"Conspiracy theories" do not thrive because the masses are stupid; but because they are excluded

[MischievousMonkey]

from knowledge, from participation in policy making, from all around intellectual discourse...

Random stream of thought, thinking about stuff like the 5G towers, the destruction of a covid-laboratory in Ivory Coast, the WHO, etc...

The blossoming of conspiracy theories does not come solely from people's so called "stupidity", but rather the lack of transparency of the intellectual, political and economic institutions, as well as the lack of respect from these institutions towards people's agency.

The commodification of knowledge, when it is not downright privatized, disallow citizens from having access to much of the information that is supposedly available. My school scholarship allows me (when the system wants to work) to access some scholars' articles on platforms with which my institution got partnerships, while the citizens who are not enrolled in this kind of institutions are barred from reading anything but the abstracts.

This lack of access, as well as the overall lack of openness of the scientific world towards the neophyte, pushes him into a narrow space of information and action where he is at the mercy of the vulgarization organizations and what they want him to know or talk about.
Not only does the neophyte can't access all of the discourse taking place, looking at this large world through the small window designed for him, he can't participate in it easily; there is no platform dedicated to allow exchange between the different scientific kingdoms and the lambdas, where both groups could ask questions, question motives, or even be consulted.


This barring is even more flagrant when it comes to politics, and it often turns into downright secrecy. The lack of transparency of the public institutions in so called democracies is just crazy. Rules institute a certain degree of sharing, but it is not only low, it is met with reluctance and minimal effort. The massive shadows cast upon most of our governments actions under the guise of bureaucracy, geopolitical and defense interests, hide so much of the processes and what is really going on that we consider ourselves lucky as well as not surprised when the occasional whistleblower unravels a part of it. And closed doors in a house always foster suspicion.

Why is there such a thing as a whistleblower in a democratic society? Because our society is not transparent, and becomes more opaque the higher we scale it.

The worst thing might be that there is not even close to an attempt to restore trust in the institutions that supposedly act on our behalf. It is the status quo.

The lack of agency of the people over their own lives, resulting from the stuffed bureaucracy of representative democracy certainly doesn't help.

The lack of accountability from these institutions, who can lie, cheat, fail, destroy, kill and destabilize without repercussions certainly doesn't help (was the CIA trialed for its actions in the cold war? Legitimate question).


And what happens when those institutions, supposedly acting on our behalf, supposedly open, can move around without being bound to any expectation of transparency, accountability, but also affect the ways of life of the many without the many being able to do, or even know about it?


More and more distrust, and more and more "conspiracy theories".

 

[get these nets]

Disagree. Individuals are who they are. Basic information about any topic is readily available and accessible to most people via the internet.

In the old days of my youth, free public libraries had reference books and newspapers available to whoever signed for them.

Now, granted these aren't the same as reading peer reviewed academic journals, but anybody who is so inclined can find out and learn the basics about any topic. They can read newspaper or follow programming geared toward that topic to stay current nd form their own opinions.

Instead of doing that, some find it easier to be willfully ignorant about issues. And then repeat uninformed takes that would insult their intelligence if they had a clue about the subject.

It's the easy way out.

 

[HiphopRelated]

The info is out there. Yes I don't expect the average Joe to have knowledge of the electromagnetic spectrum, but if you're that concerned about 5G, it's easy to get an overview. Fact is people love to feel they have the special information and the internet gives everyone the ability to express an opinion regardless of actual knowledge.

 

[Peruvian Connect]

People believe what they want. The truth can be simple and you provide absolute transparency and they will still come up with conspiracy theories.

 

[MischievousMonkey]

Disagree. Individuals are who they are. Basic information about any topic is readily available and accessible to most people via the internet.

In the old days of my youth, free public libraries had reference books and newspapers available to whoever signed for them.

Now, granted these aren't the same as reading peer reviewed academic journals, but anybody who is so inclined can find out and learn the basics about any topic. They can read newspaper or follow programming geared toward that topic to stay current nd form their own opinions.

Instead of doing that, some find it easier to be willfully ignorant about issues. And then repeat uninformed takes that would insult their intelligence if they had a clue about the subject.

It's the easy way out.

My deterministic inclinations lead me to believe that even though individuals are individuals and are going to do them (I talked several times about the egotistic aspect of the harping on conspiracy theories on here)... The actual structure of knowledge accessibility and systems of participation in its instances foster conspiracy theories and allow them to thrive to the point we're seeing today.

While basic knowledge is indeed accessible, I guess my bigger point is that the ways people are able to interact with this knowledge and its creators are very limited.

It'd be one thing if conspiracy theories limited themselves within the debates over the roundness or flatness or whatever planet. But when science, politics and economics intersect and influence policy making, the whole ensemble becomes opaque and promotes distrust.

I don't necessarily believe that 5G is harmful for the body or the environment. I don't know, even though I'm sure it has nothing to do with the coronavirus. What's more alarming to me, is when local populations are surprised, unaware of the installation of 5G towers in their spaces (whether or not these towers are actually dangerous), and realize that they can't do anything about them, and actually were not consulted or even taking into account when the decision and actions to set these structures up were taken.

Capitalist interests, turkey style over-stuffed invisible bureaucracies, lack of interaction with and downright disdain for the locals, fuel distrust. There would perhaps still be conspiracy theories with total transparency; but would they connect with such a large and growing number of people? Would they echo the generalized sentiment of cynicism when it comes to politicians, who "don't really care about us"? Soulless companies? Co-opted scientists?

Spoiler

My teacher in negociations took the example of a movie (forgot the name) depicting a doctor during the infancy of the AIDS epidemic in the gay community, trying to alert the homosexuals that their practices in the baths where they congregated were propagating the virus. "A man trying to save a group which is persuaded that the man wants to destroy them". It was to illustrate the numerous ways in which communication favored or blocked messages. His example was a call to observe our own way of communicating and change them to better make our intentions understood.

Aren't reactions such as this:

Spoiler

or the powerful distrust of Bill Gates by Africans (me included), of the WHO, and of institutions directly affecting our lives by their actions... A call for structural change in their communication as well as functioning?

 

[MischievousMonkey]

The info is out there. Yes I don't expect the average Joe to have knowledge of the electromagnetic spectrum, but if you're that concerned about 5G, it's easy to get an overview. Fact is people love to feel they have the special information and the internet gives everyone the ability to express an opinion regardless of actual knowledge.

Should the applications of this supposed objective knowledge get more consideration than the opinions of the people who will be affected by them?

 

[HiphopRelated]

Should the applications of this supposed objective knowledge get more consideration than the opinions of the people who will be affected by them?

Yes, based on the Dunning Kruger effect. I can't advocate just believe everything, but you can't go radical without knowledge.

 

[MischievousMonkey]

Yes, based on the Dunning Kruger effect. I can't advocate just believe everything, but you can't go radical without knowledge.

That's interesting. I am of an opinion that this stance, which amounts to subordinating free will, liberty and personal as well as communal agency, to a somehow determined knowledge, is mad anti-democratic and liberticidal. I also think it is a sign of how the mask of scientism came to govern the world.

Would you agree with the underlined or do you view your position differently?

 

[MischievousMonkey]

Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is a catch all term for any “activity designed to identify and predict the impact on the biogeochemical environment and on human health and well being, of legislative proposals, policies, programs, projects and operational procedures, and to interpret and communicate information about the impacts” (Munn 1979, 17). Any major project that would involve the clearing of an appreciable area of land, or the resettlement of a community or even a number of people, is required to be subjected to EIA. Through conducting EIA exercises, impacts are mitigated on the people and on the environment, and adequate compensation
paid, if necessary.1 In Africa, most EIA laws are considered unnecessary and are only observed for projects being funded by the World Bank, USAID, CIDA and other agencies that demand them. African governments on their own, hardly conduct EIA assessments for projects being financed exclusively by them.
Several policies have been established and executed by governments acrossAfrica, without an analysis of the impact of such on the environment and on the people (Appiah-Opoku 2005, 15). This was very much the case soon after the end of colonialism in the 1970s when most of Africa began the rush towards modernization. In a bid to become “developed” African governments embarked on massive investments in mechanized agriculture, building of industries, and urban centers. In Ghana, for instance, the Ghana Industrial Development Corporation (GIDC) was established and tasked with establishing 600 industries within a period of 10 years. Armed with such amandate and with the revenue from Cocoa and with funds readily available for borrowing from international financial institutions, the GIDC began to build factories and other “trappings of modernity” at such break-neck speeds without considering the impact on the environment (Appiah-Opoku 2005, 36). The construction of the Akosombo dam, although lauded as the greatest man-made lake, became the cause of river blindness, as the lake became a breeding ground for onchocerciasis: “almost half of the human population over 40 years of age living along the banks of the Volta Lake has lost their sight” (Moxon 1998, 198). Seth Appiah relates the neglect of the impact on indigenous communities in the rush towards a construction of modernity by the government of Ghana; writing about the Tema seaport project, he asserts that.


1The United States was the first country to establish EIA processes when in 1970, President Richard Nixon signed into law the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. The law was in “response t the strong protests by concerned citizens and environment NGOs on the pollution of the ecosystem as a result of the implementation of certain government policies. The successes recorded by the United States led several other countries around the world to enact EIA laws, and to incorporat it as a part of pre-conditions for the execution of all projects that would affect the environment i any manner. Developing countries who displayed indifference to such laws at first, were soon to be constrained to enact such laws when the World Bank, other bilateral agencies and intergovernmental bodies incorporated EIA laws as part of aid conditionalities” (Appiah-Opoku 2005, 15).

 

[thekingsmen]

The term itself isn't even organic and it would have never been organic outside the Alphabet Boys dictionary. Now believing in old wives tales, myths and propaganda are major factors in how people shape their viewpoint.

 

[O³ (O cubed)]

Yes and no. Being excluded from society lets you see the idiosyncrasies of it all. Also you start seeing through the bullshyt that's presented as truth.

 

[G.O.A.T Squad Spokesman]

fukk all that. I'm a product of the Oakland Public School system and I know better than to fall for them bullshyt conspiracies.

Most people only believe shyt they want to believe and only consume shyt that supports their theory.

 

[Field Marshall Bradley]

Basic information about any topic i

Key word...... and the easily accessible search engines don't return objective, unbiased results like it used to a decade ago....

 

[MischievousMonkey]

The Western-based EIA models, as has been argued by certain African scholars, are “technical, reactive and narrow in scope of application,” relying on “quantitative techniques for prediction and evaluation of impacts.” These techniques comprise of such highly scientific and technical applications such as “matrices, impact trend extrapolations, and simulation models” (Appiah-Opoku 2005, 18). Like all scientific methods, the Western-based EIA models in use thrive on certain basic assumptions (i) environmental relationships are identifiable, describable, measurable and subject to monitoring (ii) environmental changes are predictable to such an extent that “cause and effect relationships can be established (iii) it is possible to determine the value placed by stakeholders on the impact of environmental disruptions (iv) “issues of probability and uncertainty can be managed to such an extent that it is possible to decide whether a proposed action should proceed with or without modifications” (Appiah-Opoku 2005, 19).

The basic assumptions underlying the EIA processes betray its reliance on “perfect functioning models,” founded on scientific positivist assumptions which state that with sufficient data and learned interpretation, environmental behavior can be predicted (World Bank 1988, 27). This model also relies heavily on Western-styled and assumable predictable socioeconomic and political conditions, which are often absent in much of Africa. The lack of interest of governments of African countries to independently embark on the implementation of EIA for their major projects is not unconnected to the complexity of the Western dominated EIA procedures in place, which they are forced to practice in Western sponsored projects.

However, there are very strong indicators that indigenous knowledge based EIA will be more useful and functional in the socioeconomic, political and environmental situation in most of Africa. A good example where indigenous knowledge played a crucial role in determining the success or failure of a development project is the James Bay Hydroelectric Mega project in Canada. The EIA for this project, as usual dwelt on scientific predictions, and failed to utilize local resources, nuances, and local value sets to interpret and evaluate predicted impacts. The result was a failure to predict the devastating impact of the project on the native peoples in La Grande River Watershed (Berkes 1988a, b, 201–250). Conversely, the involvement of indigenous knowledge of the native people in the EIA studies of the Beaufort Sea Hydrocarbon Production and Transportation, the Oldman River Dam, and the Norman Wells Oil Field Development and Pipeline projects in Canada “revealed useful baseline and monitoring information for environmental assessment”(Berkes 1988a, b, 201–250). Lalonde (1993) lists the concerns of the native peoples as displayed in several consultative sessions in their communities.

(a) Comments that their ancestors never mentioned moose being as far north as Davis Inlet, where in the last few years, moose are commonly seen.
(b) Observation that fox and mink eat their young when airplanes fly over them at low levels. Also, flying over grazing grounds at low altitude creates stress among female calves
(c) Concern that past recreational and traditional activities around an irrigation well should cease because of the apparent danger of drowning from new whirlpools and increased flow of rivers affected by this (Lalonde 1993, 41).

The above extremely useful information could not have been uncovered by scientific methods without the involvement of indigenous communities in EIA.

Indigenous knowledge should be incorporated in all environmental decisions, as the local peoples have lived in that area for centuries and are armed with sufficient knowledge regarding the patterns, changes, and outcomes of certain practices unique to the area. This knowledge cannot be simulated or gained by the rigorous methods of science. Indigenous philosophy of life seeks to conserve the earth as a deity which could be helpful if appeased and harmful if neglected—this philosophy keeps resource exploitation in check. Indigenous communities are also repositories of technologies that are suited for the local environment,which, if properly accounted for in the process of EIA, will play a crucial role in complementing scientific data for impact prediction, mitigation, and monitoring.2

Why being excluded from the decision-making and policy-making processes that affect us and are supposed to be for us... has been normalized?

 

[HiphopRelated]

That's interesting. I am of an opinion that this stance, which amounts to subordinating free will, liberty and personal as well as communal agency, to a somehow determined knowledge, is mad anti-democratic and liberticidal. I also think it is a sign of how the mask of scientism came to govern the world.

Would you agree with the underlined or do you view your position differently?

Honestly, I'm a lil jaded on some aspects of democracy. So you're probably right in that aspect, but I tend to defer if I'm not knowledgeable.

Can you imagine we were told an asteroid was one year out that would take out let's say most of Africa. Imagine the range of opinions that would be formed. At those times people you need to decide quickly what needs to be done, not trying to get community consensus. When you could spend time developing solutions, you don't need to be arguing with people telling you asteroids don't exist or it's God's will.

So yeah it might be in undemocratic, but major changes rarely are. The majority tends to like what they're already comfortable with