Consensus, Accountability and Survival
As the top social species on the evolutionary scale, we share with all social animals a tendency towards heavily relying on group consensus for our information. This information, just like for all the other species, is essential for the future survival of the group, so its accuracy is paramount for the thriving of the species.
Consensus building is ubiquitous in nature, beginning at the cellular level; information sharing among the different parts produces an emerging behavior that doesn’t depend on any particular top directive but on the interaction of all the parts. As we move up the social species ladder, we find plenty of examples for the emerging of consensus in a group; a flock of birds or a school of fish rely on almost imperceptible transfers of information among the group that translate into the smooth formations of migratory birds, and coordinated movements of fish.
Bees, a very social species, are quite sophisticated in their information transmission. For example, when they need a new place for a hive, they send scout bees to search for possible new sites. When these bees are back from their expedition, they relay the information to the other bees using a particular bee dance. There are further exchanges of information inside the hive that together, cause the emergence of a consensus for a decision -the best for their new home.
In life, reliable information as a basis for consensus is the key to survival. From cells to organisms, an accurate assessment of the environment is essential for the emergence of an adaptive response. These assessments from the cell to the social species can have errors, but usually, the consensus is correct. If the information from the environment changes dramatically too fast, the adaptation for survival can happen only if there is enough time left.
In the case of bees, the information relayed by the scout bees is accurately transmitted to the hive, with no interference from vested interests of any powerful group. If the bees relied on biased or faulty information for a long time, their organisms would notice the negative feedback detrimental to their survival and act to correct it as soon as possible. Of course, bees can’t form power groups with an interest in manipulating information for their benefit; the aim of the hive is the survival of the totality of the hive.
The bees’ modus operandi contrasts sharply with the behavior of Homo sapiens. Humans have succeeded in populating every corner of the Earth; this success increased the complexity of social interaction and made more difficult the access to the truth value of information essential for survival. Our technological progress has distanced us from the natural environment and we have replaced that experience with technological knowledge that we value above all else. Unlike the bees, we don’t value the true information that would be useful for adaptability, we instead value a consensus that is widely spread and believed.
Power is both created by and summarizes the interactions of society; it follows that our consensus is based on this power matrix. Researchers have found that we value more the opinion of the powerful and of those admired by these elites. Our beginnings as a species prioritized societies of around 50, a size that prevailed for thousands of years among humans. The head of the clan and his attendants had the power and their opinions prevailed. These humans were close to their environment and their source of power; if the chief repeatedly told them lies detrimental to the thriving of the whole clan, there was sure to be a revolt against that chief, often allowing for accountability.
The increase in technology after the industrial revolution multiplied exponentially the availability of information but unfortunately, it also brought the excessive concentration of wealth in just a few hands around the world. This combination proved a fertile ground for the manipulation of information to create a consensus that benefits the top elites. Their cash excess allows them to direct the flow of information in communications to ensure that the information that benefits their agenda is repeated. This repetition, multiplied by most of the media, reinforces the connections in the brain to easily create a consensus.
The excess cash of these corporate elites is also used to bribe politicians directly or indirectly through campaign contributions, lobbying, and pressure groups that help to create a consensus among the politicians. The revolving door between the government and the corporate elites: oil companies, Wall St, health insurers, defense contractors, and Silicon Valley, has been growing exponentially lately. Politicians and top government employees know that there will be cushy jobs and beneficial board appointments if they help to create a consensus beneficial to these corporate elites. The media uses this DC consensus as the basis for the information that is aired to the public as though it were real information, not just corporate propaganda.
Our technology has evolved but we are still as vulnerable to the opinion of the powerful as we were when we created fire. This implies that we believe the information that a powerful person has or considers relevant, without questioning its veracity. The mainstream media is bound to the consensus of the powerful, but we don’t notice this, we are told we have freedom of the press and we leave it at that. The consensus relayed by the media can convince us of the yet unproven presence of Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq with just one blurry image or a mysterious powder in a vial, accompanied by the words of a well-known politician.
If a source of information, be it the media, the politicians, or the corporate elites, repeatedly lie to us, we can assume they will continue giving us false information unless we hold them accountable for each lie; unfortunately, this rarely happens. In our complex hierarchical society, the creation of powerful groups that can manipulate information happens quite often. Strangely, it is the same characteristics that make us a social and intelligent animal with civilization and progress, that also render us vulnerable to power and accepting lies without asking for any accountability. This means that the powerful are rarely accountable for their misdeeds, much less punished; the punishment is mostly reserved for the bulk of the population, the less powerful.
Accountability is a key element for truth assessment in information; without accountability, important decisions relevant to our adaptability and survival might not be implemented on time. This is the case with our current situation regarding the climate disaster we are experiencing. The information that has become our consensus regarding climate is the one that benefits the corporate elites but it doesn’t correspond to the truth; it is instead a green varnish that hides their real motives: a thirst for more profits and concentration of power in fewer hands. Unlike the bees, who react immediately to false information about their environment, we are mired in false beliefs created and perpetuated by the powerful and the media that serve them. Without accountability for their misinformation, there is no democracy and no way to trust information. We conveniently forget that just as it happens with the bees, our survival depends on accurate information.
The most recent example of the consensus about climate created by the powerful is the Great Reset, the World Economic Forum’s plan that includes the New Deal for Nature, and will start on January 2021. The proposals echo the talk of the supposedly most enlightened politicians, experts, and powerful people who use their acceptance of the climate disaster as man-made as a sign that they are willing to do something meaningful about it. The media labels this consensus as the true‘science’ that will solve all our climate problems.
According to their plan, all we have to do is to agree with their proposal to dedicate 30 percent of the land to nature, to switch our cars to electric, to eat less beef, to recycle, plant some trees, divest from fossil fuel companies and instead invest in companies that do carbon offsets, carbon capturing or renewable energy. This is the supposedly enlightened consensus, parroted by the right politicians, experts, and corporate moguls.
In reality, none of those plans will make a dent to change what has already happened: the extreme disturbance of the Earth that is rapidly reducing the necessary conditions to ensure our survival. Besides the New Deal for Nature, the Great Reset has another top project called the 4th Industrial Revolution, meant to increase our delight and blind faith in technological progress.
In the meantime, we have forgotten about our home planet and its history. Our civilizational success was possible thanks to the arrival of the Holocene, the benign climate epoch we are just leaving thanks to our fossil fuel extravaganza. This epoch started 11,000 years ago and its climatic stability allowed for our success with agriculture and civilization. Unfortunately at present, the deep changes in the Earth systems and their subsequent and complex feedback mechanisms have already set in motion the gears to cause more and more disruption to our agriculture, our water sources, and essentially our survival. The paltry carbon offsets and tree plantings won’t stop the gears of climate instability.
If we were like bees, we would have access to direct true information from the environment and this would rapidly cause alarm signals in the group, prompting adaptability as soon as possible. But we aren’t bees, our world is so complex, and our misinformation-filled brains are unaware of the whole Earth environment, the vast and complex network of geological mechanisms that had kept the Earth in tune with our survival.
The politicians, experts, media people are all in the same system that demands acquiescence to the corporate elite’s status quo in exchange for a career and success. You can be a great expert but if you don’t fit the consensus, you won’t be invited to interviews and your books won’t get to the best-seller lists. This modus operandi helps to create a false consensus that we are sure is based on science, though it is far from it.
A good example is Michael E. Mann, a quite respected climatologist and atmospheric scientist who was the lead author of a 1998 paper that reconstructed the climate over 1000 years, resulting in the famous hockey stick graph. This graph shows an almost flat range of normal temperature variations (the stick) that suddenly experienced an exponential temperature increase. Mann is a knowledgeable and serious scientist who has understood the problem we are in for a long time; yet, in his media persona, he ascribes to a high degree of misinformation, claiming that the power elite’s consensus about climate is all we need and that a politician who vaguely talks about doing something about climate is enough.
In reality, a change in a president or political party will not be very meaningful; just accepting that climate change is man-made and talking about it is a very far cry from meaningful action. Mann cautioned the world in 1998, yet presidents have been elected and retired and there has not been any real effect of their policies in climate change.
They tell us if we follow the Paris agreement (which is non-binding and therefore ineffective) and the new dicta of the WEF all will be fine, but it is easy to find that no country that signed the agreement has acted on what they promised. We also find that emissions have been growing steadily creating a multitude of dire feedback mechanisms. If all their green promises and projects have not had any real effect on the Earth’s systems, then why do we continue believing their new proposals as the right solution? How can we continue believing in a consensus that has failed us? Because we don’t have enough information to judge if the consensus is wrong.
Trusting a consensus in a society ruled by 1-percenters who own the media, and have money to burn so they can influence universities, publishing houses, and world organizations to misinform the public, has had some negative consequences until now, mostly the intense suffering that our multiple senseless wars have caused around the world; it is a suffering that we don’t see because the media doesn’t show it to us. But now, for the first time, our trust in the current consensus is not beneficial to us.
The misinformation we trust is putting our near-term, survival at risk. Even the bees that had always wisely relied on good information to ensure adaptability and survival are now in peril because of our actions. The poor bees are unable to find a solution against the toxic neonicotinoids and other weed and pest killers that industrial agriculture keeps on using, even if there is plenty of evidence of their toxicity. We still insist on prioritizing profit even though we were warned about the climate and ecological problem in the 1970s. Unfortunately, the false consensus has prevailed so the majority has not been able to access the correct information to adapt on time. Homo sapiens is the animal that takes great pride in the thickness of its frontal cortex, provider of rationality; alas not enough to allow us to think clearly, face the true information, and try to adapt.
