Knowledge begets responsibility which begets guilt

[coberst]

Knowledge begets responsibility which begets guilt

 

Guilt is both a curse and a salvation. I conclude that guilt is perhaps one of the few internal mechanisms that can prevent human self-destruction.

 

Rational analysis and recognition of self preservation can drive us to correcting problems that have immediate and visible impact on our life but it is this internal friction we call guilt upon which we must depend for avoiding long term consequences resulting from our behavior.

 

Guilt is difficult to analyze because it is ‘dumb’. It is a feeling of being blocked and frustrated without knowing why we feel that way. This develops when embraced by powerlessness while clutched by the unknown. Guilt is a bind of life.

 

A feeling of guilt emanates from our peculiar ability to apprehend life’s totality but unable to move in relation to it. “This real guilt partly explains willing subordinacy to his culture: after all, the world of men is even more dazzling and miraculous in its richness than the awesomeness of nature. Also, subordinacy comes naturally from man’s basic experience of being nourished and cared for; it is a logical response to social altruism.”—Ernest Becker.

 

Stewardship-- the conducting, supervising, or managing of something... the careful and responsible management of something entrusted to one's care...

 

Stewardship is a word used often in the Bible and was at one time used often in England. It was used in England because the youth of the landed aristocracy was taught that they were responsible for the care of the family properties in such a way that they passed on to the next generation an inheritance equal to but more appropriately larger than that received. Each generation was not the owner but was the steward for the family estates. Any individual who squandered the inheritance was a traitor to the family.

 

I am inclined to think that each human generation must consider itself as the steward of the earth and therefore must make available to the succeeding generations an inheritance undiminished to that received.

 

In this context what does "careful and responsible management" mean? I would say that there are two things that must be begun to make the whole process feasible. The first is that the public must be convinced that it is a responsible caretaker and not an owner and secondly the public must be provided with an acceptable standard whereby it can judge how each major issue affects the accomplishment of the overall task. This is an ongoing forever responsibility for every nation but for the purpose of discussion I am going to speak about it as localized to the US.

 

Selfishness and greed are fundamental components of human nature. How does a nation cause its people to temper this nature when the payoff goes not to the generation presently in charge but to generations yet to come in the very distant future? Generations too far removed to be encompassed by the evolved biological impulse to care for ones kin.

 

How is it possible to cause a man or woman to have the same concern for a generation five times removed as that man or woman has for their own progeny?

 

I suspect it is not possible, but it does seem to me to be necessary to accomplish the task of stewardship.

 

Guilt may be our only hope for human acceptance of the responsibility of stewardship.

[Buffy]

Sounds to me like you've come up with a great explanation for why there's such a strong movement against knowledge here in the US: it causes guilt, which people hate, so they'd much rather avoid the knowledge that would show that global warming is something we should do something about.

 

A little bit of denial makes everything easy,

Buffy

[coberst]

Sounds to me like you've come up with a great explanation for why there's such a strong movement against knowledge here in the US: it causes guilt, which people hate, so they'd much rather avoid the knowledge that would show that global warming is something we should do something about.

 

A little bit of denial makes everything easy,

Buffy

 

 

Humans can be motivated to action by reason if the problem is immediate and the action might solve the problem. Humans cannot be motivated by reason to solve problems that are long range and require immediate sacrifice.

 

Action is often very satisfying. The problem develops when knowledge comes into play. With knowledge we become more and more self-conscious and recognize responsibility. This knowledge detracts significantly from the satisfaction from naive action. As an example contrast the probable state of mind of Eisenhower before D Day and the probable state of mind of Bush before the Iraq invasion.

[modest]

Knowledge begets responsibility which begets guilt

 

I don’t know: my dog acts guilty when she makes a mess on the carpet - and she’s relatively dumb. :shrug:

 

- modest

[coberst]

I don’t know: my dog acts guilty when she makes a mess on the carpet - and she’s relatively dumb. :shrug:

 

- modest

 

 

Perhaps humans are significantly different from dogs?

[Boerseun]

Perhaps humans are significantly different from dogs?

'Course they are. Humans don't lick their giblets on the porch.

But be that as it may, it seems entirely reasonable to imply a guilt connection with knowledge, which might make the acquiring of knowledge less palatable than previously thought. The logical fallacy, though, is that you won't know about the "guilt" implications of a particular set of knowledge, until you've acquired that knowledge. Which brings us to a chicken-egg situation. Which means that people aren't running away from acquiring knowledge because of it - they have to have the knowledge before they can suffer the consequences.

 

Er... still with me? I've lost it somewhere between "palatable" and "chicken"...

 

Mmmmmm, chicken rules. My knowledge might be bad for me, but it's fatal to poultry.

[Buffy]

'Course they are. Humans don't lick their giblets on the porch.

Ewwww! That's knowledge that may not induce guilt but I certainly don't want to have it consciously!

 

The logical fallacy, though, is that you won't know about the "guilt" implications of a particular set of knowledge, until you've acquired that knowledge. Which brings us to a chicken-egg situation. Which means that people aren't running away from acquiring knowledge because of it - they have to have the knowledge before they can suffer the consequences.

Well, they can also conveniently forget it.

 

Consider coberst's thought experiment:

As an example contrast the probable state of mind of Eisenhower before D Day and the probable state of mind of Bush before the Iraq invasion.

Ike: "The troop, the air and the navy did all that bravery and devotion to duty could do. If any blame or fault attaches to the attempt, it is mine alone." and "In preparing for battle I have always found that plans are useless, but planning is indispensable."

 

Bush: "All right, you've covered your ***, now." and "Bring 'em on!"

 

Knowledge is a dangerous thing, avoid it at all costs,

Buffy

[coberst]

The questions I would like to ask everyone are:

 

1) Do you agree that the acceptance of stewardship responsibility for this planet is vitally important?

2) Do you think that this human characteristic of guilt can be important for stewardship to happen?

3) Do you have a different idea whereby this stewardship might develop?

4) Do you give a damn?

[modest]

The questions I would like to ask everyone are:

 

1) Do you agree that the acceptance of stewardship responsibility for this planet is vitally important?

2) Do you think that this human characteristic of guilt can be important for stewardship to happen?

3) Do you have a different idea whereby this stewardship might develop?

4) Do you give a damn?

 

I think we are genetically programmed to care about ourselves, our family, our village, and our species - in that order.

 

So, no, I don’t think caring about the planet is so much intrinsic. Neither would guilt intrinsically follow failing to care for it. But, thankfully, compassion can be learned.

 

- modest

[Queso]

Regardless of the lack of stewardship mother Earth sees at this point in time,

the abundant human focus on stewardship is inevitable.

I see it happening after intense natural disasters that wipe out a bunch of dumb monkeys. Rippling.

 

1) Do you agree that the acceptance of stewardship responsibility for this planet is vitally important?

 

Duh

 

2) Do you think that this human characteristic of guilt can be important for stewardship to happen?

 

Very much so, Mr.

 

3) Do you have a different idea whereby this stewardship might develop?

 

Yes. Massive natural and or human disaster. Significant population fluctuations, and who knows what else . .

 

4) Do you give a damn?

 

So much. I hope others do too.

[freeztar]

I think we are genetically programmed to care about ourselves, our family, our village, and our species - in that order.

 

So, no, I don’t think caring about the planet is so much intrinsic. Neither would guilt intrinsically follow failing to care for it. But, thankfully, compassion can be learned.

 

- modest

 

I agree with you, to a point.

 

I disagree because our individual selves require substances provided by Earth. So at the first level of your heirarchy, we still have an essential need. We can migrate to areas more sustainable, or we can create sustainability in situ.

Either way, we are leashed to this world. If the world is not supporting my basic needs, then I will find a way to make it so (growing crops, livestock, etc.). This filters down to family, village, and humanity/rest-of-life very well.

 

Perhaps we are lost/guilty because we know what we can do, but fail to see a viable solution within the framework?

 

Guilt can be a motivator, but more often it is debilitating.

 

If it is known to be in everyone best interest (personal interest first), then people will act accordingly, or they will perish. Thusly, I believe education is paramount in making "the paradigm shift".

[Buffy]

1) Do you agree that the acceptance of stewardship responsibility for this planet is vitally important?

Absolutely! I'm a liberal!

2) Do you think that this human characteristic of guilt can be important for stewardship to happen?

Guilt is a tool that can be easily misused. Moms are in general experts in the delicate usage of guilt--me included, although my ex-mom-in-law is a *professional* ("give us a break, do not try any of what you're about to see at home")--but as a public policy its usually doomed to have the opposite of the intended effect (as I hinted about in my previous post).

 

Merely provoking *guilt* about something is a powerful mechanism for *driving* denial.

 

The important thing to realize in attempting to utilize guilt as a tool is that it is only useful in conjunction with actual negative consequences from the behavior with which that guilt is being associated.

 

"Your grandkids will spit on your grave and write you up as an evil doer in history" is more than just guilt, its making sure that what is left of you after you die is despised. There are sociopaths who won't care, but not many will be able to resist this kind of argument. But to have effect, an actual threat of actual action--even if it is post-mortem--is necessary to induce actual *action*. So...

3) Do you have a different idea whereby this stewardship might develop?

Give people a clear and indelible benefit for actively supporting such stewardship. Our local museums put people's names on plaques on the armrests of the auditoriums they build in perpetuity (actually, even Disneyland/world does that for pure profit!). People get their picture taken with the President for bribing him contributing to campaign funds. We've started posting candid shots of folks in our housing development disposing of recyclables in their trash bins. Start charging *taxes* for bad behavior!

 

Hit them in the ego or the pocketbook and you'd be *amazed* at how motivated people can get!

4) Do you give a damn?

Yes, but accusing others of not doing so is a powerful motivator for them to work against whatever goals you have, no matter how noble they are.

 

No man is justified in doing evil on the ground of expediency, :doh:

Buffy

[coberst]

 

The important thing to realize in attempting to utilize guilt as a tool is that it is only useful in conjunction with actual negative consequences from the behavior with which that guilt is being associated.

 

"Your grandkids will spit on your grave and write you up as an evil doer in history" is more than just guilt, its making sure that what is left of you after you die is despised. There are sociopaths who won't care, but not many will be able to resist this kind of argument. But to have effect, an actual threat of actual action--even if it is post-mortem--is necessary to induce actual *action*. So...

Give people a clear and indelible benefit for actively supporting such stewardship. Our local museums put people's names on plaques on the armrests of the auditoriums they build in perpetuity (actually, even Disneyland/world does that for pure profit!). People get their picture taken with the President for bribing him contributing to campaign funds. We've started posting candid shots of folks in our housing development disposing of recyclables in their trash bins. Start charging *taxes* for bad behavior!

 

Hit them in the ego or the pocketbook and you'd be *amazed* at how motivated people can get!

 

Yes, but accusing others of not doing so is a powerful motivator for them to work against whatever goals you have, no matter how noble they are.

 

No man is justified in doing evil on the ground of expediency, :doh:

Buffy

 

You cannot impose a tax that the people will not accept. I do not think that reason can motivate action when the reward comes only after death. I suspect that religion embracing stewardship is the only solution.

[Buffy]

You cannot impose a tax that the people will not accept.

This is true, but you're missing the elegant conundrum posed here: You can use guilt to get people to vote for stuff that they really don't want. Here in California our constitution lets the voters pass all kinds of spending programs directly. These raise our taxes, but because they all are "do-good" proposals, the vast majority of them pass in a state where being anti-tax is part of our blood.

 

I do not think that reason can motivate action when the reward comes only after death.

You're not paying attention to your Freud then: Only sociopaths are unconcerned with their legacies. Note this is thus less about guilt than about *selfishness*, which is just as powerful as a motivator, if not more so. But embedded with an explanation of *altruism*, we can be greedy and generous to our grandchildren all at the same time! Check out Ayn Rand...

I suspect that religion embracing stewardship is the only solution.

The Reform Jews, Unitarians and the Lutherans have, and some segments of the Episcopalians already have, and of course it is at the very core of most pagan beliefs as well as atheism, which actually kind of blows the linkage out of the water when you think about it.

 

Why are you now sounding all mad and hopeless? There's a useful point here--maybe not the one you thought--but the experience here is exactly the point....

 

Guilt is a rope that wears thin, :eek_big:

Buffy

[coberst]

Buffy

 

I wish that it were not the case but I see the salvation of the species can come only if religion embraces the project or on the vague and implausable possibility that the population in general becomes a good deal more intellectually sophisticated than it is now.

[Inter.spem.et.metum]

All things that come to exist will one day cease to exist.

 

The thought that humans will one day become exstinct is the fear that arises after one realises that they alone will die. The only hope comes from either living for oneself or by bettering mankind. If mankind ends, we seemingly have no purpose. But humans will end, whether hundred years from now or a billion.

 

We can only delay the inevitable. The best choice is to try to make the journey as peaceful as possible. The idea that we can control our own demise is what causes many people to do atrocious things. Will it not be mankinds best interest to quell the population when it becomes to much to sustain on Earth?

 

Guilt is only the negative idea that you could have changed something. You come up to the same conclusion positively. Regret is a dangerous thing. Don't regret the mistakes you make, welcome them as experiences to learn from and teach others. Guilt is shame, and shame is fear. We shouldn't be ashamed of what we are. We should learn from it. Human perception aside, all things are as they should be.