective brainwashing tool- institutionalised education being a powerful mechanism by which the public are conditioned to endorse the agenda of the power structure. It also allows people to control the version of history that suits them...again for indoctrination purposes.
5. Respect for elders. This concept is very simple- it embodies the truth that experience counts in life, and that experience is the source of wisdom. It is the idea that a person who has lived longer has likely had more life experience from which to draw upon when interpreting situations in life. By contrast, modern society tends to encourage respect for people who have formal education qualifications over those with life experience. But as I already mentioned, formal education is predominantly a brainwashing exercise- the knowledge gained by doing a course is vastly inferior to that gained by direct life experience. It is a simple truth that reality doesn't lie, but a book certainly can...so institution-based education is always going to be an inferior preparation for reality than if real life is your teacher. There is a darker truth here also. The requirement that people must read and write to gain status in society serves to disadvantage those individuals who naturally prefer not to read and write. These practical and action-oriented people are a natural threat to the pen pushers in charge as they are not amenable to the brainwashing program. Hence, they are stigmatised by being labelled as learning disabled- a psychological ploy to undermine the confidence of realistic individuals that might challenge the indoctrination. Modern society also treats its elderly in a disgusting manner- warehousing them in old age homes, effectively sending them the message that all their life experience counts for nothing- what stupidity and what waste.
So, as I see it- nature will make the decision for us before we have any chance of reaching a consensus though discussion. What I predict will happen is a major readjustment in alignment with nature- this will necessarily mean an almost perfect inversion of the current power hierarchy to favour those who prefer to learn by life experience over formal education. This dramatically changes the playing field in society...for the better. We are in safer hands being guided and supported by people with diverse and relevant life experience- they are realists and thus their decision-making ability will outperform the ideas cooked up by a bunch of brainwashed desk jockeys, who flatter the academics, doctors and other professionals in a mutually beneficial relationship that short-changes the rest of society.
I am suggesting that society needs an alternative model to consider- it is not about choosing affiliation to any political party- it is about choosing a new way of awarding merit in society, and would require a restructure of society. The alternative model I have briefly outlined above strongly advantages people with life or lived experience over book learning- any kind of life experience is valuable, particularly adversity which serves to strengthen a person. I suggest that this model would likely be preferred by all the people disadvantaged by the current system- a number which is growing daily. At some point there will be a critical mass of disgruntled society members who have suffered considerable adversity as a result of government policy and want major change. What is only necessary then is a spark...exactly like what happened in Bondi. An individual who was denied status and community support in society lashes out at a symbolic target: the rich. He uses the method of random violence which is the most effective way to maximise the fear generated in the community. The crime hit the population like a ton of bricks because the offender defied the societal convention of non-violence and in doing so changed the nature of the playing field from a social competition (in this case the have not against the haves- where the victims were clearly the winners) to a physical competition (requiring a different skill set- where the victims were defeated resoundingly). This message will not be lost on those who belong to the same social class as the victims- who have had their weakness exposed (physical vulnerability)- and the random or unpredictable nature of the attack will elicit extreme anxiety in the community. For the inexperienced or unaware, the attack would have been a shock, to those with life experience it is a message that survival pressures are getting intense, and something had to give. And importantly: expect more to come. It is an important reminder that not everyone will blindly follow the rules forced upon us by the establishment- and psychosis is an effective weapon used by nature to powerfully cut through cherished ideals and pretenses of social convention. Survival 101. As my ex-partner taught me: It doesn't matter how many books you have read, punch wins.
You said: The only changes that can really accomplish any good are the changes that alter the world significantly for the people who are unhappy; while scarcely producing any recognizable change for the people who aren't; and that is a very difficult thing to accomplish in a blended society of many radically differant mindsets.
My reply: I have to respectfully disagree with you there. I believe that the only way we can accomplish good is to make decisions that promote the survival of the community overall. That is the best way of achieving happiness LONG TERM in the community. The people currently sitting pretty-with their fancy degrees and their office work are living in a house of cards. They are endorsing and are rewarded by a system that is fundamentally at odds with nature. And I back nature to win every time. I feel no responsibility to keep these sheep happy, as they felt no obligation to ensure my happiness in life. And I certainly don't believe that these type of people should be the running the show- after observing their antics while working for government. My argument is they are experience poor and this limits efficiency and accuracy in the design of effective policy. In my view, they have had a very good run- and it is time for SKILL to be valued. When I was working for government, I often thought to myself: if working class people knew what a giant rort government office work is- that their tax dollars are paying for- they would take up arms. I take great comfort in my belief that AI will soon handle the workload of the vast majority of government office workers- and do a superior job. That means these people will soon be out a job- and watch how quickly their superiority complex dissolves when they are on centrelink- with no skills and very little life experience and a massive mortgage. Who's got the mental illness now? It is as I said before: life experience is the best teacher- the only way to school the sheep is to create conditions under which they can develop empathy. The most efficient way of doing this is nature's way: learn by experience.
