Morality, Society, and the Return to Simplicity

Let us consider the problem of societal complexity through the lens of technology for a moment. Technology is indifferent to the ideas of good and evil. A tool of technology does not decide the manner in which it is used; only the wielder of the tool can decide whether it is used for good or evil purposes. However, one of the problems with the idea of "good and evil" is that it requires a subjective moral judgement as to what is "good" and what is "evil." When it comes to any subjective determination, different cultures, subcultures, and individuals will never fully agree on specific issues or criteria. This the place in which complexity arises in social life. Additionally, "the road to hell is (often) paved with good intentions," in which good natured people with genuinely good intentions can still cause serious harm because they simply could not grasp or foresee the consequences of their efforts. For example, as Elon Musk and others have warned their contemporaries working on General Artificial Intelligence (AI), although their intentions are generally well-meaning, the outcomes of their work cannot be comfortably predicted, and one reasonably possible outcome of their work is the extinction of the entire human race through the accidental or intentional whims of AI. Such is why collective intelligence, and the simplicity that supports it, is so critical to the wellbeing of us all.

In certain societies we may do well (or not) at using cultural values and moral principles to inform our decision-making by using the terms "beneficial" and "harmful" instead, while erring on the side of more freedom and less restrictions on individual liberty. However, even this approach requires an active use of the skill of discernment, and people (each having their own conscience) will never entirely agree on specifics. I say "skill of discernment" because it truly requires the skillful use of mindfulness, intuition, and critical thinking not distorted by ego-desires or fleeting emotions. The most viable approach in ensuring a group of people can interact harmoniously and with stability (and use technology wisely), with maximum freedom and least harm to one another possible, is to use the simplest, most general set of values and moral principles possible.

With a simple moral code of ethical conduct (incorporating individual rights and responsibilities) agreed to by all participants, it falls on individuals educated to effectively use the skills of discernment to modulate their own personal behavior to, primarily, minimize harm to other life while, secondarily, maximizing their own happiness. And, when a person causes another harm, intentionally or unintentionally, and the parties are unable to make amends and resolve the issue themselves, it would fall on the entire group's (family's, community's, city's, or state's) "collective intelligence" to determine on a case-by-case basis what the most beneficial way would be to handle the transgression. There is no need for complex legal frameworks and dedicated "experts" to make this work, and, in fact, such things are generally a hindrance to the application of collective wisdom. It is more beneficial to all if the collective group alone, not an individual or small group of people, is entrusted with the authority and power to enforce on individuals the group's decision of how to resolve a matter. Wider circles of social structures (e.g. states, cities) would defer decision-making on specific issues or situations to more local social structures (e.g. communities and families), only stepping in when the more local social unit was unable to collectively resolve the matter on their own. Law and order is best maintained, effective, and agreeable to people when its implementation is genuinely democratic and, as importantly, built from the bottom-up, rather top-down in which centralized authorities assume a corrupt control over all levels of society.

Unfortunately, the "old-world" social systems of most industrialized nations, buried under mountains of legal language not even experts can fully grasp, corruption that manipulates this complexity, over-centralized forms of power structures, and toxic methods of enforcement, have become so burdensome, confusing, and counterproductive at maintaining social cohesion and harmony, these systems have been causing for more harm than benefit for their peoples. What is needed is a fundamental reset and shift in our way of thinking, such that all complexity, corruption, and harmful methods of enforcing double-standards are stripped from the systems used to maintain social order. The People collectively yearn to return to simplicity in all areas of public life, in which common sense, compassionate wisdom, logical reasoning, and evidence have genuine influence on how our collective values and principles are applied to specific issues and situations.

With compassion and evidence guiding us, we could use collective intelligence, at all levels, and the skills of discernment at the level of individual conscience to make much wiser decisions about the use of technology and addressing moral transgressions than our current set of representatives, who are generally corrupt, unqualified, sociopathic, or otherwise manipulated by egocentric forces, are capable of. To make this shift happen peacefully will require us all to have the courage to conquer our fears, transcend our petty or egotistical beliefs, let go of ideologies that no longer serve us, and learn to trust again in simplicity and the essential goodness of one another. A peaceful transition will require carefully building up new socioeconomic models of living from within the old, gradually replacing the old ways without directly opposing them. We must learn to let be, in simplicity, what we wish to see, and let go of all complexity. This is a tall order, I know, but history shows us that it can be done – that it must be done.

How Do Beliefs Close Our Minds?

How adaptable are we really, when operating without the daily support and insight of others to serve as a mirror reflecting back the imperfections that exist in our own way of seeing the world -- without brethren helping us to see the stale frailty of our ingrained biases? The capacity for genuine, lasting behavioral change for a person can only occur within a nurturing social environment. Devoid of a regularity of positive feedback from the environment (that is in excess to the negative), there can be no lasting change or growth of character, for it will sink and drown from exhaustion otherwise.

 

Our own beliefs can cut us off from being able to recognize the fundamental cracks in our accepted worldview. Beliefs are a self-fulfilling prophecy, for better or worse. Beliefs inform our intentions inform our actions. Beliefs create blind spots within the light of our own consciousness, like shadows cast in broad daylight. Our judgment is limited by our degree of mindful awareness, which is limited by the beliefs thus far attached to. It is only through personal abandonment of fixed attachments and static conceptions about the world, while abiding within a loving web of family and community, that we can restore an inner-equilibrium and equanimity of mind -- a state of consciousness that is the source of all inspiration, wisdom, hope, joy, and righteous agency in the world.

Gender Inequality (Response to a College Assignment)

[Originally posted: Wednesday, February 03, 2010]

My overall interpretation of "Gender, Race, and Class in Silicon Valley" was that the primary issue creating inequality (of treatment, opportunity, and support) between the sexes in 'stereotypically male' industries is the common perception, by both sexes, of what gender role constructs are accepted and expected.  Personal family experiences and other cultural influences have shaped the beliefs, attitudes, and perceptions of past and current generations of men and women concerning gender roles.  I found it somewhat surprising that, at least as represented by this author (despite her own gender), the majority of women are as guilty of possessing gender perceptions that propagate workplace inequality as men are.

Despite the continued prevalence of this socioeconomic inequality between the sexes, it is my opinion that the average trending, especially in the U.S. from the mid-20th century to the present, towards more socially liberal attitudes and beliefs in society is gradually eroding the prevalence of the traditional role constructs that are largely responsible for the current gender inequalities.  Therefore, I find it at least relatively reasonable to believe that the pervasiveness of this problem will continue to steadily dissipate over the next few decades.

I thought it would be interesting to point out an example of work-related discrimination that is often experienced by men for similar reasons: male nurses.  A typical perception is that women have a significantly higher capacity for empathy and ability to care for others to a higher interpersonal standard, and that it is not the place of men to have such an occupation.  Therefore, as has been related to me from a female RN, male nurses are far more likely to have to deal with patients that mistreat or devalue them and their work, and are also likely to experience a slightly increased challenge in establishing or maintaining male-male friendships because of their occupation.  Again in this case, persistent cultural role constructs have formed the personal perceptions that feed these (arguably negative) behaviors and reactions.

One particular line in "Violence Against Women" really stood out for me.  "Violence therefore operates as a means to maintain and reinforce women's subordination."  Clearly men who are violent towards women usually consciously or instinctively justify their behavior, at least partially, based on socially-propogated constructs of what a 'real man' is expected to be physically, psychologically, and in their interpersonal behaviors, which include an inherent perception espousing male domination and female subordination through these various socially-promoted male attributes.  As the quoted sentence implies, more often than not, the reason for the violent behavior is to maintain and reinvigorate the man's self-perception of having the aforementioned qualities defined by the prevailing social expectations.  Although I realize I'm treading a fine line here and do not claim women are at all directly responsible for the violence against them, I would suggest that womens' acceptance of these same gender constructs is an underlying reason for the stubborn persistence (staying-power) of individual relationships in which violence has taken place.  I would argue that if abused women had been raised in a social environment in which women were taught and expected to think and behave in ways that were truly equal to men in all practical respects, those same women would be far, far more likely to end an abusive relationship promptly.