Viernes chilaque~nos
Some beats from the city of Sherbrooke:
Yesterday I was at this party and got into a very interesting conversation. The living room setup was such that we were all sitting in a circle and somehow we got into a discussion about the system, the future of humanity and the different notions of justice.
Initially, M. did a big expos/e about how humanity is ultimately doomed. Her argument was an extrapolation based on the current level of pollution, human stupidity and material inequality into the future. Basically she says things are getting worse and worse so we’re fucked. She is right in some sense, but she is treating the world very statically. I responded pointing out that people will change as soon as there is incentives for them to do so. It is a bit unrealistic that North Americans will somehow change their way of life in order to help poor countries out of altruistic motivations. I would like it, but it is simply not going to go down like that. As soon as their comfort zone is disturbed though, these people will react and change. My point is that, the world will not stay the same as things get worse. The natural way of things implies that as the forces of evil grow, then so will the forces that seek the good of humanity.
Then we got into a discussion about “the new world order” and how it is very likely that the people in charge will hijack any kind of change movement and use it against the humanity. The masses are so easy to lead astray. If you have 1 million people angry in the street you can very easily tell them 5 things they want to hear and slip in a 6th idea sneakily to get them to do what YOU want. That is if you have a stage, own a newspaper or in some other way have a tribune to speak from.
We were all in agreement that we have to be careful of what world organizations we erect as a response to the current system and make sure that the outcome is not worse than the current situation.
Several times we used the UN as the model organization that can channel the world forces for good despite its very poor track record. What kind of organization do we need really? Is world brotherhood and collaboration even possible given that there are so many different interests at play and conflicting world views? It is important when discussing Utopic visions of the future to keep in mind the fact that most people in the world are crosseurs, that is, they will look out for their own personal interest and will not so much as blink an eye if at some point they have to screw over their neighbour in order to get something they want.
But is a trans-national, central, big and shiny organization really necessary in order to bring about social change in this world. What kind of change do we want really? Perhaps we want a world with more justice? That is what L. was saying. Then R. kept arguing with her that the abstract notion of justice doesn’t really exist. What appears just to one person could be wrong for someone else. Instead, R. argued, the only thing we can get is the justice-embodied in the judiciary systems of nation-states and to a lesser extent international courts. Kind of true, but the current courts are far from perfect and certainly there is opportunities to play the laws, circumvent them or simply outright brake them because you are above them and nobody can touch you.
While it is true that real justice belongs only to the realm of the forms, it doesn’t mean we can’t strive towards it. This is what L. argued: justice is something we can feel with the heart. Not a very strong argument, but I couldn’t agree more with her about the heart. There are some built-in human functions like compassion which are nearly universally shared between all humans. If you see someone getting shot on the side of the highway while driving to work won’t that make you feel bad? I suppose someone can argue that compassion is something we learn through eduction and culture. I am not so sure that objection stands. I really think compassion (and love) are somehow universal low level circuits in the brain. In fact, these is some evidence that these “high level” functions that help humans get along arelocalized in the Orbitofrontal cortex. It would make sense evolutionarily speaking for humans to evolve these social skills in order to help with survival.
The fact that compassion and empathy are universals doesn’t mean we can’t override them though. In fact this is one of the essential function of any system. The guy bringing the Jews into the gas chamber was just closing the door. The guy pushing the button was just pushing a button. They are just doing their job. The same way in modern times we have corporations which do the dirty work for us and we don’t feel guilty because we are just good citizens and shareholders. The CEO is not a bad guy either, he just makes profits for us. So in the end, when a bunch of Africans die of hunger nobody really stays up at night. The guilt is diluted, and distanced to the point where it is bearable.
So can we build a “world court” based on universals? What would be the mandate? Bitch at multinationals? What would be the executive power. In 8th wonderland the online community of voters had the power to issue death penalties to heads of state. Is this the way to go? Keep the bosses scared?
Or maybe it can be economic sanctions? Boycott all Coca-Cola products? Threaten companies with bad publicity?
It is not clear how the unification of the people should be done. We have to be careful so that we don’t go into the lower energies like vengeance and violence. The last thing we need is a mob of angry people acting like animals.
We’ll figure it out. The system is growing stronger day after day, but we have a few more years before they really clamp down on us and turn into an Orwellian picture. There will always be a gap. And if you time the punch carefully, exactly when they are tying to punch you — then you have them. The optimal strategy is not fear mongering and riling up angry crowds. We have to be steady scheming getting people educated and connected and then channel the forces for good in a distributed un-hijackable fashion.