Question: Can a democratic bio-ethical society arise from or survive the Stage-4 systemic corruption of corporate monopolism?
This is a corollary of the related issue, re: whether or not researchers ('scientists' & academics) serve the perversion or regressive status quo of "the state" (i.e., a 'democratic' society). Now, below, is my response to Jean-Paul's post:
I agree. Yet, it's now much worse. The reality is clearly observable here and at Academia."edu" and elsewhere in academia, etc. I call it the complex symptoms of pseudomythic neoPtolemaic orthodoxy. It maintains this 'modern' civilization's ecocidal status quo.
Donald Schon -- in his classic "Beyond the Stable State" etc. -- called the key subliminal 'mechanism' the "dynamic conservatism" of a group's or society's 'power' structure. Of course, the main seemingly 'external' causal factors are fueled and perpetuated by the dominant elite's parasitic financial system and their essentially anti-ethical, biocidal cultural paradigm, the piracy paradigm. However, as I show in [my preprint draft of] "Trump, Hitler, Freud, and Mostrosity", the other subliminal mechanism that we see in this advanced Stage-4 phase of cultural illness can be seen as pandemic mass-authoritarian personality disorder. Worse still, the further the syndrome and catastrophic consequences are allowed to persist, the more people are either infected or more severely threatened (and damaged or worse).
Unfortunately, the worst-case examples are Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Trump et al, and their loyal fanactical dupes. I use "dupes" because they have been duped, conned into believing the monstrous lies and propaganda of the malignant narcissists who maniulate and exploit them. However, as Carl Sagan sadly realized, most of us are too easily bamboozled, and the longer and worse, the less the victims want to know about it. Unfortunately, as Edward R. Murrow predicted at his farewell dinner, the world and corporate media of today were enabled by the same subliminal cowardice; and because '"most of us are allergic to reality"' and very unpleasant news.
Now, more to the point, what could seem more unpleasant than discovering that our tenure, funding, and socioeconomic status are threatened by new and better science or maths?
We can see this in subliminal censorship and virtual suppression (and/or ostracism) of creative evolutionaries and discoverers of unorthodox truths and realities -- proving that the status quo paradigm of 'mordern' science is obsolete and/or deficient. For example, 'successful physics experts' either refuse to seriously consider my Work or they prefer selective inattention, or hostile negativity, ostracism, or whatever. Another example of neoPtolemaic academic orthodoxy retarding progress is the nearly total refusal and/or inability of 'successful' mathematical technicians to consider any new theory or metatheory (and related proofs) beyond their view of their favorite subjects of interest and narrow domain of special knowledge. For instance, my preprint paper on the solutions of the Rieman Hypothesis (RH) and P/NP problems, Goldbach's and Collatz's conjectures (and the actual basis of geometry, mathematics, numeric logic, and physics) have been posted and circulated (via email) since 2017. Yet, not one of the many allegedly leading-edge mathematicians has read it closely, considered it seriously, understood it, reviewed it, and critiqued or recommended it.
Now, that latter case may seem a strictly self-serving example, but none of the most well-respected 'leading-edge' mathematical technicians -- not even Riemann himself -- have found a truly satisfactory, comprehensive proof of RH or whether all complete NP problems are or are not computationally solvable as economically feasible P problems. In fact, as I show and verify in my Work, the RH and P/NP problems are perfect examples, proving that all NP problems are not quickly solvable as P problems.
So, clearly, the real problem perpetuating the malignant decline of Stage-4 democracies infected by anti-ethical corporate monopolism and/or fascism is the systemic corruption (perverse socialization) of the egos of an ever-greater majority of seemingly trustworthy, respectable people.
/
FYI: So, for me, the key issue is whether or not the normalized egos of ordinary scientists, mathematicians, educators, policy-makers, and politicians can liberate their minds from The Box of delusional oblivion maintained by the world's systemic corruption.
Beyond the considerations that underpin the philosophical thoughts of Betham and Marx, which lead, in the application, to extremist ideologies, politics is first and foremost a question of morality and human rights. From the outset, from the introduction to his book "Nonsense Upon Stilts: Bentham, Burke and Marx on the Rights of Man. Routledge, 2014", Waldron wrote "In the market-place of domestic politics and in international affairs, respect for rights is the new criterion of political legitimacy. A government that respects its citizens' rights is a good government and deserves support; A government that violates human rights should be denied aid and comfort from abroad and shunned in the international community, In moral and political theory, where the idea was for a long time in disrepute, rights are again at serious subject of philosophical inquiry. The literature abounds with discussions of their normative structure, the values like equality and autonomy that are thought to underpin them, the weight that they are supposed to have against other moral considerations, and the relation between moral rights and the rights that are established by positive law. It is common for political philosophers nowadays to claim that the demands of justice are rights-based rather than based on considerations of social utility, and many have adopted the Lockean view that the primary function of law and other aspects of social organization is to constitute a framework of uphold and respect the moral rights of individual citizens.!..."
Large parts of the book are accessible in reading at:
https://books.google.tn/books?hl=fr&lr=&id=wFSvBAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=bentham+versus+marx&ots=E-_56SDiAR&sig=NbkNDjVFnQiU0LaqEkhTBX6wa6I&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=bentham%20versus%20marx&f=false
Dear Jamel et al - The key issue at question in this thread is whether anything said or claimed by experts, authorities, and theorists is really translated into "real-world" practice and policy by a majority sufficient to make a bio-ethical society either sustainable or possible. Yet, I really appreciate your post of informative links, for context.
Dear Jamel, thanks again. Yet, isn't it shameful that so few others care about these issues?