Changing the world

One of my ... “hobbies”, I suppose you could call it, is every now and then reflecting on how to change the world for the better. 

One of the links I posted recently, and a conversation about the development of actions to implement the Genocide Convention, has led me to a bit of a reflection on this favourite topic of mine. 

Actually, it was probably two articles, which were: 

• “10 Reasons Why Societies Fail to Respond to Their Greatest Threats”   https://www.okdoomer.io/you-arent-the-one-panicking-they-are/   These reasons are real, and important to know so they can be countered  

and 

• “We've Got The Mental Health Crisis All Wrong”   https://www.okdoomer.io/weve-got-mental-health-all-wrong/   “Most people don't really know what the phrase "mental health" even means. They think they do. They think it boils down to smiling around everyone and keeping your negative thoughts to yourself. ...   Psychologists have a name for that.   It's called surface acting.   Our jobs place enormous demands on us to fake attitudes and emotions that align with social norms, no matter what we're actually feeling on the inside. It's bad for everyone. The lower your place in the hierarchy, the worse it gets.”   I agree whole heartedly with this article - some of my personal experience of this and the consequences can be found at https://gnwmythr.blogspot.com/p/recovering-from-corporate-life.html  

I’m going to simplify this to just using dot points, given the number of times I have posted about this in the past, so ... here goes: 

• in reality we - meaning all decent people who are free of survival demands enough to be able to reflect - know what the worst problems are: they’re things like the neoliberalism which perpetuates and clocks in inequity & inequality and the consequences of same, such as devastating poverty, global hunger & thirst, and perverts capitalism into something that perpetuates the climate crisis   ...   things like the lazy outsourcing of personal responsibility to simplified “thinking”, snobbish attraction to elitism, wanting to feel “normal” or part of the “in crowd” or “special” no matter what the cost to others; 

• in more detail, it is all the reasons outlined in the articles above (and many of the other that Jessica Wildfire and “OK Doomer” publish); and
  

• all the other problems shown by analyses of many organisations (I won’t go into detail - I’ve covered it elsewhere, and a good Internet search - particularly of the UN and human rights organisations and organisations such as Freedom House - will lead you to these). 

But ... what do we do about all those?

Well, ... 

in the long term, we: 

• continue to educate people so they are not vulnerable to misinformation/disinformation/commercial propaganda (aka “advertising”) and have critical thinking abilities (see the link below to Brendan Myers’ course); 
• develop people’s character so they do not, in the words I have used, abdicate or outsource personal responsibility.
  A number of philosophers and writers in the past have talked about the importance of people actively keeping their democracies (probably best known is Franklin's “A Republic, if you can keep it”, from 1787, but Franklin - who was initially a slaver - also originated “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety” in 1755), but there is nothing in our official systems that addresses this (teaching how Parliament functions and how we vote - civics -does not go anywhere near being adequate), and we need to change that - ALL democratic nations do, if they wish to keep their freedom;
  

in the medium term, we need: 

• nuanced discussions, such as those that were held, albeit on too small a scale, during the heart-breaking Voice referendum; 
• better education about issues to counter disinformation/misinformation - especially amongst cultures and sub-groups who may lack the understanding of history, background, and nuance to adequately understand those issues and thus make properly informed decisions when voting; 
• better journalism - including better journalists, and holding platforms to account for perpetuation of hate and other misinformation/disinformation; 
• to restrain the power of corporations.
  I have been told that Directors of corporations have a legal duty to either consider only financial aspects, or at least put financial matters first. If that is the case, then I consider they should equally keep their noses out of anything that is not purely financial - such as preserving sacred sites, or countering racism.
  However, that is clearly absurd - good corporations, including those who are certified as B Corp's, seek a better world as it is better for them - good neighbours are less likely to have accidental falling outs, are more likely to prevent problems, work cooperatively, be less damaging of our future survival chances, etc. Some are actively involved in things like moving to a sustainable basis, and addressing human trafficking/slavery and other human rights violations.
  Others are not ... and may be quite the reverse.
  However, more importantly, much as it can be nice, reassuring, and easier to have good powerful organisations backing us on important issues, that also falls into the category of abdicating/outsourcing personal responsibility. It can be difficult when we are seeking to make the world a better place, but we need to consider restraining the power of corporations - not necessarily their size, although that was part of US anti-monopoly laws and contributed to the 2007-08 GFC and thus must be managed as part of good governance for society. Corporations need, in my opinion, to be held to account for their overall influence - including their good actions, lack of good actions, avoidance of greed, avoidance of damage, etc.
  If that had been in place, we would not have had the trickle down rubbish lasting as long as it has, as the public data and analysis would have shown that to be utterly nonsensical;
  
  PS - after publishing this, I came across the following:
  “Michael Pascoe: Business too busy whingeing to lift productivity”   https://www.thenewdaily.com.au/finance/2023/12/13/michael-pascoe-business-productivity   “That’s a lot easier than admitting Australia suffers from dud corporate leadership”   
  
  
• better, more principled politicians - and that, to some extent, is a result of both who we vote for, and our lack of political action.
  The reality is our voting is influenced by political theatre and the argy-bargy in the media. If that didn’t have any influence, political parties and politicians would not bother with it, and would instead focus more on good policies.
  Many want to focus on good policies, and it us who stop through through our cynicism, shallowness & superficiality, and lack of engagement - lack of caring is a better, more accurate phrase.
  If you want a better focus on sustainability, get involved with political parties and do the hard work of persuasion - even better, do that in a party which is not quite as goo as it should on that issue.
  If you want politicians to address a particular issue, join a lobby or start doing the work of persuasion yourself - use letters backed by whatever evidence you can find, and written to persuade, rather than to vent anger and pain. I have quite a few examples for you on this blog.
  I also wish to state quite clearly that I have the greatest respect for the politicians I know and work with, who I consider ARE principled;
  
• be prepared to learn and adapt measures. As an example, the Genocide Convention of 1948 entered into force in 1951. There has been extreme reluctance to get involved in punishing genocide (The Gambia is the only exception that comes to mind, with its action on Myanmar’s genocide of the Rohingya - see here, here, and here), as discussed in “A Problem from Hell”, by Samantha Power [15] , pub. Pub. Harper, 2010, ISBN 978-0007172993, on Amazon at https://www.amazon.com.au/Problem-Hell-America-Age-Genocide-ebook/dp/B003RRY3UG/ref=sr_1_1.
  That refusal to act eventually led to the concept of Responsibility to Protect, discussed in “The Responsibility to Protect”, by Gareth Evans [16] , pub. Brookings Institute Press, 2009, 978-0-81-572504-6, on Amazon at https://www.amazon.com.au/Responsibility-Protect-Ending-Atrocity-Crimes-ebook/dp/B0BL85KL82/ref=sr_1_1. 
  That concept seemed clear enough, but it also didn’t work, which led to the equally ineffective concept of the Will to Intervene - see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Will_to_Intervene&oldid=1179992047.
  However, fourth time was successful, with the Magnitsky laws - laws that the world was embarrassed into adopting after the abuse and killing of one person who, although not a human rights or other activist, was just trying to be a decent human being living in an ethical way.
  I think embarrassment is an underrated force in politics.
  On the Magnitsky laws, see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sergei_Magnitsky&oldid=1180150442,   https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Magnitsky_Act&oldid=1188702095,   https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Magnitsky_legislation&oldid=1177244749,   and   “Bad People and How to be Rid of Them”, by Geoffrey Robertson, pub. Vintage, 2021, ISBN 978-1-76-014561-3, on Amazon at https://www.amazon.com.au/Bad-People-Them-Human-Rights-ebook/dp/B08QZFWQQY/ref=sr_1_1. 
  This option is not perfect, and tweaks are currently underway which may in fact lead to something better down the track, but it was worked better than anything else so far - but is essentially predicated on all that has gone before, which changed thinking/awareness, if nothing else, and thus made better conversations possible.
  (I will write a post about that sequence one day ... )  
  

and, in the short term, we: 

• continue to do whatever we can, wherever we can, at whatever scale we can.
  

Assumptions / basis 

In writing this, I have assumed / started from the following: 

• this blog states quite clearly that it is about political and human rights matters, including lived experience of problems, and thus I will assume readers are reasonable people who have noted the content warning in the post header;

Possible flaws 

Where I can, I will try to highlight possible flaws / issues you should consider:

• there may be flawed logical arguments in the above: to find out more about such flaws and thinking generally, I recommend Brendan  Myers’ free online course “Clear and Present Thinking”; 
  
• I could be wrong - so keep your thinking caps on, and make up your own minds for yourself.
  

 

If they are of any use of interest, the activism information links from my former news posts are available in this post. 

 

If you appreciated this post, please consider promoting it - there are some links below.

Remember: we need to be more human being rather than human doing, and all misgendering is an act of active transphobia/transmisia that puts trans+ lives at risk.