The Conscious Universe: Parts and Wholes in Physical Reality
a book by Menas Kafatos and Robert Nadeau
(our site's book review)
The authors confirm the uncommon wisdom of Fritjof Capra (The Web of Life: A New Scientific Understanding of Living Systems) as it relates to the physical and spiritual universe, the need to adopt the new, ecological-holistic paradigm in place of the mechanistic-reductionistic paradigm, the characteristics of the new paradigm, the whole being more than the sum of its parts, and the truth about any entity being found only in the totality of interrelationships it has with its environment as opposed to being found in a reductionistic analysis of merely the thing itself. The implications of all this could fill a book (and they have done so on several occasions), but suffice it to say that all this supports a systems perspective in any area, including the sociological (e.g., A Systems Perspective of Parenting: The Individual, the Family, and the Social Network) in general and the sociological definition of ecology, which involves the relationship and adjustments of humans to their geographical and social environments.
Nature’s plan: beings evolve according to opportunities inherent in advantageous genetic accidents
In the ecology of a human, the internal system of his mind and body interact with the external social and physical environment, and the optimization of the outer system causes enhancement of the inner system. This has always been nature’s plan: to create beings who will not only balance each other by survival of the fittest and evolve according to opportunities inherent in advantageous genetic accidents, but nurture one another in interdependent relationships requiring cooperation and feedback.
To the degree humans dovetail with this overall plan and nurture themselves, each other and the environment, they thrive and grow. To the degree they obsess on a part of this system (survival of the fittest, as Dead Right, for example, which supports this covertly and without acknowledging it) as opposed to harmonizing with the whole, they unbalance the system, which reacts with symptoms, weaknesses, disease, confusion, and then an attempt to balance itself ecologically. It’s easy to see how many beings are out of sync with this ecological plan when one looks at the effects of humans on the physical environment. But it’s just as easy—if you really look—to see how many beings are out of sync with it when you study the ecological imbalances in man’s macrosocial and microsocial ecology.
Survival of the fittest, socially, degenerates into the law of the jungle
The liberals may have a good idea when they pine for a society in which equitable resource allotments prevail, but their Utopian attempts to achieve it have been sloppily conceived and executed, using one of the worst methods available: social engineering. After seeing the communists and socialists utterly botch the job in the 20th century, one would have thought they’d have tried something else. But they made the mistake of bad systems analysis: they thought it wasn’t the engineering concept per se that was at fault, but the specific engineers and the specific engineering plan. So, like those that came before them, they used the wrong method, social engineering, for the right reason: to improve society. (They often ended up exploitatively manipulating society for their own selfish ends while deceiving people that it was in their own best interests, however. E.g,: USSR Communism, and special USA tax shelters for rich people or big corporations.)
What balances the system is to empower and create opportunity, NOT use social engineering
The social engineers’ resource reallocation pretended to erase inequalities and “balance the system.” But this turned out to be reductionistic: resources that belong to one entity getting taken away involuntarily to be handed to another entity do not actually balance the system (unless this happens as a response to a common agreement in which the many agree to deal humanely with the disabled and provide for the common defense). As liberals and conservatives alike have been realizing more and more since the 90s, what balances the system is to empower and create opportunity, so that resource-poor entities evolve in their systemic abilities to incur needed resources.
Attempts to try to socialistically equalize resources irrespective of circumstances merely condition various systemic elements to lose active resource acquisition activity inclinations, while it angers resource suppliers and turns acute resource shortages into chronic ones. By weakening any part of a systems ability to cooperate, survive, function, and produce—however unintentional this may be—you practice bad ecology. All entities in a system should be empowered and enriched in their system-specific productive capabilities, regardless of what it takes, because in the long run you have a fully empowered system needing no engineering, programs, reallocations (exceptions noted above), and no able-bodied are insulted and humiliated with handouts and disempowering dependence habits, and no productive entities’ resources are involuntarily sacrificed to bleeding-heart principles that sound good but work badly.
Once a system has malfunctioned long enough, it may take heroic measures to actualize complex empowerment strategies rather than opt for the easier, sound-bite-compatible cop-out strategy of resource reallocation, however, since the unsightly big government liberal political policy disasters are omnipresent in our society, we really don’t have much choice. Even if some European state manages to somehow make welfare state strategies seem to work reasonably well, it must be remembered that that is they, and this is we. They invented collectivism. We invented individualism. And no red-blooded American would trade national and individual character structures with them for anything.
No red-blooded American would trade our individualist character type for the European's socialism character type
Hillary Clinton is 100% right that “it takes a village to raise a child” (perhaps this is the most proven fact in all of sociology), but in America we need villages that are too smart, because of successful nurturing, and too wise, from studying the history and consequences of “politics is the answer” mindsets, to even consider reallocating resources to the able-bodied, thus weakening the system’s resource production potentials and creating a weak system sector that progressively loses incentive, inspiration, self-esteem, pride, motivation, and character. Unfortunately, liberals have never even considered dropping their foolish “politics is the answer” mindsets. However, once the U.S. is spending all its discretionary income to service the national debt (20 trillion and rising fast), “politics is the answer” will become a dirty joke and liberals will finally be forced to accept the "individual empowerment with MCs" answer this website has been announcing for many years.
Hillary Clinton is 100% right that 'it takes a village to raise a child' if she means MCs=village but wrong if she means government=village
The doomsday clock is currently set at 3 minutes to midnight
Unless American citizens start defecating money, the debt has put us all in deep doo-doo
System empowerment via individual entity empowerment isn’t the conservative or liberal answer. It’s the only answer. Since systems analysis can easily show that resource reallocation weakens the system’s productivity and potential productivity, it must be abandoned as misguided policy, flawed logic, and bad science. (System empowerment via individual empowerment is epitomized in the MC movement. See Why Register for an MC?.)
Registering for MC search and match
Reallocating resources to the able-bodied results in loss of incentive, inspiration, self-esteem, pride, and motivation, and results in bad character
Society doesn’t improve because all-powerful politicians plan and implement policies “for the good of the rest of us.” Political policies need to concentrate only on what the people cannot be expected to do for themselves. This protects, organizes and informs society, but it’s the people themselves who must do the improving. As the aspects of life for which people should be responsible are taken out of the hands of government bureaucrats and given to the grassroots, government should shrink. And a gazillion Washington lawyers lobbying for special interests and suing everything and everyone when things aren’t going their way is certainly one way to run a society (and it always involves corruption), but it cannot be the best. Reforms must accompany the re-empowerment of the American people.
A government bureaucrat doing things 'for citizens' which the people ought to do themselves
Individuals are responsible for creating their own resource allotments, but our government needs to temporarily create effective policies to empower those who are irresponsible (because of liberal interference in their lives or lousy upbringings) or ineffective in this area. Once it has done this, it should stay out of the way in this area, and let the people simply existentially choose to work and eat or be idle and not eat. History has always had this rule, and one must doubt the sanity of the person or persons who decided to rescind it.
As every good learning expert, parenting expert, education specialist, ethics expert, logic expert, and psychologist on Earth will tell you, people need more than anything else to be given the responsibility for their own actions or inactions, and to be given the opportunity to learn from the natural consequences of their actions. If a hungry person feels he’s too good to work in fast food or factory work or waiter jobs, let him either let hunger dictate a mind change or let him study and learn until he can get a job he feels is more suited to his tastes and abilities. Newt Gingrich was right: we need an opportunity society, and people need training when they’re unemployed, not handouts. They need empowerment, not disincentives. America needs to get out of the business of supporting slackers, scammers, cheaters, and criminals, as well as cease its corporate welfare support and pork barrel politics.
If a hungry person feels he’s too good to work in fast food (pictured) or factory work or waiter jobs, let him either let hunger dictate a mind change or let him study and learn until he can get a job he feels is more suited to his tastes and abilities