God forbid the medical freedom movement/antivaxxer movement, Covid sceptic/climate sceptic/Net Zero sceptic movements ever become established ‘communities’.
Our opponents are often described as "technocrats", Oxford Dictionary: "a member of a technically skilled elite",⁷ but they are nothing of the sort. In our modern world, most issues are of a technical nature but these so-called elite technocrats are mostly just uninformed and bossy amateurs. Hence we end up with technically unqualified people trying to design and impose, inter alia, national energy, transport, health and agriculture infrastructures, with predictably disastrous results.
The only surprise is that it is taking so long for the general public to realise they are being horribly abused.
I think we're on the same page but I tend to disagree that communities don't change the world. It depends on how you use the concept of community.
I'm sure you'll agree that the world has been changed for the worse by the community of net-zero Covid zealots, the community of critical race theorists, and so on. They have been able to form such quasi-religious communities partly because of the speed of communication and partly because they have come to believe in 'scientism' having been uneducated in the unprecedented benefits of the Scientific Enlightenments and the Industrial and Agricultural revolutions.
I tend to think of those 'communities' as cult-like groupings which coalesce around VERY bad Big Ideas. It's the Big Idea which energises them and which changes the world; they are mere fanatical conduits for the Big Idea.
Playing devil’s advocate as you bring up a great point. However, are these communities or something else. An asylum or the like perhaps. I am not trying to be flippant here. My idea of community is heavy with “co”, but these groups seem too top down, toe the line or else to fit the definition of community as I understand it.
In the sense that these groupings are places where members can feel 'safe' then 'asylum' is a good word for them. In trying to feel 'safe', what they insulate themselves from is criticism of their ideology, their Big Idea. I'm quite guilty of this myself!
Any top-down structure in such groups seems to me to be a hierarchy of influence. For example, those who portray themselves as most virtuous (according to the group ideology) become influential and are then well-placed to coerce doubters back into line.
Influencers can also introduce more extreme interpretations of the creed and enjoy the positive reinforcement the group gives them.
For my own substack, I am very interested in this aspect of human behaviour. It's by no means new as Spanish Grand Inquisitor, Torquemada, famously demonstrated - with the support of the Spanish people.
Perhaps our worst fears are that we are all dragged back to those terrible times by those virtuous modern day cults/communities/asylum inmates.
I think it is quite possible that mRNA / DNA therapeutics (let’s not call them “vaccines” even with scare quotes) *may* in time prove to be good ideas that will morph into good technology that could address many previously intractable human conditions. What we have undoubtedly seen to date is the misapplication of an idea on a global scale before the idea was fit to become technology, with the consequences you correctly describe.
Your decision to write this was a very good idea indeed. Zooming out for a big picture view always inspires me after I’ve been bogged down in the science and all the ugly details for too long.
Our opponents are often described as "technocrats", Oxford Dictionary: "a member of a technically skilled elite",⁷ but they are nothing of the sort. In our modern world, most issues are of a technical nature but these so-called elite technocrats are mostly just uninformed and bossy amateurs. Hence we end up with technically unqualified people trying to design and impose, inter alia, national energy, transport, health and agriculture infrastructures, with predictably disastrous results.
The only surprise is that it is taking so long for the general public to realise they are being horribly abused.
I think we're on the same page but I tend to disagree that communities don't change the world. It depends on how you use the concept of community.
I'm sure you'll agree that the world has been changed for the worse by the community of net-zero Covid zealots, the community of critical race theorists, and so on. They have been able to form such quasi-religious communities partly because of the speed of communication and partly because they have come to believe in 'scientism' having been uneducated in the unprecedented benefits of the Scientific Enlightenments and the Industrial and Agricultural revolutions.
I tend to think of those 'communities' as cult-like groupings which coalesce around VERY bad Big Ideas. It's the Big Idea which energises them and which changes the world; they are mere fanatical conduits for the Big Idea.
Playing devil’s advocate as you bring up a great point. However, are these communities or something else. An asylum or the like perhaps. I am not trying to be flippant here. My idea of community is heavy with “co”, but these groups seem too top down, toe the line or else to fit the definition of community as I understand it.
In the sense that these groupings are places where members can feel 'safe' then 'asylum' is a good word for them. In trying to feel 'safe', what they insulate themselves from is criticism of their ideology, their Big Idea. I'm quite guilty of this myself!
Any top-down structure in such groups seems to me to be a hierarchy of influence. For example, those who portray themselves as most virtuous (according to the group ideology) become influential and are then well-placed to coerce doubters back into line.
Influencers can also introduce more extreme interpretations of the creed and enjoy the positive reinforcement the group gives them.
For my own substack, I am very interested in this aspect of human behaviour. It's by no means new as Spanish Grand Inquisitor, Torquemada, famously demonstrated - with the support of the Spanish people.
Perhaps our worst fears are that we are all dragged back to those terrible times by those virtuous modern day cults/communities/asylum inmates.
I think it is quite possible that mRNA / DNA therapeutics (let’s not call them “vaccines” even with scare quotes) *may* in time prove to be good ideas that will morph into good technology that could address many previously intractable human conditions. What we have undoubtedly seen to date is the misapplication of an idea on a global scale before the idea was fit to become technology, with the consequences you correctly describe.
Your decision to write this was a very good idea indeed. Zooming out for a big picture view always inspires me after I’ve been bogged down in the science and all the ugly details for too long.
Thank you! 💕