Translate:
It is fair to assume that the vast majority of humans (and other species, incidentally) would prefer to live in a world free from the problems caused by capitalism and politician-based governance; that most generally desire the beneficial outcomes that Conscientist theory promises. However, that certainly does not render most of us automatically supportive of the cause; especially not those of us that experience a mostly-beneficial outcome from the current system (and enjoy activities which may be subject to reappraisal under Conscientism). The manifold problems caused by this system – regardless of how much we may sympathise with its victims – are peripheral (largely out of our everyday experience), seemingly unavoidable (after all, nature produces both winners and losers) and especially, out of our direct control; our greatest desires (for the world) are seemingly unavailable to us, however our more immediate desires (for ourselves) are well-catered for. We only get one life, and we'd rather just concentrate on those things we have control over – while we still have the opportunity – whether they be selfish or altruistic; and should perhaps just be grateful that we have the privilege of being able to, when so many others do not (although this reluctance to "look a gift horse in the mouth" often corresponds with a tendency to take it all for granted). Subconsciously, we may also not want to jeopardise that privilege by inviting major revolution; a very real fear exists that to renounce privilege in the name of greater equality is to invite personal impoverishment (and indeed, historically there has been much to fear from the revolutionary process itself). This is a very sane argument: impoverishment is an intrinsic feature of our common experience under capitalism (even though under Conscientism, protection from poverty would be fundamentally ensured), and therefore well worth fearing. However, this fails to acknowledge that the inordinate level of privilege we are accustomed to is unsustainable, so our prosperity is doomed regardless; albeit in a more delayed timeframe, at least in the popular imagination. “I'll be dead by then”, the common refrain used by many to soothe their worries when confronted with any unpleasant long-term forecast, in turn fails to acknowledge not just the progressive (therefore ever-present) nature of degradation, but the burden this lazy, selfish and cowardly attitude weighs on the next generation – much greater than the burden already carried by the current one – even while we simultaneously strive as parents to provide a conventionally “bright” future for our (own) children, thereby anticipating continued (indeed, increasingly fierce) competition for ever-diminishing prospects. Meanwhile, we all sit back hoping that “they” (governments, technologists) will fix everything in time, without expecting us to modify our own grossly comfortable behaviour. Expecting (or at least hoping) to achieve a healthy planet and a peaceful society without sacrificing the very factors that are preventing its realisation – this is the only basket we have resolved to put all of our eggs into, irrespective of how many holes riddle it.
Most moral campaigns strive to inspire individuals to change their own behaviour - which is commendable and important work - however its success is undermined by a number of factors: it requires that the individual turns away from the norms of the collective, inviting social isolation and ridicule; it puts them at a financial disadvantage in regard to career choice, as well as consumer choice, increasing their risk of impoverishment; it requires a considerable investment of time and effort, researching and analysing ethical options, which are often also far less convenient than the conventional standard; and finally, it cannot disguise the depressing knowledge that the commendable efforts of one individual are a mere drop in the ocean of general complacency, and are inadequate to reverse the downward trajectory of humanity (but at least help to ameliorate guilt and instil a sense of purpose, self-respect and contentment). Conscientism, in contrast, is a movement to change our collective behaviour; automatically nullifying the above problems associated with individual behavioural adjustment (though of course introducing its own set of problems).
Only an over-privileged society has the capacity to bring about the requisite change, on behalf (and in aid) of the under-privileged, who require change the most, and have nothing to lose by pursuing it, but simply lack adequate means. But although the onus for change has been put upon the developed world, none of this seeks to blame any individual for having been born into a fortunate situation (although the historical causes of that situation may suggest a certain ethical obligation exists); however it is a simple fact that to provide all with their basic rights and necessities requires diversion of our (finite) resources away from the excessive provision of luxuries and wasteful trivialities that disproportionately serve Western society (though by no means exclusively). To expect any individual to surrender their “right” to excessive income and assets (a “right” which undermines society's capacity for universal provision of more meritorious rights) while still under capitalism, is ridiculous, as it would, of course, expose them to a much greater risk of impoverishment (another “right” capitalism necessarily bestows upon us). As excess inevitably accumulates in individual hands anyway (in a monetary system), redistribution is rendered an endless, inefficient, and antithetical task; indeed, those that possess it will always defend their “right” to it (with an argument very strongly reinforced by the basic rules of money). To support the concept of the universal provision of Rights, as advocated by Conscientism, is to simultaneously accept the necessity for redistribution of resources (without money complicating matters), both existing and forthcoming. How this is addressed will doubtless be one of the most contentious issues governing popular approval. Conscientist theory currently proposes allowing continued possession of “excess” transferable assets, but on a custodial basis only (in most instances, society being considered the only true “owner”), and with an implied indebtedness (i.e. reduced future entitlements). This is both diplomatic and effective. Alternative suggestions (preferably even more diplomatic and effective) are welcome.
The human is the most social of animals; it will sooner conform itself into alliances than ethicise its way into social isolation (which through most of our existence, would have invited predation; a very relevant concern within the primitive context in which our species evolved). So until Conscientism becomes a mainstream cause (and presumably well beyond that), hostility towards it must be considered the general rule. And the only shield against such an offense is a determined collective, that responds to attack only with honesty, transparency, intellect, and passion. That is our defensive strategy; conversely, the attack – our sword (or indeed, pen) – shall consist of positive, honest, truthful propaganda. This is a quite straightforward concept: essentially “marketing” the cause (hardly an alien idea to the modern Earthling). A pile of slogans that can be applied to a wide range of media is a good place to start; as are applicable artworks, written articles, lectures, debates, protests, PowerPoint-style presentations, and other explanatory/tutorial videos. Translation of the theory into all major languages – and even into simpler English – is paramount.
A video game would be brilliant. The ultimate vehicle though would surely be a high quality (i.e. well-written/acted) television series following a group of (three-dimensional) characters navigating a fully-functioning Conscientist future (working title: “Post-Capitalism”); a prelude to this would be a novel, and a prelude to a novel would be a series of short vignettes (without the need for characters), imagining everyday scenarios (which ties into the graph concept introduced earlier in “Logistics”). A section of Conscientism.earth (in Conversation) shall be dedicated to documenting all such material.
The initial goal of this campaign is to normalise knowledge of Conscientism; not to merely make it a household name, but also widely understood (or at least considered intriguing enough to research), and subsequently achieving widespread in-principle support. Incidentally, reaching this milestone would seem the logical time to launch a Conscientist Party, which would require access to a more sophisticated form of the same propaganda, to perform its stated task of political agitation.
All resources proposed in this article shall be either housed here at Conscientism.earth, or be directly (and proudly) linked to. Currently being the only editor/curator of Conscientism (and with very limited actual opportunity and capacity to edit/curate), mild neglect of this site must be expected, at least in these early days; a donation system to enable the vitality the movement deserves will need to be set up at some stage.
Everything on this site is the culmination of around 15 years of thought, and a decade of uphill struggle to express those thoughts with adequate clarity. While this is only the beginning of the public movement, publication of these works marks the (very welcome) end of an era of obscure, somewhat secretive toil (it is very difficult to explain what one is working on when the whole point of it is to provide a coherent explanation). Thankfully music creation has provided an effective (and mostly truthful) alibi for the studiousness (albeit also a significant distraction). I hope to one day get the opportunity to bring those (and other) creations to a published conclusion also.
It is difficult to anticipate the chain of events that will arise from this publication. I would personally prefer to wipe my hands of the whole thing; let it take on a life of its own while I pursue my more pleasant interests. However I have been endowed with a responsibility; my conscience will never allow me to abandon this cause, to which everything else frankly feels trivial by comparison. Meaningful change demands considerable sacrifice; I have already sacrificed much, but I would be the ultimate hypocrite if I drew the line here.
I have been in two minds about whether to publish my real name as author of Conscientism; doing so could well invite some unwanted attention from unsympathetic parties. However, it would only be a matter of time before it comes out anyway. I believe I do the cause a much greater service by defying any means of obscurity (a difficult task for an introverted hermit). To hide myself is to hide Conscientism (and vice-versa); that is the antithesis of what I am trying to achieve.
I am under no illusion; I have no expectations, and I am hardly optimistic. This whole proposal looks damn near impossible to implement, considering the strength of the opposition. All I know is, this is how the world needs to operate if we are to have any sort of desirable future.
I am willing to die for Conscientism. And perhaps I will. But there is nothing to lose; we're losing it all anyway.
For our kiddies and the animals. Peace.
Gregory John Sammons
Copyright © 2019 Conscientism.earth - All Rights Reserved.