I feel that when such new systems and advancements are made, those who're unfairly and inconsiderately left behind as well as face a lot of hardship, are those from the lower socioeconomic classes, who don't have the financial means to adapt to such changes.
Neither the firestorm in Lahaina or the recent hurricane in Acapulco appear to be natural disasters. The ferocity/suddenness (respectively) of both seems to defy explanation. The cloak of secrecy surrounding the former would tend to support more a sinister explanation. Of course you won't find any investigation in Legacy media, and I have no more than passing knowledge of the Acapulco event, but (and I'm sure you have better things to do) there is information to be found for the curious.
I looked into it, and yes, just like there was information to be found for the curious townsfolk in 17th century Vardo, there is information to be found 'for the curious' here too. The question you have to ask yourself though, is whether your 'curiosity' is by default calibrated towards believing that there was some human agency at play in these situations. In Vardo, people's curiosity was. That was a default way of thinking at that time, and a 17th century atmospheric scientist at that point would have seemed like a rebellious 'free thinker' for suggesting that human agency wasn't involved.
What we refer to as a 'conspiracy theorist' is any person who prioritises a particular *mode of analysis* in which it is a-priori assumed that human agency is responsible for bad things. The contrasting mode of analysis is systemic, in which that assumption is not made. A systemic theorist is totally able to recognise a conspiracy, but they wouldn't start with the assumption that something needs to be explained with reference to bad actors with bad intent. Put differently, being a 'conspiracy theorist' does not mean you are 'a person who has come to believe that a conspiracy has occurred'. It means you are 'a person whose *mode of theorising* assumes a conspiracy has occurred'
So, are you an example of the latter, or are you equally open to explanations that don't involve human agency?
Excellent article Brett!
Thank you. I'll reread the whole thing again. So much to think about in it and to reflect (and act!) on.
Thanks so much Liz!
Really insightful article.
I feel that when such new systems and advancements are made, those who're unfairly and inconsiderately left behind as well as face a lot of hardship, are those from the lower socioeconomic classes, who don't have the financial means to adapt to such changes.
Absolutely
"Today we know that physics and atmospheric pressures produced those storms." except Lahaina and Acapulco appear to be something different. Oops.
Explain?
Neither the firestorm in Lahaina or the recent hurricane in Acapulco appear to be natural disasters. The ferocity/suddenness (respectively) of both seems to defy explanation. The cloak of secrecy surrounding the former would tend to support more a sinister explanation. Of course you won't find any investigation in Legacy media, and I have no more than passing knowledge of the Acapulco event, but (and I'm sure you have better things to do) there is information to be found for the curious.
I looked into it, and yes, just like there was information to be found for the curious townsfolk in 17th century Vardo, there is information to be found 'for the curious' here too. The question you have to ask yourself though, is whether your 'curiosity' is by default calibrated towards believing that there was some human agency at play in these situations. In Vardo, people's curiosity was. That was a default way of thinking at that time, and a 17th century atmospheric scientist at that point would have seemed like a rebellious 'free thinker' for suggesting that human agency wasn't involved.
What we refer to as a 'conspiracy theorist' is any person who prioritises a particular *mode of analysis* in which it is a-priori assumed that human agency is responsible for bad things. The contrasting mode of analysis is systemic, in which that assumption is not made. A systemic theorist is totally able to recognise a conspiracy, but they wouldn't start with the assumption that something needs to be explained with reference to bad actors with bad intent. Put differently, being a 'conspiracy theorist' does not mean you are 'a person who has come to believe that a conspiracy has occurred'. It means you are 'a person whose *mode of theorising* assumes a conspiracy has occurred'
So, are you an example of the latter, or are you equally open to explanations that don't involve human agency?
Thanks April - I'll keep on doing it