Critical Change: A World of Difference

Open Happiness

2009-11-20T08:28:00.000-08:00

Well, we're steadily approaching the end of November, and sure enough, the run up to Christmas has officially begun. How do I know this? Those damned Coca Cola trucks have been on my television, parading down a snowswept American street where even the kid's pets are clearly on uppers, just as they have every year for as long as I can remember. It's the same advert Coke have used for at least a decade now, and why? Because they know damn well that it has become a cultural landmark on our calendar and Christmas would not be the same without it!

So has the advert changed at all in that time? Well, the answer for this year at least is yes. At the end of the advert we now see the Coca Cola logo, mounted on a white background, with a simple two word slogan:

'Open Happiness'.

Open happiness... I'm pretty sure that thus far, science and all the power of man, has been unable to capture the individual emotions of the human being, and put them in a glass bottle for human consumption. If this had been done I am pretty sure we'd all be having a serving of rich, warm love with every meal, (or hot sweaty lust, depending on whether you ultimately want children or just a few STDs). The world would be a better place and already we would have moved past the dire activity of swallowing emotions in pill form. (Incidentally I wonder what love would taste like? Mmm, buttered crumpets!)

It just seems to me such an offense to the human race to suggest that a commercial product can provide us each with an emotion we spend all our lives trying to secure. Sure, I bet you're thinking 'come on Derek, we all know that's an exaggeration', but, when you break it down to the fundamental message of the two words 'Open Happiness', that is quite simply what the language suggests.

Let's take another example, I was in London this week and on my journey down to the tube, I observed an advert for Côtes du Rhône red wine. Their slogan was simply this:

"Think red. Think Côtes du Rhône".

Folks, that's just a command.

There is no product information in there, nothing for you to reason with, no opportunity for you to think 'ooh, I certainly approve of their fermenting process'. It is a simple command - whenever you see red, think of Côtes du Rhône red wine.

Now when you take yourself out of this idea that it is simply normal to be surrounded by advertising, and look at that expression on it's own, it becomes quite a surreal thought to see this harmlessly plastered across the London Underground. How would you feel if for the duration of one of your journeys, you were accompanied by someone chanting at you "every time you see the colour blue, imagine listening to Rolf Harris' greatest hits whilst drinking a pint of bovril"? Their mental disposition aside, you would consider it an bullying instruction that invades your boundaries of private thought.

We grow up in a world full of advertising, and it is considered normality. But it has become so normal that we each can become blind to the subliminal influence of the messages on every advert. If in just one example we are being told to simply think of a product on every instance that we see a colour, how much are our thoughts being manipulated through the course of every day? Can you imagine how many commands you may have seen similar to the Côtes du Rhône slogan, and to what extent these may have affected the choices you make in buying on a daily basis? Hey, if we consider it so normal that that slogan be up there, how much more of a stretch is it to just casually feel like a nice drop of red wine whenever we see red?

It's definitely one to think about. I shall consider it further over a nice pint of bovril.

Critical Change Episode 3 now online!

2009-11-16T13:16:00.000-08:00

We're back with episode 3! This month's topic is advertising! We've pulled in lots of meaty information in this one, as well as recording a fun little treat for you all!

Let us know your thoughts, and we'll be back once more in December!

Episode 3 will be on ... Advertising!

2009-10-21T12:13:00.000-07:00

Our question to you for episode 3 - to what extent do you think advertising is ethical?

Post your responses here, or send to criticalchange@sonisis.com!

October Update

2009-10-06T07:48:00.000-07:00

September's Podcast Online!

2009-09-04T14:21:00.000-07:00

Hello hello! We're back! Our September Podcast is now available. This month's topic is 'Critical Thinking Vs. Environmental Influences', and explores the ways which we have been conditioned to think by the society which surrounds us.

This episode is slightly longer and hence in three parts. As always we want lots of feedback, let us know what you thought, any ideas for future topics etc. We are always open to constructive criticism!

We have a new feature which we shall continue for the time being, Things that make you feel weird, but shouldn't! Keep dropping your comments in response to this feature!

Enjoy!

Next Episode - A New Question!

2009-08-19T00:37:00.001-07:00

In the first week of September we will be releasing the next episode of Critical Change, and the topic we will be exploring for this show is:

The Influence of Our Environment Vs. Critical Thinking

In this episode we will be exploring how our environment sometimes influences us to think in ways that aren't necessarily productive nor positive, and in regards to this exploration, we'd like to ask you this month to name:

Things that make you feel weird, but shouldn't.

These are instances where you have been perhaps prejudiced in some way, regardless of whether this was your intention. So for example, if you're white, I'm sure you've encountered an instance where you weren't sure how to talk about someone else's race, for fear of being racist. Or to quote Ed, he feels weird if he looks at a stranger's children for longer than 3 seconds. These are the sorts of examples we're looking for.

Send us your answers to criticalchange@sonisis.com

Episode 1 Out takes online!

2009-08-08T12:48:00.000-07:00

To keep you entertained until our next show, we've put together a selection of out takes recorded whilst preparing for our first show. Hope you enjoy them! Stay tuned, we'll be asking a new question for the next show shortly!

WARNING - CONTAINS MILD PROFANITY - MILD BEING SUBJECTIVE.

August Podcast now online!

2009-07-27T12:57:00.000-07:00

We are very proud to present our first podcast! This month's topic is 'Societal Apathy' and during the show we take a generalized look at the issues that cause people to become apathetic about social change.

We had a great time recording the show, and can feel that there is a lot more depth awaiting us on this topic, so we expect to revisit particular aspects of societal apathy in future podcasts.

You can listen below in two parts on youtube, we'll get a downloadable version online soon! We want your feedback in order to help us improve the show, so don't hold back on criticism, (as long as it's constructive!) We're open to anything from feedback on our own presenting manner, suggestions on content, through to the format of the show itself. Leave us a comment on the blog, twitter, or email us!

Enjoy!

Citations from this show are:

PART 1:
Megan Fox in the London Paper:
http://tinyurl.com/lwold6

Street Fundraising Team Leader:
http://tinyurl.com/n4phoo

The Zeitgeist Movement:
http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com/

Charity Appeal:
http://tinyurl.com/nyeakh

BBC News: Reality TV star Jade Goody dies
http://tinyurl.com/ccmh7w

The Daily Pennsylvanian article:
http://tinyurl.com/l7q5ce

PART 2:

Zimbio.com - Apathy the 20th Century Social Disease:
http://tinyurl.com/llpacs

Story of Stuff
http://www.storyofstuff.com/

Bill Hicks - It's Just a Ride:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMUiwTubYu0

Announcement: The Critical Change Podcast!

2009-07-13T12:52:00.000-07:00

Critical Change is evolving! On August 1st you will be able to experience the first Critical Change Podcast! This will become a monthly feature, covering different topics every month and acting as an open forum for debate amongst the activist and hopefully in time, the mainstream community. We will be seeking to bring together the many social change movements, as well as reaching the mass public and helping them to become involved where before they may have been resigned to apathy.

So who will be joining Critical Change? I'd like to welcome on board as contributors Ed Alan and Raihan Islam, who will join as writers and presenters for both the blog and podcast.

So let's find out more about the team that will be involved!

Derek Kirkup
Though my background is in music I have always had a very keen interest in psychology. Now I am focused on making a difference on a global scale and discovering the means by which I can help other people make this difference. I hope with the Critical Change podcast to build bridges between the activist causes and your average person on the street, helping them to see the significance of social change and empowering them with ways to begin enacting this change. I believe that the issues we will be discussing are relevant to everyone, we simply have to give them the tools and the confidence to act.

Ed Alan
I became involved after being dissatisfied with other efforts at raising awareness into these subjects as promoted by Jacque Fresco and The Venus Project and other similar advocates of "Social Change". I have a background in music and also debate in the “skeptic community”. I hope to make sure that this is all based on sound rational evidence.

Raihan Islam
Hey everyone, I'm Raihan, and I grew up in Virginia Beach in the states. You'll get to know more about me as the show progresses, but on Critical Change, I'm hoping to get you to think about who you are and seeing where that discovery takes you. My primary interests are focused in communication design and how communication on a whole can be used as a force for progression but also as a force for stagnation and even regression. Sounds broad, but I'll keep things simple.

We have chosen the topic for our first show to be Societal Apathy. Our first show will be around 20 minutes long and in these 20 minutes will be included a discussion on apathy, who it affects and why it affects them. We will also be taking your comments and questions on this topic, as well as any other questions you would like to pose to us which we will answer near the end of the show. This is going to be a highly collaborative venture, between us the presenters and also you, the audience. As such we would like to begin by asking you this question:

In your life, has there been an emotional event or trigger that persuaded you to try and make a difference?

Please send us your responses by Friday 24th July and we will seek to include as many of them as possible in the show!

We will be happy to hear any other questions or comments you may have, which we will explore in a separate question and answer session.

We hope you are as excited about this new venture as we are, our hopes are high for the positive influence we could have. We want you to be involved in this positive influence on society too, so don't be shy, leave us a comment on the blog, our twitter, or use our temporary email: criticalchange@sonisis.com

We look forward to hearing from you!

The Critical Change Team – Ed, Raihan and Derek.

www.criticalchange.org
www.twitter.com/criticalchange
criticalchange@sonisis.com

Reaching People

2009-06-13T02:08:00.000-07:00

Of continued focus for me is finding out how to appeal to people, and in particular how to combat the apathy that many people feel towards politics and societal activism. I am continually in discussions with friends who are to varying extents opposed to a world without money, and it surprises me the absolute and complete resistance I encounter towards the ideas of a resource-based economy, when there are so many different facets to the idea which are convincing to varying extents, even to me.

It surprises me that people are basically unwilling to think out of the confines of our current system and begin exploring alternative ideas. A resource-based economy is merely a concept, and the means in which it could be initiated are varied. There are many grey areas which none of us have answers for yet, and many different people propose different solutions. Will we have leaders? Do we elect representatives or do we vote ourselves on issues from home? How do we decide what gets manufactured first? There are varied solutions to all these questions, but there needs to be discussion.

What is for certain is our current financial system will fail. There is much evidence of this, whether it be through the system of money resulting in a total buyout of the whole world economy by the banks, or through technological advances making humans obsolete and hence without the money to pay the businesses that keep the world going. Our society is a consumer society, and one that cannot sustain itself.

We must look at alternatives and we must begin engaging more people in this discussion.

I believe the way to do this is not to lecture people. We need to empower people. We need to give them the tools to seek out this information themselves. And perhaps most importantly we need to provoke an emotional response in them. We need to make this information relevant, which, I believe it wholly is.

In the current financial climate people are losing jobs, more people are finding themselves in poverty, and increasingly we are made aware that the rich are getting richer on the failures of the economy we have to live in. The banks have received massive payoffs in this climate and are sitting rather comfortably.

The more one becomes aware of the faults of our system, the less this system makes sense. I think we need to dilute the information that we have, make it simple, accessable and easy to digest. We need to know when to back off from people and give them space to think about our ideas.

I think there are a lot of lessons we can learn from the faults of some religions here. Guilt drives people away, they don't want to feel bad for who they are. None of us should have to feel that. We do need to take responsibility for this system though, and we need to feel that we can each make a positve change, rather than being beaten in to apathy.

We need to respect people's criticisms, and invite them to address them as well as putting in our own input. This is a collaborative venture and it needs to be enacted as one. Between us we need to work out what it takes to get people's attention, what it takes to jar them out of apathy, and then let them grow as individuals with these and other similar ideas, giving them the tools to collaborate.

I invite everyone in favour of these ideas to become more self-aware of how you portray the Zeitgeist Movement , The Venus Project and any other relevant initiatives to others. Be aware of the emotions with which you discuss this all. Avoid anger, frustration. Try and remain calm, open and approachable. Know when to withdraw. Know when to say 'I don't know'. The best we can do is motivate people in to talking and present them with enough information to get them started. If we can do this, the rest will follow.

A Shift in Mentality

2008-12-06T03:33:00.001-08:00

It is constantly reiterated that a successful resource-based economy would require a complete mental shift of the world's consciousness. The aim would be for a population that is no longer motivated by profit; the potential to be richer than everyone else. Instead we would of course be interested in our own personal well-being, but we would have to be accepting of a new way of the world, where everyone benefits from our input in to society, just as we would benefit from everyone else's.

So how do we get from where we are now, to this place where no one is left out? What are the emotions and attitudes that need to be developed and/or changed? I would suggest that greater trust, understanding and compassion would need to develop universally between human beings, and I would argue also that in the current society, it is very hard for these qualities to flourish.

In our current monetary-based society, the majority of us work directly for someone above us, someone who has the power to pay out or withhold money based on our performance. There is a hierarchical system that is not necessarily fair all the time, and the steps in this hierarchy, rather than being stigmatized rightly by wisdom and experience, (though these certainly play a factor), can instead be stigmatized by a sense of success and material gain. This is particularly clear to me from volunteering for a charity. In a charity organisation there is a greater sense of trust, allowing people to do what they're good at, and respecting those with more years of experience. There is also greater faith in people's ability to do the job, based on the fact that there is an emotional rather than material reward from working charitably.

Where we need to get to is a place away from this world where money is the motivating factor, eliminating the systems and attitudes that encourage shallow materialism (i.e. owning for the sake of showing wealth), and instead cultivating a world where we no longer require money, where we are free to take what we need and feel no necessity to take more (or be greedy), but where it is taken for granted that we work for the greater good of a society to which we belong.

I would argue, (and admittedly it is an argument based upon my own personal frame of reference), that the in-between phase would involve promoting a greater autonomy of individuals. Giving people back the power to run their own lives, both in terms of their work, but also in terms of their person living circumstances. I would sum this all up as 'decentralization'.

I suspect that by changing the meaning of one's life, so that you no longer work for the (perhaps questionable) interests of someone directly above you, and instead begin working directly for yourself; people's sense of autonomy and self-empowerment will grow. When an individuals sense of self-empowerment, and also self-respect grows, I believe then that their ability to visualise the combined power of multiple individuals will also grow, indeed to proportions of the entire human population. I believe also that greater understanding and respect or love of self, will also promote the same understanding of others. How many of you have heard the phrase 'if you cannot love yourself, how will you ever love another?'.

In terms of the actual process of decentralisation, there are many means already available to us by which we can begin to decentralize power and control of resources, instead beginning to live more autonomously. We already have the means to power our households with affordable solar power, affordable to the extent that monthly finance payments on the equipment can be covered by the savings that the equipment makes. It is even possible currently to build comfortable housing from entirely recycled materials that is able to heat and cool itself efficiently without any use of electricity (see http://www.earthship.org/). If we can each have our own personal electricity supply, it is then feasable for us to each have our own electric-powered cars without ever having to pay a third party for the usage.

I also believe it is important to decentralize communication, and though I am not intimately familiar with the latest developments, I would propose an internet that functions via relay antennaes based on every house. This way the internet can circumnavigate the world without relying upon servers or satellites that are controlled by a managing entity. There would be obvious side-effects to technology (i.e. a server in every home), but I don't see why it couldn't be manageable. The same method of relay could be used to decentralize mobile/cell phone communication networks.

I see these two key areas as real and feasible steps towards empowering individuals. But what is really key in my mind is that more people begin working for themselves, controlling their own finances directly. People need to realise what they are capable of within their own personal freedom, before they can understand what we are all truly capable of together. Currently our freedom is controlled by time and money, free time being only the time outside working hours, and money being only controlled by a superior, (ultimately the banks).

If our freedom was instead governed solely by our emotional fulfillment, our world would, (I believe), prosper at a far greater rate, with fewer conflicts.

Participation and Technological Advancement

2008-12-04T08:24:00.001-08:00

Regularly I am confronted with the issue of who and how many people would participate in a resource-based economy. Though the ultimate aim is that technology eventually becomes so advanced that our own personal menial work is alleviated, in the early stages the world population would have to work for the greater good.

All to often when I discuss a resource-based economy I am confronted with scepticism based upon the assumption that all humans are fundamentally selfish. I too agree that selfishness is a fundamental (but primitive) instinct, as it is through selfishness that we ensure our survival. However I feel that in our money based society, selfishness is encouraged, because through selfishness we can gain control of the limited resources available to us. And, because there is profit to be made when resources are limited, the powers that be ensure resources and commodities, be it fuel, food, housing or communication, remain limited.

It has occurred to me that due to our selfish nature, we will work in a way that most efficiently benefits ourselves ultimately. As the vast majority of us are not expert farmers, I believe it is likely that we would work together in order to make food for ourselves. I believe there are several basic needs that we are all willing to work collaboratively for, because our survival depends on it. I am pretty sure every human being of fairly sound mind will work gladly for food, water, shelter, clothing ... and that it goes beyond these basic needs to include luxuries such as personal transport and entertainment. I feel then that during these early periods, technology would advance at a great rate, as all resources would be allocated to ensuring particular priorities are taken care of and technology is available to do that and can be automated in doing so.

The trouble occurs however when we move on from needs to things that we require to live comfortably. From here personal choice and preference comes in to the equation. After the basic needs of the world are catered for, I would imagine increasingly we see that individuals have different priorities. Maybe 20% of the world would like better public transport, 20% would like better home entertainment etc. At this stage then I believe the rate of advancement in technology would slow down, as people split off to contribute to projects they care about.

There is another factor that would contribute to this slowdown, and this would be that much of the world would be satisfied after a certain point. As I am often told, there will always be freeloaders, there will be people that would prefer not to work given the choice. Though I'm sure advances in psychology and education would mean more of the population had the tools to advance their lives, we have to assume for safety's sake there may be many who would prefer to reap the benefits without the work.

Would this be a large issue though? If technology could advance enough that food production was automated, as well as energy and communication (after all we already have the means to power our own homes with solar power), then would it matter that fewer people were contributing to marginalised projects? Would this make the contributors less likely to work knowing they were being effectively leeched off?

Personally, I don't think so. And I would look to the open-source software community as a great example of this in action. I switched to Linux a few weeks back, and immediately benefited from all the work that goes in from small groups of individuals. As someone who is not majorly IT literate, there is little for me to contribute other than feedback, and I imagine I am one of a majority. But does this stop the programmers contributing? No, because it is fulfilling for them; they have no doubt started these projects out of an interest in what they are creating.

I imagine we would always seek to contribute to projects that will reap benefits that we would appreciate. And though there would be fewer of us working and thus the advancements would be slower, our research and invention would inevitably still benefit both the majority of the world who had the interest but not the skills, but also other projects that benefit from our research, with which we are freely willing to share our findings because there is no profit in withholding them.

Welcome!

2008-12-04T08:16:00.000-08:00

Welcome to the new Critical Change blog, an exploration in to resource-based economies. Throughout these notes I will be seeking to explore the ideas of the Venus Project, whilst researching other models and advocates of resource-based economies.

So often have I stumbled across the phrase 'It's a great idea, but it wouldn't work', in my discussions with others. Through this blog I will seek to slowly cover all the angles and rather than seeking to prove whether it would or wouldn't work, instead seek to answer how might it work.

I want to help create a middle ground, in between the the blind support and opposition of these ideas, where people can freely discuss the advantages and disadvantages of such an economy, seeking to contrast them with our current society, and discuss openly without fear of ridicule or intellectual bigotry.

I also seek to challenge my own convictions on the topic, scientifically approaching the problems that lay before us and testing them in my own mind without any preconceived conclusions.

I welcome comments and feedback throughout these posts, as along with my collaborator I will be seeking to put together a fully comprehensive and accessible website which can help educate people in the alternatives that are available to us.