Reading an article about some stuff going on in AZ, where the word “social engineering” is brought up. It’s obviously a very bad word pertaining to a very evil concept.
Yesterday I was having a discussion over a speech given at the Prayer Breakfast that included Obama. In that speech — that my Conservatives friends found awesome — were many proposals that would require more than a little bit of cooperation. But the “cooperation” would require wholesale restructuring of deeply rooted laws and the perspectives they reflect.
If a human population NEEDS to take a sharp turn to avoid catastrophe or simply to suddenly do the “right thing” for everyone, that would require deliberate, conscious, and effective social engineering.
You can’t have it both ways: you can’t think of a word as evil yet propose remedies that would require it. It is no wonder that “hypocrisy” is the most oft-named sin in the Bible (over 400 times) — it’s the easiest to commit because it requires more self-evaluation of internal consistency against external complexities.
Thinking about what is going on in AZ as an ongoing reaction to Agenda 21 (measures for environment friendly sustainable communities), which reaction is against the ominous specter of a OWG, I wondered:
Or for Conservatives who aren’t Christians or who are pretending Christians, the reaction translates to the erosion of the US as a sovereign entity, being under the control of non-Americans. No idea is a good idea if it comes from a non-American or an American of the wrong affiliation.
But when it comes to sustainability, that requires a consciousness of how we are the earth expressing itself as a human — we have no life without a healthy, productive, sustained earth. It requires us to work in concert to not be a cancer on the face of the earth, consuming it without concern for the body it is killing. It requires external measures that are do-able while being either stupid or unconscious. In that sense, it is engineering.