Translate:
That is the inevitable – and seemingly vital – question regarding Conscientism. It is usually intended as a rhetorical question (and also asked long before the theory has even been at all understood), delivered in a bewildered, dismissive or sympathetic tone, with the implication being that (of course) we can't transform the socio-economic system so radically; that positive change can only happen as it always has – very gradually, piece by piece – whereas wholesale (“overnight”) transformation is such an insurmountable challenge that to spend (or “waste”) time even considering the merits of a hypothetical replacement that can only be implemented in this way – let alone actively working towards its realisation – is futile, and courting severe disappointment (and ultimately, a wasted life).
This perspective firstly ignores the fact that abandoning a goal on the basis that “it will never happen” is a self-fulfilling prophesy; secondly, that even wholesale change requires incremental development of a plan (if it is to have any chance of success). But more pertinently, it fails to acknowledge that incremental change within the parameters of an established system – whether through “progressive” policy adjustments, or just encouraging more conscious behaviour among the populace – does nothing to alter the flawed foundations of that system, meaning any progress made is subject to being subsequently undermined or dismantled, through much the same processes. But admittedly, this is a very understandable position; when there is only one apparent avenue for hope, it is almost imperative psychologically to maintain optimism – and block out pessimism – regarding its capacity to provide a lasting solution. However – unfortunately – any positive change under the existing system is almost guaranteed to be transient, or at least offset by a negative change elsewhere; the main problem is very much the system itself, not the individual problems (or symptoms) caused and enabled by it. Only wholesale change can provide a genuine solution. It may seem an unrealistic proposition; but certainly no more so than expecting a complete reversal of the (increasingly unfavourable) societal trajectory without first addressing its fundamental flaws.
Disclaimer: the above argument does not, by any means, suggest or imply that positive activity under the current dynamic is futile or pointless, or of no benefit; indeed, its continuation is vital to our immediate prospects, and must be encouraged at all costs. Maximising and perpetuating such activity is the entire purpose of Conscientism.
There are indeed many formidable obstacles to Conscientism's realisation, and they are of course, extremely daunting. But they are not necessarily insurmountable; nor are they entirely unprecedented. The first step to overcoming those obstacles is to anticipate and identify each separately (thereby reducing them to a more manageable scale), find and analyse comparable precedents; and thereby devise and prepare appropriate strategies to address them, through both established and innovative means. The ideal result will be a definitive, cohesive, and potentially effective Transition Plan, capable of being readily implemented as soon as society permits it (however that be determined).
This article is not intended to constitute such a plan in itself, but merely to provide an introduction to some of the main obstacles, and some suggested approaches (to get the ball of thought and discussion rolling). It is by no means exhaustive or authoritative – the task is far beyond the capacity of one untrained man – but Conscientism.earth would be incomplete without at least this much.
Conscientism is a highly developed system, in regard to the quality and quantity of information it necessarily utilises, so therefore requires a highly developed state – in terms of infrastructure, institutions and general education levels – in order to function correctly. Neither a pre-industrial society, a post-apocalyptic dystopia, nor an impoverished “developing” state likely have the means or expertise to launch and maintain it, in isolation. Only a maverick developed state, with a lot to lose (by the measures of international capitalism, particularly regarding its status as a “power” - or at least a “competitor” - as well as its diplomatic considerations), is in any position to attempt a successful transition. This fact alone renders adequate preparation for subsequent success, vital. Ill-preparedness could well have dire consequences for the transitioning society.
The good news is that retaining a conventional socio-economic system will produce dire consequences anyway. That much is guaranteed.
There is no point attempting to transition into a system that has not yet even been constructed; our primary task is therefore to establish the foundations of Conscientism's most definitive institutions.
The central institution of a Conscientist society is, of course, the Central Bureau, which already has its basis in the public/civil service of any adequately administered state; the delicate nature of the information held by this broad institution ought not to be rendered available to any other entity while it is still active though, so cannot easily (nor ethically) be accessed before the dissolution of the existing authority. However it can be efficiently transferred upon transition; there is no dire need for access to that information before that occasion anyway, although a thorough plan for organising it, once accessible, is certainly required. A more fundamental task is in designing a Central Bureau, its departments, its (non-hierarchical) structure, its job descriptions, its coordination strategies (both internal, and with the external society it administers); all governed by the Constitution and Standard Occupational Procedure. This is an opportunity to reimagine bureaucracy from the ground up.
Another requisite institution is a database of Codes of Ethics. Many professions already observe a standard industry-wide Code, which should form the basis of its Conscientist counterpart; most should require only minor (if any) adjustment to apply to Conscientist practices. Also, common themes across codes should be noted, and form the basis of a general Code, applicable to all vocations. These themes should all ideally (and may already) be represented in the Constitution's Bill of Responsibilities, in which case each industry's Code need only be streamlined to address its own unique issues (as the Bill's legal priority would supersede the Code's anyway).
There currently exists a website – constituteproject.org – that houses the world's major constitutions; I envisage the Codes of Ethics database to perform a very similar function, in a very similar fashion. Likewise, a database of Standard Occupational Procedure already has its online precedent in WikiHow, certain avenues of YouTube, and sundry educational courses. It would be ideal to somehow corral these disparate resources into one dedicated portal; however it may be more realistic to start from scratch by inviting unique contributions to a new domain (WikiSOP?), or at least encouraging duplication from those other locations. The main difference in a SOP-specific resource is that each procedure will require (transparent) systematic analysis for its compliance with Conscientist principles, and be vetted accordingly. This resource could furthermore serve as a forum for debate and innovation, and would ultimately serve as the official source of Standard Occupational Procedure, under Conscientism.
Of more immediate relevance to Conscientism.earth, is the need to elaborate on the Conditions of Rights, Responsibilities and Entitlements contained in the Constitution. Although a rough outline of some of these Conditions has been provided (in the above links, from Institutions), much greater detail is required generally; this is essentially the opening phase of a new body of Law, so is quite akin to lifting the lid on Pandora's Box (and would therefore greatly benefit from the input of one or more experts in the field – of Law, that is). It is not currently clear to me whether there is enough indication in the Constitution as to how these Conditions are to be determined (i.e. what principles are they actually based on? Are these principles adequately represented in the Constitution?) and administered; perhaps some clarification is needed, or even a dedicated Article in Section I on the subject. What is clear is that they will necessarily need to be informed by a large number of professions (none in which I personally hold qualifications); it is therefore a logical starting point to identify which industries/sciences/professions are directly applicable to the administration of each Right, Responsibility, Entitlement and their subsequent Conditions. From there it seems wise for representatives from each of these professions to imagine their own role in an applicable scenario (such as Dieticians addressing “adequate nutrition” in Basic Rights), in as much relevant detail as they can muster, while posing as many questions as they can think of. With such plentiful, strict parameters imposed by both the Constitution, and the standard practices of one's own profession, shortcomings or uncertainty in the theory should become identifiable, providing opportunity for discussion, debate and innovation; from which specific methodologies (and greater clarification) should begin to emerge.
Perhaps the most beneficial resource in terms of aiding comprehension – by demonstrating how Conscientist principles apply to real-world examples – would be a format posing specific current (or projected) problems (essentially FAQs; sourced largely from this site's forum), and their corresponding solutions under Conscientism. For (simplified) example:
Problem: Alienation, loneliness
Solution: Community (demonstrated as an effective countermeasure, in studies X, Y, Z), enabled by general cooperation (rather than competition), public spaces, nurturing of special interests and subcultures.
In general, only the roots of society's problems are addressed in this manifesto (aka website), with the proposed solution – Conscientism – being presented at the same (necessarily) fundamental level. While the Constitution establishes the basis by which to provide solutions to (current) societal problems, it does not, in itself, provide a relatable demonstration of the theory in practice; meaning a considerable grasp of the theory (and a little imagination) is required in order to recognise its potential capacities, and implications to everyday life. Obviously, such demonstrations would be invaluable.
A visual aid – in the form of a diagram – representing the structure of Conscientist society, would greatly aid comprehension of its functions (and potential). I have attempted to represent the entire societal structure in a single diagram on a number of occasions, but the resultant complexity (and lack of any clarity) negates both the practicality of the task, and its benefits. It is becoming increasingly apparent that a number of separate diagrams, each representing particular avenues of functional coordination within the structure, will be of far greater benefit (and should allow eventual development of a comprehensive, conglomerate diagram). I expect these to emerge quite organically from my efforts to answer your questions.
A most vital resource to humanity - regardless of its governing socio-economic system - is essentially a central inventory of all natural resources (whether or not we consider them “useful”), all their enabling factors (whether geological or ecosystemic), and their distribution/volume/abundance/availability/accessibility/vulnerability, et cetera - plus their known extraction methods (rated according to their compliance with Conscientist principles) - upon which appropriate extraction rates can be efficiently and openly determined (or at least conservatively estimated). Considering however, that our resource availability is in chaotic freefall, it is largely pointless (at this time) to try determining distribution quotas according to their sustainable availability. A more pertinent amenity is an inventory of polluted (or otherwise threatened) natural sites, systems and species; identification of the threats, measurement of the damage, and subsequent rehabilitation likelihood and strategies. Essentially, a comprehensive list of (at least all the major) environmental problems, and subsequent targets that will need to be met, in order to achieve an initial stage of ecological equilibrium (after which we can think about quotas).
Scientific consensus regarding what measures need to be taken to rehabilitate the biosphere, and thereafter maintain an equilibrium, is intrinsic to Conscientist function; and is information that is disparately distributed across the general media, and buried under tonnes of misinformation from vested interest groups. Engagement with the scientific community is imperative for our ability to determine our "policies" regarding all societal aspects; however there is limited potential for direct engagement under current networks (or at least while Conscientism.earth remains obscure). Fortunately, thanks to the free press, a vast wealth of scientific information – worded for the layman – has been provided by specialist journalists, authors and other science communicators, whose credibility is shored up by their insistence on providing references to the credible sources of the facts they so diligently research, and thereafter convey. It is from this pool of knowledge that we shall begin to piece together a (hopefully comprehensive) idea of the boundaries within which a modern society may safely operate (and the requisite strategies that will need to be deployed); while providing references to these intermediate sources of information.
A registry – on a dedicated database – of the most compliant (perhaps rated accordingly) existing producers of desired and required products, to streamline their incorporation into Conscientist society (if local), or to otherwise recognise them as potential international trading partners (where they remain under capitalism); this database would additionally serve to identify relative availabilities of compliant, requisite provisions.
Finally (for now, anyway), an exhaustive list of new and established technological and strategic innovations and organisations that seemingly accord with Conscientist principles, and therefore constitute potential components (and proponents) of Conscientism in practice. "Cradle to Cradle" is a personal favourite of mine (and is already producing results that must be included in the above registry); while PlanetExperts.com publish and regularly update news of the latest technical innovations. Please forward some further examples; I will endeavour to start a definitive collection here (though if you wish to curate it yourself – or have already started one – please let me know).
All of the resources proposed above constitute serious preparations for the enactment of Conscientism; the further advanced they become, the greater the likelihood of ultimate implementation. As these preparations and discussions will essentially be borderless (geopolitically) – and especially since science* is necessarily an international pursuit – a scattered, global Conscientist movement is the likely outcome; how (and where) implementation will resultantly manifest though is anyone's guess. A “parallel economy” - essentially a Conscientist state without definable location, and a transnational membership – is a tantalising prospect, but seems unpracticable; direct access to the market economy while accessing Conscientist benefits would surely undermine and compromise Conscientism's capacity to provide. The idea certainly deserves further rumination though; for now however, we must assume that Conscientism can only truly manifest in an independent state, through popular uprising.
* Considering not just science, but resource distribution and the common interest of humanity being global concerns (plus again, the certainty of a scattered support base); considering also the absolute relevance of multinational corporations, intergovernmental organisations and the associated American empire, regarding domestic affairs everywhere, it is starting to appear that Conscientism can only exist as a global cause. For it to successfully exist in isolation seems a tall order; it would fall easy prey to the established world order, who would swiftly ensure history registers it as a “failed experiment” (at best). It needs to meet the established order at eye level, on the world stage, where its principles are most relevant. As to what form it takes on that stage (and how it gets there) is much less clear; but these are very early days, much research is required. In the meantime, this essay has become very messy, and needs tidying up; it is starting to contradict itself. Please bear with it for now though.*
It must be stated – and emphasised – that offensive violent revolution against a government in a stable democracy is not justifiable (regardless of the outcome), and does not accord with Conscientist principles. In a repressive, authoritarian state, the defensive (or more correctly, retaliatory) version may seem the only tenable option for its proponents, but it still remains inadvisable. Any revolution without a coherent, well-prepared replacement is a backward step for the society at large; chaos generally ensues. Ideally, planning for a switch to Conscientism must have progressed to such a degree that the transition is almost seamless; that daunting concerns are minimised, opponents are (intellectually and politically) marginalised, and few mysteries remain. This is a very unlikely outcome of violent uprising, which seeks a shortcut to Utopia through “muscular” - rather than intellectual and ethical – superiority (no version of Utopia is governed by the biggest bully). External sponsorship from an established Conscientist state may provide an exception to this rule, however a comprehensive plan would still be necessary. For the original, pioneering Conscientist state however, transition ought to be a time of great (and justified) optimism, and truly democratic, peaceful victory. The only apparent means is through a referendum, delivered through the conventional avenue: democratic, legislative government.
The concept of a political “Conscientist Party” is an unsettling one. The usual hierarchal structure of political parties, with a designated leader (surrounded by aspiring leaders), opinion- and alliance-based policy determination, and exercise of power through conventional means and institutions, are all quite antithetical to Conscientism itself. But the Party may be necessary. In practice, it ought to be a single-issue party; existing solely to agitate for a referendum on enacting Conscientism. No other party would likely introduce such a referendum (and thereby doom their very existence), but if a Conscientist party were to be voted in (with a parliamentary majority, no less) – which would indicate public approval for its cause – its sole move would be to introduce the applicable bill. Prior to electoral victory however, the Party's central task would be to constantly reiterate (and thereby maintain public awareness of) the most pressing (or at least relevant) environmental catastrophes currently unfolding. Not to ignore the latest political debate, but not to over-engage either; to concisely explain how the issue would be dealt with (or how it wouldn't even occur) in a Conscientist society, but to then put that issue into perspective, and swiftly refocus priorities. These spokespeople must speak with complete conviction (and comprehensive knowledge of Conscientist theory) in the face of eye-rolling ridicule from those “in touch with the reality”, and to never stray too far from the central theme; a sharp turn-of-phrase, and the ability to produce a quotable “sound bite” for the news media, is nowadays vital. “Going native” - becoming too comfortable with the perks of the political establishment – is a constant danger; even simply voting on issues as a sitting representative is potentially concerning, for its capacity to distract the party from its core agenda through constant policy meetings. It may even lead the party to continue this distracted approach once they've seized power (after all, “that's what got [them] here...”). Conversely though, to abstain from voting as a general rule (with exceptions, of course) is unlikely to be popular with the general public, especially once our opponents inevitably decide to make a point of it. One option though, is to constantly downplay the importance of voting on issues irrelevant to Conscientist practice, and by publicly refusing to dignify a discredited system. Neither option is ideal; but they're still better than attempting a bloody coup. The only right way is to capture the support of the populace – with ethics intact – and to stay true to the mission. The biggest threat to it is not external opposition, but internal factions, and compromised agendas.
Regarding the corporate oligarchy (as discussed in Preface: The Way of the World), it is almost rudimentary, sage wisdom in this dog-eat-dog society to “know thy enemy”; accordingly, I propose a “black list” of all known active participants in this conspiracy of destruction. This already throws up a lot names; clearly a conventional list structure would be rather useless and difficult to navigate (even if compiled alphabetically). The best format is surely that resembling a family tree – or even better, “genogram” - with the main financers up the top; followed by the corporations, companies and banks they own; the political parties, campaigns and politicians they fund; the lobbyists, think tanks, news media and journalists they commission. Only those knowingly conspiring – i.e. receiving what are essentially legal bribes – belong on the list, to minimise friction caused by any unfair demonisation of innocent but gullible commoners. To also distance this movement from other, unfortunate episodes in history (and to show we are not above toilet humour), I would much prefer to call this “black list” a Brown List.
A major purpose of this movement is to bring together disparate sources of information, to create a coherent central hub from which all ideas and resources applicable to the cause can be easily accessed. This quite neatly summarises the Logistics portion of our Transition Plan – or at least its initial phase – and could be considered our mission statement.
Copyright © 2019 Conscientism.earth - All Rights Reserved.