Excellent point guys.
I want to put a bit of a spin on the whole topic.
I have a son. And lets say I'm a little concerned about his future as to what type of society he will be living in when he grows up.
Us, as capable citizens, can we change the way things are going? Can we break this cycle of materialism (which I closely relate to consumerism) and give our children a chance to be happy? Is this going to be so bloody hard that even people like us, who realize that the situation is bad, would rather not think about it purely because the scope of the issue is huge?
The ultimate question I guess is could we get people stop consuming? Or is this too unrealistic?? What do you think is the solution to this problem?
In my opinion, we will be seeing a huge change in the way people consume in the next 50 years or so. Most companies are concentrated so much on sustainability. But sustainability will not come from a better technology in my opinion. It will come from a different type of technology that you and I have not yet seen. It will be a new era where people will have a bare minimum, but all needs will be fulfilled. Can this actually happen though?
This article might enlighten you.
I'm writing this based on Stanley Cohen's research and so that's my source.
Our psychologies are not perfect, we can fall into psychological traps of thinking we are well-intentioned people, while in matter of action events, we are no different from those who would promote violent or what you might call (though I dislike the usage of the word) 'evil' acts - that is, actual actions in response to such acts by both proponents of, and opposers of, might be extremely similar to the point where there is only ideological difference between the two components. In simple terms, reactions match, whilst intentions differ. This article is concerned primarily with those components who are ideologically opposed to acts of atrocities - like the liberal middle class of nations like Germany, which allowed a genocide to occur while they are in awareness of it, or currently, those Israeli liberals who do not actively react to the ethnic cleansing and military killings of Palestinians by the Israeli government and military.
A component of this is the psychology of denial and does well in explaining why no actual responses occur, by those who would normally respond, do not.
As I mentioned above; our psychologies are not perfect, but it would be commonly assumed by someone who takes a liberal stance toward politics that they are more well intentioned than those who resort to violence. There is nothing wrong with good intentions, but it should be understood that 'good intentions' may largely be a conscious, rather than unconscious product, especially in Western societies where 'resolution through diplomatic means' is largely propagated, but hardly followed through (exceptions are arguable and not important to this case). What does this have to do with denial?
Modern psychoanalysis denotes denial as an unconscious self-defence mechanism. To conceptualize this, picture receiving a very high telephone bill - in psychological self defence it is not uncommon to think that there must be some mistake, and responsibility for paying the bill is not taken ultimately seriously until a time is met where you are forced to deal with it in one way or another. So here, while the bill is consciously acknowledged in one part of the brain, in another it is denied acknowledgement - it is unbelieved: '
Cognitive psychologists have used the language of information processing, selection perception, filtering, attention span etc., to understand the phenomenon of how we notice and simultaneously not notice' (Goleman, 1985). Neurological phenomenon such as 'blindsight' is remarkably similar, if not connected.
Recently, watching a documentary with a friend based on the corporate corner cuts of some bottled water manufacturers, the friend was emotionally affected and displeased at the 'immoral' endeavours of this corporation and intended not to purchase again. The next week, the friend was seen drinking bottled water.
This can not be explained by denial alone. There are sociological factors implicit in failure or reluctance to act, that accompany the psychology of denial. Cohen's reference to bystanders and rescuers is aiding; 'The bystander effect'.
In this, a young woman is attacked at night in a New York street while her screams were heard by 38 witnesses for over 40 minutes. No one intervened. Eventually police arrived at the site too late and she was killed. Putting the natural emotiveness aside, which this story is bound, perhaps designed to provoke (keeping mind that anyone here could have been one of those 38 witnesses), studies of the bystander effect reveal factors which suggest in what scenarios is intervention likely to be taken:
1. Where there is diffusion of responsibility. Diffusion of responsibility is where who is responsible to take action is not clear. The lack of provocation for immediate action caused by indirect responsibility will affect reaction in general. Important cases for diffusion of responsibility are corporate crime cases where the hierarchical structure of a corporate body may make it difficult to land blame on a particular unit of that body.
2. Inability to identify with the victim. Sympathising and empathizing with someone suffering is important. Those excluded from our social groups - through identify - are often excluded from our assistance too. It must be stressed that this is natural. It is not socially natural for individuals to emphasize enough with different social groups enough to make an effective change. Important cases here are Charity commercials which often put up pictures of starving children in a far away land. These only perpetuate alienation and further separate identities. Charities do not ask for people to make a direct connection with these children, they act as a 'middle-man' which makes it easier for contributors to part with money.
3. Inability to conceive of effect intervention. This is very important, as there are people willing to go the whole nine yards then face a serious problem: What can I do? People tend to feel powerless in this scenario and may become ineffective through this realization.
(Sheleff, 197
Evidently, all these factors are applicable to human rights and effective change. Intention means nothing if it does not manifest into action.
References:
Sheleff, L. (197
The Bystander, Lexington, MA.
Goleman, D. (1985) Vital Lies, Simple Truths: On the Psychology of Self Deception. new York: Plenum Press.
![[quote]](http://static.biggie.co.nz/img/dis/message_quote.png "Quote message"){kind=small}
) so why cant you understand how someone would like a Modigilani or a Picasso on their wall. Or a Moore in their grounds.