Bella's Share: The Cure, by FODI

Wow, what a cool event and session! What occurred to me first was just how differently the ‘main’ problem and solution can be construed — no doubt based on individual lived experiences, social identity/ positionality/intersectionality, individual psychology, etc. Nonetheless, it’s interesting…

Philosophically, I’m also trying to figure out whether it’s even possible to distill such a thing as a ‘main’ problem, whether there are instead many ‘main’ problems, or whether society is more like a self-organizing complex system such that these ‘problems’ arose through emergence and the impact of any solution, big or small, is inherently impossible to predict or control.

But, to answer the question, I think that at least one ‘main’ problem is our disconnection to nature, including our own bodies, such that our shared humanity and interdependence get sublimated and lost. We are embodied creatures but seem to have lost the fundamental type of attention and awareness needed to tap into our embodied wisdom and to remember our inherent interdependence, instead living mostly as glorified economic agents looking for our next dopamine hit. As for a solution? I wish I knew! But like Scott Stephens’ take, I think it’s at the level of human connection. Actually! Maybe the solution is what the monks in last winter’s Walk for Peace here in the US offered — their message was so simple: the world needs more peace; but we cannot give what we do not have; so we each need to take responsibility and accountability for nurturing peace in our hearts so we can offer peace to the world outside us. ❤️

I applaud the efforts of these folks, but I’m struck by the implicit limitations placed on the scope of problems and solutions by hosting this as part of the “Ethics Center”.

I question whether anyone invited by the Ethics Center would define the problem as anything other than an ethics violation, or any solution other than one that could be intuitively accepted as ethical.

Stan Grant: Tribalism is wrong, everyone must help strangers
Jess Hill: Violence is wrong, eliminate it from the human psyche
For Singer: Surpassing the results of others is wrong, apply utilitarianism to the extreme to help others
Scott Stephens: The inability to personally connect with more than ~150 tribespeople is wrong, assume everyone is in the same tribe. This might be a variation on Stan Grant
Hannah Diviney: Confirmation bias, and all the other rules of thumb that our brains used to keep us alive in the jungle, is wrong, we all need to seek out different stories to balance our thinking.

I would define the problem as there being too many stupid people in the world, using the classic “The Basic Laws of Human Stupidity” definition of stupid: Someone Who Causes Harm to Another Person or Group While Deriving No Gain and Possibly Even Incurring Losses. This is the classic “lose/lose” of the Prisoners Dilemma.

Note that anyone can be stupid at any time. This entire response may be a stupid act, as I may be breaking some minds while losing beer drinking time :)

Also note that the win/win, win/lose, lose/win combinations represent competent humans pursuing their own (ethical?) goals, and so do not need to be managed.

To me, the solution comes down to identifying and mitigating stupidity. There are many possible checks and balances, with the open, fact based debate fostered by this group and (partially) advocated by Hannah Diviney one of the least effective, as the surest way to win an argument is an emotional appeal. Humans emotional need to avoid losses is much more strong than the motivations to pursue risk/gains.

My personal favourite solution to stupidity is a combination of the sunshine of the press to identify stupidity, coupled with social acceptance of bullying stupid ideas, decisions, and organizations such that they disappear. This approach cannot eliminate stupidity from the human experience, but it should increasingly reduce it.

Welcome Barry! And thank you for taking part in this conversation!
If I understand you correctly, you’re making two related points.
First, that because the event was hosted by the Ethics Centre, the speakers were perhaps predisposed to define society’s problems in moral terms and propose solutions centred on people behaving more ethically. If this is right, then I would like to ask you how is this a problem and shouldn’t we all be trying to address issues in an ethical manner?

Then you express what you believe is the real « problem of our society » (which is the question at hands for both speakers and us members here!). Your own diagnosis is that the deeper problem is “stupidity”, in the sense of actions that harm others while producing no benefit (and sometimes a cost) for the person responsible. Are there practical examples of this that come to mind and that you could share/ elaborate on?

I’m less clear on the solution you’re proposing. Are you saying that because facts and open debate are often less persuasive than emotion and fear of loss, harmful ideas are better addressed by exposing them publicly and making them socially unacceptable?

Oh and Barry, you might enjoy this one: https://www.thinkandthinkagain.org/posts/a-theory-of-dumb

Thanks Jeanne, it's good to be here.

Doing the right thing, ethically, is highly situation dependent. I'm reminded of the Robert A. Heinlein story "Glory Road", where the character "Star" is revealed as someone with literally thousands of years of experience with human governance, and whose recommendations have great influence, but not the force of law. At one point, after a long discussion with a group of folks who just can't seem to resolve their differences, she says "All of your problems would disappear if you just kill that man." And the group immediately acts on that advice.

Can you imagine anyone from the Ethics Centre proposing such a solution? They'd be committing professional suicide! Holding on to your ethics when the situation does not support them is a grievous error, as embodied in the quote "The Constitution is not a suicide pact", often attributed to Abraham Lincoln.

While examples of stupidity large and small abound in modern discourse, the example I would give is the environmental movement's opposition to nuclear power. If the United States (and Canada!) had pursued nuclear power to the exclusion of fossil fuels, the environmental impact of the coal and hydrocarbon industry would have been greatly reduced. Instead, coal and hydrocarbons are the largest sources of energy on the planet and will be for a long time. Through their opposition to nuclear power, the environmental movement has increased the impact humans have on the planet and simultaneously discredited themselves.

With respect to reducing stupidity, it's a two step process: identify, and then eliminate. Identifying stupidity requires rational argument and debate to predict harms and benefits. Elimination of stupidity needs mobilization of a mob to ensure those advocating the stupid thing are overwhelmed to the point that they at least lose their influence and at best are eliminated from public discourse.

In short, we need to acknowledge that when stupidity becomes popular, influencing public discourse requires transformation of rational, ethical human beings into an irrational mob howling louder than their opposition :)

Thank you, I will give it a read!