Voluntary Argument, Part 1

Another debate I got into recently, on another mailing list. One of the early points, before I got into it, was on whether people will change voluntarily. In an attempt to address this question, someone posted the definition of the term:

from the American Heritage Dictionary via dictionary.com
vol·un·tar·y adjective

1. Done or undertaken of one's own free will: a voluntary decision to leave the job.
2. Acting or done willingly and without constraint or expectation of reward: a voluntary hostage; voluntary community work.
3. Normally controlled by or subject to individual volition: voluntary muscle contractions.
4. Capable of making choices; having the faculty of will.
5. Supported by contributions or charitable donations rather than by government appropriations: voluntary hospitals.
6. Law
- 1. Without legal obligation or consideration: a voluntary conveyance of property.
- 2. Done deliberately; intentional: voluntary manslaughter.


The problem was that people still weren’t using it quite the same way. So I chimed in:

One of the biggest issues I see here is semantic, in the application of the word "voluntary". Twenty years ago, someone who renounced the Dominant World Culture, bought some land, built a solar home on it, and started farming it themselves organically would be said to do it voluntarily, by most of the definitions presented (though arguably not #2, since there was definitely an expected reward from making that change).

These days, we (those who see the impending collapse of civilization) would say that making that change is not voluntary, because the only alternative to making that choice (or something similar, complementary, etc) is death when everything goes to hell. Those who aren't "in the know" at this point would still see making that transition as voluntary, because it's not necessary in the immediate sense.

When the crash comes, there will be no viable alternative to small-scale agricultural communities, and therefore that lifestyle will not be voluntary in any sense, but mandatory, because most other options will have evaporated. The changes at each step aren't just the cultural context, but the subject's awareness of it, and evaluation of its consequences.

Granted these are my own views and opinions, but I see no reason to think that the agitating of a relatively few people will overcome the inertia of the culture as a whole. (See above about individual evaluation of consequences.) Dimwit’s point that an action becomes involuntary when the person becomes aware of the negative consequences of not changing is valid, but too black-and-white, and Dimwit actually makes my point for me, though at a larger scale: "The default position is for people to go along with the norms of their culture because this is their best hope to thrive and prosper under most circumstances."

Think of the battered woman who voluntarily stays with her abuser, or the laborer who stays in his low-paying dead-end job his entire life. These people have to see that they'd be better off changing their circumstances, but they don't out of inertia, a fear of change, a fear of losing what little security they've got in exchange for the possibility of an improvement. Though we on the outside would say that it can only get better at that point. Like so many other things, it's a perspective issue. "Freedom" is just another word for nothing left to lose.

Back to one of the other earlier points, accumulating sheer numbers is the slowest way to accomplish change. It's not enough to change a bunch of people's minds, those people have to be in the position to make their mindsets felt by other people. While the average person doesn't do much more than add another ping to the gross number of people with changed minds (#12 on Meadows' list), people in politics and the media (which are horribly and incredibly incestuous) control all 12 of the factors on the list.

While it's kind of a truism that if you change a sufficient number of minds, the culture will change, there's a lot of wiggle room in that "sufficient". You can change over half of the minds in a population, but if those people have no power, it won't do any good. On the other hand, a handful of changed minds in the right places can make all the difference, regardless of the mindsets of everyone else.

Political policy lags public opinion by a large gap. The people who manage to get elected are going to be more likely to hang onto outdated policies rather than risking their positions by making waves. I don't believe (and Dimwit makes this point as well) that we've got the time remaining before the crash for the politicians to come around (or to elect enough new politicians) to get the necessary changes made. I'd love it if I were wrong on this, but I can't make myself believe it. These political changes would also prevent whatever resulting practical cultural changes from qualifying as "voluntary", because then they'd be mandated (or subsidized, or whatever) by the government.

The media is beholden to the politicians (as well as its own corporatocracy), and generally can't take its own stand. (Obviously that's not true on small scales, but when we're talking about the transition from small-scale to large-scale change, with whatever model, we have to look at what's preventing the changes at that large scale.) The mass media may not actually control everything in the second (more powerful) half of Meadows' list, but they at least control the perception thereof, which is at least as powerful. And as long as the vast majority of people pay attention to the mass media and its government-induced obfuscation, the culture as a whole cannot possibly change.

Here we run into the problem of the (relatively) few of us, who have awakened to the desperate need for change fighting against the majority who believe what the media is telling them, that everything will be fine, that the problems we're seeing now are only temporary, that there's a myriad of technofixes on the horizon, etc. What's necessary to jolt these people out of their TV-induced comas is further contextual change.

Ask around, and the vast majority of people will acknowledge that you can't trust politicians and the media, but they still rely on these sources for their information. It's going to take something really significant before people finally quit believing the sources they know to be lying and start believing what they're actually seeing in the world around them.

We all know that part of the trick is showing people what they have to gain, rather than what they're losing, but when it looks like they're losing so much, it's tough not to cling to that. If the policies and the infrastructure were in place now, it would be a lot easier to at least begin to walk away and become a sustainable society at large. But they're not, largely because the politicians have been so beholden to corporate interests and hidebound by their own desire for power.

And people aren't ready to believe that they're going to be losing those comforts regardless. That realization makes it less of a "voluntary" transition, and more of an inevitability, and that it's better to make preparations now rather than to simply hide and wait for the end.


Obviously the guy’s name isn’t really Dimwit, but I had to change it to post here. Keep reading, he’ll show himself dreadfully clearly to deserve the moniker. Another guy, Naïve, responds first, though, and references something else that had come up earlier in the thread, Premise 6 from Derrick Jensen’s Endgame: Civilization is not redeemable. This culture will not undergo any sort of voluntary transformation to a sane and sustainable way of living. If we do not put a halt to it, civilization will continue to immiserate the vast majority of humans and to degrade the planet until it (civilization, and probably the planet) collapses. The effects of this degradation will continue to harm humans and nonhumans for a very long time.

Naïve’s post, and my responses:

If I get past my mental stumbles, I hear DJ saying in premise 6 that the majority of people will not change until their way of life becomes completely unworkable, when they have no other choice but to change immediately--when there is no work to go to, no fuel for engines, no way to pipe water to homes or factories, no electricity, no food at the grocery.
...
Those predictions sound pretty dire to me, but I don't agree with them. I think people can change before their current way of life becomes impossible to maintain for one more day. Many people have already reached that point and begun casting about for some other way. Will a majority change? I believe so. It'll take some more time, but it will happen, and happen faster every day. I think it is also a toss up as to whether the environment would fair better in a rapid collapse scenario. A slow descent may be preferable.

Yes, people can change before they're forced to. Yes, many people have already changed. But relatively few people will change before they're forced to, even if it is a large count. As more pressure is brought to bear, more people will convert, either because they'll have to (involuntary, by whatever definition) or because they'll "see the light", but as time goes on, and resources deplete, and fewer options are available (if we don't have the materials and energy to produce solar panels, they won't be available to produce electricity), fewer people will be able to successfully manage the transition.

As for the rapid collapse vs the slow descent, the big question there for me is, on that downslope, will people still be clinging tooth and nail to their old way of life, in which case a rapid collapse would do less damage, or will they be trying to reengineer their lifestyles to a completely new paradigm? In the latter case, it would make life easier if there were a gradual decline, and this is another example of a yawning gulf between what I'm personally hoping for and what I can actually make myself believe will really happen.


I do agree that it will take more than just changing minds. The context does need to shift further. Its doing so now though. We might help it along too: make it harder to profit from destruction of the earth's resource, harder to exploit the poor, make unwanted behaviors more costly. Tax shifting would likely have a hugely beneficial affect.

All things that require having changed minds in positions of power, which is inherently problematic, as I mentioned in my previous epic. As you also said, "the existing system is quite robust". Not that these things can't happen, they just won't, or at least not soon enough on any scale sufficient to make a significant difference. The people in power are not going to voluntarily divest themselves of that power.


This post is getting pretty long, so I’ll break now, and post more separately.