Voluntary Argument, Part 2: Dimwitted Demonstration

The rest of the discussion was basically Dimwit and I going back and forth. His first response to me, in its entirety:

Hi, [Stableboy]. I'm glad to see someone new chiming in. To be clear, though, I didn't intend for anyone to think that I was saying that "an action becomes involuntary when the person becomes aware of the negative consequences of not changing." To my mind, change remains voluntary unless or until the person is forced to change in a particular way--they have no other option. For example, I've considered living without a car again (I did so for a little over 6 years before buying a Honda Insight Hybrid 3 1/2 years ago) but have never made the voluntary choice to do so even though I've been well aware that by driving I'm contributing to global warming and climate disruption, air and water pollution, the perpetuation of the American empire, repression of indigenous peoples, and more. Tonight I was in a collision that may well have totaled my car (only minor injuries to me and my passenger, though, thankfully) and it's possible that I won't be able to afford to buy a different one, at least not any time soon. If that happens, the once-voluntary choice to not own a car may become involuntary.

I also think you've overestimated the power of the people in power to force change on the masses if the masses aren't ready to change. This hasn't worked easily with air and water pollution and endangered species legislation and regulations, and those changes to our culture's business-as-usual were a lot less challenging than what we need to do to end the ongoing extinction crisis and avoid catastrophic climate disruption. It's really hard for a small number of people to force a large number of people to do things, though it can be done with a large enough armed force. I doubt one could mount a large armed force to require people to do what's necessary to save the world, though.

Finally, I think you underestimate the power of large numbers of ordinary people to change things even if their so-called leaders don't want to change. Those leaders only have power as long as a sufficiently-large percentage of the people are willing to let them have it.


I'm posting all of that here, partially to show what a deluded, self-absorbed twit he is, but also because I cut a bunch of irrelevant bits out when I took it apart and threw it back at him:


To be clear, though, I didn't intend for anyone to think that I was saying that "an action becomes involuntary when the person becomes aware of the negative consequences of not changing." To my mind, change remains voluntary unless or until the person is forced to change in a particular way--they have no other option.

That's a fine line between being practically involuntary and morally/ethically involuntary, and one I don't care enough to argue. For the vast majority of people the ethical side never enters into their considerations, so I'm ignoring it here too, since we are talking about the populace as a whole, rather than our supposedly "enlightened" self-appointed crowd.

Which does lead me to another point, the problem of identifying too strongly with "normal" people, the ones who come home from their nine-to-five and plop down in front of the TV for the next five hours, the ones who aspire to 2.3 kids in a single-family-home on a nicely-manicured lawn in suburbia. If you're on this mailing list, odds are you're not one of those people, and you don't think they way they do. For starters, you're more likely to be thinking at all, in the first place. It's so easy to lose sight of how pathetic, closed-minded, tunnel-visioned, and locked in denial the average person is.


For example, I've considered living without a car again ... and it's possible that I won't be able to afford to buy a different one, at least not any time soon. If that happens, the once-voluntary choice to not own a car may become involuntary.

So what? So you personally will have to do without a car. That's not going to force other people to relinquish their own cars. It's not going to make other people realize that their existence is unsustainable. Only when people start running out of options do they figure out other solutions.


I also think you've overestimated the power of the people in power to force change on the masses if the masses aren't ready to change.

I think you underestimate the power of the government, and the money and media it controls, to influence what people want. We've become a consumeristic society because the government told us that's what we wanted, and the media supported it. We invaded Iraq because the government told us they had WMDs, and the media propagated it. People believe that we're now experiencing a minor recession, and that we'll recover shortly, because that's what the government is telling the media.


This hasn't worked easily with air and water pollution and endangered species legislation and regulations, and those changes to our culture's business-as-usual were a lot less challenging than what we need to do to end the ongoing extinction crisis and avoid catastrophic climate disruption.

Because the government continues to subsidize the industries causing all that destruction.


It's really hard for a small number of people to force a large number of people to do things, though it can be done with a large enough armed force. I doubt one could mount a large armed force to require people to do what's necessary to save the world, though.

It doesn't require any armed force, it just requires the careful and elegant manipulation of (mis)information, to make people think that they want to do things that are against their best interest. For example, the Republican party has historically convinced the religious-but-poor to vote for them using catchphrases like "Protect Marriage", and then proceeded to legislate against the economic interests of the majority of their supporters.


Finally, I think you underestimate the power of large numbers of ordinary people to change things even if their so-called leaders don't want to change. Those leaders only have power as long as a sufficiently-large percentage of the people are willing to let them have it.

There's currently only a very small percentage of people who want to take power away from the system. The vast majority would never think to overhaul, let alone toss the system and replace it with something that actually works. They just want to change who's in charge of the system, to get the results they want. Your hypothetical "sufficiently-large percentage" is not going to materialize until the enveloping context (referred to earlier in the discussion) changes to the point that that many people are miserable, destitute, starving, etc.


He also responded, in a separate post, to something I'd said earlier:

The people in power are not going to voluntarily divest themselves of that power.

with:

If enough minds are ever changed, we'll take the power to destroy the world away from anyone in power whose minds hasn't changed.

Do I really have to say how naïve, idealistic, and system-perpetuating that thought is?

The following few e-mails were fairly short and to the point:

Your hypothetical "sufficiently-large percentage" is not going to materialize until the enveloping context (referred to earlier in the discussion) changes to the point that that many people are miserable, destitute, starving, etc.

Perhaps, but I see no value in being so pessimistic about the prospects for change nor so critical of "normal" people. They are what they've been acculturated to be, but they can change. I was once a very "normal" American myself.

I see no value in being optimistic about waiting for people to change. There is no evidence to support the manifestation your phantom groundswell until things are so bad that they're unfixable. It makes no difference whatsoever why people are now the way they are, except in that it will prevent them from changing in the opposite direction.

Our discussions here aren't making a difference to all those people who need to be woken up. If you really believe things can change, go talk to them, rather than preaching to the choir here. I, on the other hand, am going to go pursue my own plans for survival once the fit hits the shan. I don't even know that I'm going to have enough time for my own preparations, and I've been thinking about this stuff for a good long time. I have no faith that other people who haven't "seen the light" will be able to survive the crash, but if you think so, go help them.

What do you think will cause this grassroots revolution to come about, before it's too late? What are you doing to cause it?

At this point, things start getting lengthier again, so I'm gonna end this post, and start over with the long diatribes.