What if the coming food shortages are by design, a means to achieving an end that is too difficult to achieve because the problem that's been identified is "too big" to change with the choices that are available to society?
Would a crisis, would a shortage be helpful to change human consumption behaviors by increasing the price associated with those behaviors? And if so, since behavioral science-based nudges haven't been effective, the problem too large, would designing and orchestrating a massive crisis that necessarily changes the choice architecture available to humans serve as an ideal means to a desired ends?
"Climate change: “Nudge is part of the solution to almost any problem, but is not the solution to any problem.”
Climate change is one of the topics that received more attention in the New Nudge. I asked Thaler how nudges, an approach some have criticized for playing at the margins, might contribute to fighting climate change.
Thaler [12:57] : “Nudges help on climate change, but it’s too big of a problem. One of the things we say in various ways and repeat throughout the book is nudge is part of the solution to almost any problem, but is not the solution to any problem.
“I am with, I think, 100 percent of economists around the world in thinking that step one, if we want to deal with this crisis, must be to get the prices right. Economists are right about some things. If you make something free, people consume too much of it. We see that at all-you-can-eat restaurants or, even worse, open bars. Right now, emissions are free, and people are acting accordingly. So whether it’s a carbon tax or cap and trade, we’ve got to get the prices right (now, that’s easier to say than to do). "
I submit to you that this is not conspiracy. Behavioral Science-based "nudges," terms like "choice architecture" are the actual processes of achieving the changes desired by the most powerful entities in the world today. At the United Nations under Agenda 2030, shared with the goals and vision expressed by the World Economic Forum's Great Reset. There is even a Behavioral Science plan available in UN documents, developed with leading Global Behaviorists working in government agencies and private industries, especially within Big Tech. Google itself has a Chief Global Behavioral Scientist, Maya Shankar, who co-authored the UN's Behavioral Insights Achieving Agenda 2030 plan. She was formerly the head of the Social and Behavioral Science Team under Pres. Obama (now designated the Office of Evaluation Services under the General Services Administration.)
And similar teams exist in the UK as the Behavioral Insights Team and in the Covid SPI-B nudge units that developed the most oppressive liberty-sucking nonpharmaceutical intervention strategies the world has lived under since 2020, like completely ineffective and discredited lockdown policies, mandatory quarantines, and mandatory and coerced masking. Psychological tools of manipulation designed to effect a change desired by authorities.
Could the coming food shortages actually be a coordinated and orchestrated crisis designed to "nudge" people to make different choices within a "SIMPLER" architecture of fewer choices deemed "better" by a self-imagined more enlightened, smarter, benevolent elite that has struggled with using ordinary methods of persuasion to influence changes they believe will help the environment and prevent the catastrophic climate change they've been warning us about for half a century? Something to consider.
this last paragraph is a good summary of "elite-educated" type thinking at higher levels of many of our institutions, nationally and globally. The Ukraine crisis is making clearer a greater conflict between global control vs local control
This elite educated type thinking at higher levels has been there a very long time. An excerpt below from a Noam Chomsky speech while on book tour in 1989 for his work, "Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media." It is a very long, but very insightful read into the actual mindset of those orchestrating the massive reorganization of our society across the world today, by whichever name you prefer, UN Agenda 2030/WEF Great Reset.
Behavioral science, the entire field itself begins and ends with the presupposition that people are either too cognitively impaired or lack perspective to make good decisions for themselves. The absolute arrogance of them. And what it a "good" decision? That's very subjective, you know. Good to a Marxist will be something quite different than good to a constitutional originalist. It is their intention to "manufacture our consent" to collectivist authoritarianism. Using linguistics (Chomsky's primary field of expertise) to redefine constitutional liberty and freedom.
Behavioral science is how the Orwellian, "Freedom is slavery," and the "You'll own nothing and be happy" is realized. You know this science, it's the "best science" the media and government authorities have been referring to during as guiding their pandemic policies. And you thought they meant medical, natural science? Rather, they made you think medical, natural science. Linguistics! Voila! Orchestrated food shortages are very effective at imposing radical changes. Ask Stalin and Mao.
"If you go back to the International Encyclopedia of Social Sciences published in 1933 — days when people were a little more open and honest in what they said — there’s an article on propaganda, and it’s well worth reading. There’s an entry under propaganda. The entry is written by a leading- one- maybe the leading American political scientist, Harold Lasswell, who was very influential, particularly in this area, communications, and so on. And in this entry in the International Encyclopedia on propaganda he says, we should not succumb to democratic dogmatisms about men being the best judges of their own interests. They’re not, he said. Even with the rise of mass education- doesn’t mean that people can judge their own interests. They can’t. The best judges of their interests are elites — the specialized class, the cool observers, the people who have rationality — and therefore they must be granted the means to impose their will. Notice, for the common good. Because, again, because- well, he says, because of the ignorance and superstition of the masses, he said it’s necessary to have a whole new technique of control, largely through propaganda. Propaganda, he says, we shouldn’t have a negative connotation about, it’s neutral. Propaganda, he says, is as neutral as a pump handle. You can use it for good, you can use it for bad; since were good people, obviously, — that’s sort of true by definition — we’ll use it for good purposes, and there should be no negative connotations about that. In fact, it’s moral to use it, because that’s the only way that you can save the ignorant and stupid masses of the population from their own errors. You don’t let a three year old run across the street, and you don’t let ordinary people make their own decisions. You have to control them.
And why do you need propaganda? Well, he explains that. He says, in military-run or feudal societies — what we would these days call totalitarian societies — you don’t really need propaganda that much. And the reason is you’ve got a- you’ve got a club in your hand. You can control the way people behave, and therefore it doesn’t matter much what they think, because if they get out of line you can control them — for their own good, of course. But once you lose the club, you know, once the State loses its capacity to coerce by force, then you have some problems. The voice of the people is heard — you’ve got all these formal mechanisms around that permit people to express themselves, and even participate, and vote, and that sort of thing — and you can’t control them by force, because you’ve lost that capacity. But the voice of the people is heard, and therefore you’ve got to make sure it says the right thing. And in order to make sure it says the right thing, you’ve got to have effective and sophisticated propaganda, again, for their own good.
So in a- as a society becomes more free — that is, there’s less capacity to coerce — it simply needs more sophisticated indoctrination and propaganda. For the public good.
The similarity between this and Leninist ideology is very striking. According to Leninist ideology, the cool observers, the radical intelligentsia, will be the vanguard who will lead the stupid and ignorant masses on to, you know, communist utopia, because they’re too stupid to work it out by themselves.
And in fact there’s been a very easy transition over these years between one and the other position. You know, it’s very striking that continually people move from one position to the other, very easily. And I think the reason for the ease is partly because they’re sort of the same position. So you can be either a Marxist-Leninist commissar, or you can be somebody celebrating the magnificence of State capitalism, and you can serve those guys. It’s more or less the same position. You pick one or the other depending on your estimate of where power is, and that can change."
What if the coming food shortages are by design, a means to achieving an end that is too difficult to achieve because the problem that's been identified is "too big" to change with the choices that are available to society?
Would a crisis, would a shortage be helpful to change human consumption behaviors by increasing the price associated with those behaviors? And if so, since behavioral science-based nudges haven't been effective, the problem too large, would designing and orchestrating a massive crisis that necessarily changes the choice architecture available to humans serve as an ideal means to a desired ends?
"Climate change: “Nudge is part of the solution to almost any problem, but is not the solution to any problem.”
Climate change is one of the topics that received more attention in the New Nudge. I asked Thaler how nudges, an approach some have criticized for playing at the margins, might contribute to fighting climate change.
Thaler [12:57] : “Nudges help on climate change, but it’s too big of a problem. One of the things we say in various ways and repeat throughout the book is nudge is part of the solution to almost any problem, but is not the solution to any problem.
“I am with, I think, 100 percent of economists around the world in thinking that step one, if we want to deal with this crisis, must be to get the prices right. Economists are right about some things. If you make something free, people consume too much of it. We see that at all-you-can-eat restaurants or, even worse, open bars. Right now, emissions are free, and people are acting accordingly. So whether it’s a carbon tax or cap and trade, we’ve got to get the prices right (now, that’s easier to say than to do). "
https://behavioralscientist.org/five-takeaways-from-our-conversation-with-richard-thaler-about-the-past-present-and-future-of-nudge/
I submit to you that this is not conspiracy. Behavioral Science-based "nudges," terms like "choice architecture" are the actual processes of achieving the changes desired by the most powerful entities in the world today. At the United Nations under Agenda 2030, shared with the goals and vision expressed by the World Economic Forum's Great Reset. There is even a Behavioral Science plan available in UN documents, developed with leading Global Behaviorists working in government agencies and private industries, especially within Big Tech. Google itself has a Chief Global Behavioral Scientist, Maya Shankar, who co-authored the UN's Behavioral Insights Achieving Agenda 2030 plan. She was formerly the head of the Social and Behavioral Science Team under Pres. Obama (now designated the Office of Evaluation Services under the General Services Administration.)
And similar teams exist in the UK as the Behavioral Insights Team and in the Covid SPI-B nudge units that developed the most oppressive liberty-sucking nonpharmaceutical intervention strategies the world has lived under since 2020, like completely ineffective and discredited lockdown policies, mandatory quarantines, and mandatory and coerced masking. Psychological tools of manipulation designed to effect a change desired by authorities.
Could the coming food shortages actually be a coordinated and orchestrated crisis designed to "nudge" people to make different choices within a "SIMPLER" architecture of fewer choices deemed "better" by a self-imagined more enlightened, smarter, benevolent elite that has struggled with using ordinary methods of persuasion to influence changes they believe will help the environment and prevent the catastrophic climate change they've been warning us about for half a century? Something to consider.
https://www.undp.org/publications/behavioural-insights-united-nations-achieving-agenda-2030#modal-publication-download
this last paragraph is a good summary of "elite-educated" type thinking at higher levels of many of our institutions, nationally and globally. The Ukraine crisis is making clearer a greater conflict between global control vs local control
This elite educated type thinking at higher levels has been there a very long time. An excerpt below from a Noam Chomsky speech while on book tour in 1989 for his work, "Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media." It is a very long, but very insightful read into the actual mindset of those orchestrating the massive reorganization of our society across the world today, by whichever name you prefer, UN Agenda 2030/WEF Great Reset.
Behavioral science, the entire field itself begins and ends with the presupposition that people are either too cognitively impaired or lack perspective to make good decisions for themselves. The absolute arrogance of them. And what it a "good" decision? That's very subjective, you know. Good to a Marxist will be something quite different than good to a constitutional originalist. It is their intention to "manufacture our consent" to collectivist authoritarianism. Using linguistics (Chomsky's primary field of expertise) to redefine constitutional liberty and freedom.
Behavioral science is how the Orwellian, "Freedom is slavery," and the "You'll own nothing and be happy" is realized. You know this science, it's the "best science" the media and government authorities have been referring to during as guiding their pandemic policies. And you thought they meant medical, natural science? Rather, they made you think medical, natural science. Linguistics! Voila! Orchestrated food shortages are very effective at imposing radical changes. Ask Stalin and Mao.
"If you go back to the International Encyclopedia of Social Sciences published in 1933 — days when people were a little more open and honest in what they said — there’s an article on propaganda, and it’s well worth reading. There’s an entry under propaganda. The entry is written by a leading- one- maybe the leading American political scientist, Harold Lasswell, who was very influential, particularly in this area, communications, and so on. And in this entry in the International Encyclopedia on propaganda he says, we should not succumb to democratic dogmatisms about men being the best judges of their own interests. They’re not, he said. Even with the rise of mass education- doesn’t mean that people can judge their own interests. They can’t. The best judges of their interests are elites — the specialized class, the cool observers, the people who have rationality — and therefore they must be granted the means to impose their will. Notice, for the common good. Because, again, because- well, he says, because of the ignorance and superstition of the masses, he said it’s necessary to have a whole new technique of control, largely through propaganda. Propaganda, he says, we shouldn’t have a negative connotation about, it’s neutral. Propaganda, he says, is as neutral as a pump handle. You can use it for good, you can use it for bad; since were good people, obviously, — that’s sort of true by definition — we’ll use it for good purposes, and there should be no negative connotations about that. In fact, it’s moral to use it, because that’s the only way that you can save the ignorant and stupid masses of the population from their own errors. You don’t let a three year old run across the street, and you don’t let ordinary people make their own decisions. You have to control them.
And why do you need propaganda? Well, he explains that. He says, in military-run or feudal societies — what we would these days call totalitarian societies — you don’t really need propaganda that much. And the reason is you’ve got a- you’ve got a club in your hand. You can control the way people behave, and therefore it doesn’t matter much what they think, because if they get out of line you can control them — for their own good, of course. But once you lose the club, you know, once the State loses its capacity to coerce by force, then you have some problems. The voice of the people is heard — you’ve got all these formal mechanisms around that permit people to express themselves, and even participate, and vote, and that sort of thing — and you can’t control them by force, because you’ve lost that capacity. But the voice of the people is heard, and therefore you’ve got to make sure it says the right thing. And in order to make sure it says the right thing, you’ve got to have effective and sophisticated propaganda, again, for their own good.
So in a- as a society becomes more free — that is, there’s less capacity to coerce — it simply needs more sophisticated indoctrination and propaganda. For the public good.
The similarity between this and Leninist ideology is very striking. According to Leninist ideology, the cool observers, the radical intelligentsia, will be the vanguard who will lead the stupid and ignorant masses on to, you know, communist utopia, because they’re too stupid to work it out by themselves.
And in fact there’s been a very easy transition over these years between one and the other position. You know, it’s very striking that continually people move from one position to the other, very easily. And I think the reason for the ease is partly because they’re sort of the same position. So you can be either a Marxist-Leninist commissar, or you can be somebody celebrating the magnificence of State capitalism, and you can serve those guys. It’s more or less the same position. You pick one or the other depending on your estimate of where power is, and that can change."
https://chomsky.info/19890315/
Millions of Africans starving is a small price to pay for some affluent soccer moms to preen and virtue signal.