It isn’t surprising that advocates of “sustainable development” would turn to methods of behavior modification to influence their audience.
However it is most surprising that they would brazenly attempt to integrate these methods with traditional marketing techniques and devices that have heretofore been associated with advertising techniques of the dreaded free market.
Behavior modification has a lengthy history, as a facet of psychological science. Begun around the turn of the last century, its first practitioner was James Watson. He successfully conditioned fear into an unsuspecting child named “Little Albert”. Granted Watson accomplished much more in his career than simply terrorizing a young child. However, the Little Albert experiment simply intended to demonstrate the efficacy of Pavlov’s research in directing and guiding human behavior.
In the succeeding years, Watson was succeeded in behaviorist circles by the renowned American behaviorist, B.F. Skinner. Skinner changed the direction of the paradigm, but also was interested in applying his principles to changing and controlling human behavior. Having created the “Skinner box” to experiment with animals, he utilized the device on his own daughter as a means of further testing its effectiveness.
Later in his career, Skinner authored as book called “Beyond Freedom & Dignity”.
The text suggested a means whereby society could rid itself of all the negative human traits, by controlling the opportunity to access all the “reinforcers” which people would seek.
Loudly rejected by civil libertarians of the time, including Noam Chomsky, it advanced a brave new world in which all the reinforcers were controlled by the benevolent government, which acted in everyone’s best interest.
Showing posts with label mind control. Show all posts
Showing posts with label mind control. Show all posts
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
Marching Toward Global Solidarity
By Berit Kjos
July 27, 2006NewsWithViews.com
http://www.newswithviews.com/BeritKjos/kjos61.htm"The new generation...[has] a deeper sense of solidarity as people of the planet than any generation before them.... On that rests our hope for our global neighborhood." [1] Report of The UN Commission on Global Governance.
"Welfare depends on the intellectual and moral solidarity of mankind,"[2] Federico Mayor, then Director General of UNESCO .
During the 1996 UN Conference on Human Settlements (Habitat II), I attended a day-long "Dialogue" on the meaning of "Solidarity" at Istanbul’s elegant Ciragan Palace. Registered as a reporter, I received a list of 21 panel members. It included UNESCO's Director General Federico Mayor, the now discredited UN leader Maurice Strong, World Bank Vice President Ismail Serageldin, and Millard Fuller who founded Habitat for Humanity. Together with other globalist dignitaries, they would explore the missing factor in the old Soviet version of dialectical materialism: a spiritual foundation for an evolving global ethic.[3]
"To speak of solidarity is to speak of things of the spirit," began Habitat Secretary-General Wally N’Dow. "For we are well aware that the future of our human settlements... is not just a matter of bricks and mortar but equally a question of attitudes and determination to work for the common good.... This spiritual dimension is the only ingredient that can bind societies together."[4]N'Dow had chosen an American moderator who would add credibility to the discussion: Robert McNeil (of McNeil-Lehrer), "one of the gurus, the spiritual lights of the media industry today."[4] Moments later, McNeil introduced the panel of dignitaries ready to shape the new vision of oneness.
"What’s needed is an interfaith center in every city of the globe," said James Morton, former dean of the Episcopal Cathedral of St. John the Divine. "The new interfaith centers will honor the rituals of every… faith tradition: Islam, Hinduism, Jain, Christian… and provide opportunity for sacred expression needed to bind the people of the planet into a viable, meaningful, and sustainable solidarity."[4]
...Millard Fuller, President of Habitat for Humanity, fit right into this interfaith dialogue. Like other emerging leaders in the neo-Christian movement, he redefined Scriptures to "prove" his message:
"When Jesus launched His ministry 2000 years ago, He said, 'We must repent for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand.' In English, that sort of connotes feeling sorry for getting caught. But in the Greek, we read that what He really said was to metamorphose. Metamorphose is what a butterfly becomes when it metamorphoses out of a little fuzzy caterpillar.... Change your whole way of thinking, because the new order of the spirit is confronting and challenging you. ... The only way we will achieve human solidarity in dealing with it is to have a completely new way of thinking."
This "new way of thinking" has already permeated every segment of society: education, business, government, and the church growth movement, including Purpose-Driven churches. Pushing transformation in all these sectors are the leadership training programs that pursue the vision of management gurus such as Peter Drucker, Peter Senge, and Ken Blanchard. The core of their teaching is "general systems theory" or "systems thinking." In short, everything is interconnected, therefore all is One and all divisions and boundaries must be eliminated in order to establish the "Global Neighborhood," i.e. New World Order. Emerging Church leaders like Brian McLaren call it "The Kingdom of God."
...Let’s not forget that familiar words with strategic new meanings are likely to mislead the masses. For example, in Webster's Dictionary (1989) the familiar meaning of solidarity sounds perfectly safe: "common interest and active loyalty within a group." But contemporary change agents have infused that word with a far more revolutionary meaning. Let's take a closer look.
THE NEW SOCIAL CONTRACT
During a break, I asked moderator Robert McNeil to define solidarity for me. In his answer, he acknowledged that solidarity is strengthened by a common enemy as well as a "common good":
"It means people with shared values or responsibilities cooperating or working together. In our culture, it was probably exemplified most often by the union movement. Industrial unions often used the phrase solidarity-- 'solidarity forever.' And in the socialist movement, of course, solidarity was a very strong word -- the solidarity of the workers against the employers, their oppressor, capitalists.... whatever it was...."[4]
"Solidarity is like a social contract, like people agreeing that this is the way it should be. Whether I am poorer or richer than you are, we somehow agree that the way it is set up works best for all of us."
What if we don't agree? Then we are vilified as divisive resisters -- excluded from the feel-good solidarity. Pastor Brian McLaren, an acknowledged leader in the Emerging Church movement, summarized it well:
"...to be truly inclusive, the [earthly] kingdom must exclude exclusive people, to be truly reconciling, the kingdom must not reconcile with those who refuse reconciliation.'"[5]
Social contracts hold people accountable to the new standard. It pushes people toward the planned conformity, whether the society is a church, a school, or the "global neighborhood." So it didn't surprise me to hear UNESCO's Federico Mayor make the same point. "The 21st Century city will be a city of social solidarity," he said. "We have to redefine the words... [and write a new] social contract."[4]
This evolving "social contract" has been written into every UN treaty and declaration. And former President Clinton's Executive Order 1310 helped turn that UN "contract" into US policy. It is being implemented through government policies as well as laws whether the treaties were ratified by Congress or not. [See Trading U.S. Rights for UN Rules]
This "social contract" guarantees "freedom from want," from fear, from hunger, and from offense by those who might voice contrary values. It also promises "freedom of thought and expression" -- but only to those who share the UN vision. Remember, Article 29 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that "...these rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations."[6]
Reflecting the same communitarian constraint, Ismail Serageldin, then Vice President of the World Bank, said:
"We should stop bemoaning the growth of cities. It’s going to happen and it’s a good thing, because cities are the vectors of social change and transformation. Let’s just make sure that social change and transformation are going in the right direction.... The media must act as part of the education process that counters individualism."[4]
BEHAVIOR MODIFICATION
A cooperative media is essential to the planned change in public consciousness. As in totalitarian regimes, "voluntary" social transformation relies on effective propaganda. That's why our Education Department's Community Action Toolkit, The President's Council for Sustainable Development, and the UN's Local Agenda 21 all call for partnerships between educators and the news and entertainment media in every community. The public must be persuaded to give its consent; the people must learn to feel so uncomfortable with dissent that contrary voices would be silenced.
The masses must never notice that this manipulative process is changing their minds and actions. Since few people do notice, Professor Raymond Houghton's triumphant promise in a 1970 NEA publication is becoming an alarming reality:
"...absolute behavior control is imminent. ... The critical point of behavior control, in effect, is sneaking up on mankind without his self-conscious realization that a crisis is at hand. Man will never self-consciously know that it has happened."[7]
This plan for "behavior control" would include three essentials steps: (1) a supportive news and entertainment media willing to disseminate politically correct information and inspire values that erode the old boundaries, (2) a management system for measuring and monitoring change, and (3) universal participation in the dialectic (consensus) process.
The latter has become the norm in US schools, corporations, government agencies, and communities. The dialectic process used to control the masses in the former Soviet Union has invaded every corner of U.S. society – even churches. The goal is to involve every human resource (human capital) in the UNESCO program of lifelong learning -- a continual process of training and immersion in the new way of thinking and relating to others.
Footnotes:
1. Our Global Neighborhood, "UN Report of The Commission on Global Governance" (New York: Oxford University Press, 1995) at 357.
2. Forum Discusses Ways in Which To "Humanize" The City.
3. Maurice Strong didn't come to the Dialogue as scheduled.
4. I taped and transcribed this part of the "Dialogue" at the UN Conference on Human Settlements in Istanbul, 1996.
5. Brian McLaren, The Secret Message of Jesus: Uncovering the Truth that could change everything (Nashville: Thomas Nelson's W Publishing Group, 1006), at 169-170.
6. Trading US Rights For UN Rules .
7. Raymond Houghton, To Nurture Humaneness: Commitment for the '70's (The Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development of the NEA, 1970).
8. Brainwashing in America and Moulding Human Resources For The Global Workforce.
July 27, 2006NewsWithViews.com
http://www.newswithviews.com/BeritKjos/kjos61.htm"The new generation...[has] a deeper sense of solidarity as people of the planet than any generation before them.... On that rests our hope for our global neighborhood." [1] Report of The UN Commission on Global Governance.
"Welfare depends on the intellectual and moral solidarity of mankind,"[2] Federico Mayor, then Director General of UNESCO .
During the 1996 UN Conference on Human Settlements (Habitat II), I attended a day-long "Dialogue" on the meaning of "Solidarity" at Istanbul’s elegant Ciragan Palace. Registered as a reporter, I received a list of 21 panel members. It included UNESCO's Director General Federico Mayor, the now discredited UN leader Maurice Strong, World Bank Vice President Ismail Serageldin, and Millard Fuller who founded Habitat for Humanity. Together with other globalist dignitaries, they would explore the missing factor in the old Soviet version of dialectical materialism: a spiritual foundation for an evolving global ethic.[3]
"To speak of solidarity is to speak of things of the spirit," began Habitat Secretary-General Wally N’Dow. "For we are well aware that the future of our human settlements... is not just a matter of bricks and mortar but equally a question of attitudes and determination to work for the common good.... This spiritual dimension is the only ingredient that can bind societies together."[4]N'Dow had chosen an American moderator who would add credibility to the discussion: Robert McNeil (of McNeil-Lehrer), "one of the gurus, the spiritual lights of the media industry today."[4] Moments later, McNeil introduced the panel of dignitaries ready to shape the new vision of oneness.
"What’s needed is an interfaith center in every city of the globe," said James Morton, former dean of the Episcopal Cathedral of St. John the Divine. "The new interfaith centers will honor the rituals of every… faith tradition: Islam, Hinduism, Jain, Christian… and provide opportunity for sacred expression needed to bind the people of the planet into a viable, meaningful, and sustainable solidarity."[4]
...Millard Fuller, President of Habitat for Humanity, fit right into this interfaith dialogue. Like other emerging leaders in the neo-Christian movement, he redefined Scriptures to "prove" his message:
"When Jesus launched His ministry 2000 years ago, He said, 'We must repent for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand.' In English, that sort of connotes feeling sorry for getting caught. But in the Greek, we read that what He really said was to metamorphose. Metamorphose is what a butterfly becomes when it metamorphoses out of a little fuzzy caterpillar.... Change your whole way of thinking, because the new order of the spirit is confronting and challenging you. ... The only way we will achieve human solidarity in dealing with it is to have a completely new way of thinking."
This "new way of thinking" has already permeated every segment of society: education, business, government, and the church growth movement, including Purpose-Driven churches. Pushing transformation in all these sectors are the leadership training programs that pursue the vision of management gurus such as Peter Drucker, Peter Senge, and Ken Blanchard. The core of their teaching is "general systems theory" or "systems thinking." In short, everything is interconnected, therefore all is One and all divisions and boundaries must be eliminated in order to establish the "Global Neighborhood," i.e. New World Order. Emerging Church leaders like Brian McLaren call it "The Kingdom of God."
...Let’s not forget that familiar words with strategic new meanings are likely to mislead the masses. For example, in Webster's Dictionary (1989) the familiar meaning of solidarity sounds perfectly safe: "common interest and active loyalty within a group." But contemporary change agents have infused that word with a far more revolutionary meaning. Let's take a closer look.
THE NEW SOCIAL CONTRACT
During a break, I asked moderator Robert McNeil to define solidarity for me. In his answer, he acknowledged that solidarity is strengthened by a common enemy as well as a "common good":
"It means people with shared values or responsibilities cooperating or working together. In our culture, it was probably exemplified most often by the union movement. Industrial unions often used the phrase solidarity-- 'solidarity forever.' And in the socialist movement, of course, solidarity was a very strong word -- the solidarity of the workers against the employers, their oppressor, capitalists.... whatever it was...."[4]
"Solidarity is like a social contract, like people agreeing that this is the way it should be. Whether I am poorer or richer than you are, we somehow agree that the way it is set up works best for all of us."
What if we don't agree? Then we are vilified as divisive resisters -- excluded from the feel-good solidarity. Pastor Brian McLaren, an acknowledged leader in the Emerging Church movement, summarized it well:
"...to be truly inclusive, the [earthly] kingdom must exclude exclusive people, to be truly reconciling, the kingdom must not reconcile with those who refuse reconciliation.'"[5]
Social contracts hold people accountable to the new standard. It pushes people toward the planned conformity, whether the society is a church, a school, or the "global neighborhood." So it didn't surprise me to hear UNESCO's Federico Mayor make the same point. "The 21st Century city will be a city of social solidarity," he said. "We have to redefine the words... [and write a new] social contract."[4]
This evolving "social contract" has been written into every UN treaty and declaration. And former President Clinton's Executive Order 1310 helped turn that UN "contract" into US policy. It is being implemented through government policies as well as laws whether the treaties were ratified by Congress or not. [See Trading U.S. Rights for UN Rules]
This "social contract" guarantees "freedom from want," from fear, from hunger, and from offense by those who might voice contrary values. It also promises "freedom of thought and expression" -- but only to those who share the UN vision. Remember, Article 29 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that "...these rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations."[6]
Reflecting the same communitarian constraint, Ismail Serageldin, then Vice President of the World Bank, said:
"We should stop bemoaning the growth of cities. It’s going to happen and it’s a good thing, because cities are the vectors of social change and transformation. Let’s just make sure that social change and transformation are going in the right direction.... The media must act as part of the education process that counters individualism."[4]
BEHAVIOR MODIFICATION
A cooperative media is essential to the planned change in public consciousness. As in totalitarian regimes, "voluntary" social transformation relies on effective propaganda. That's why our Education Department's Community Action Toolkit, The President's Council for Sustainable Development, and the UN's Local Agenda 21 all call for partnerships between educators and the news and entertainment media in every community. The public must be persuaded to give its consent; the people must learn to feel so uncomfortable with dissent that contrary voices would be silenced.
The masses must never notice that this manipulative process is changing their minds and actions. Since few people do notice, Professor Raymond Houghton's triumphant promise in a 1970 NEA publication is becoming an alarming reality:
"...absolute behavior control is imminent. ... The critical point of behavior control, in effect, is sneaking up on mankind without his self-conscious realization that a crisis is at hand. Man will never self-consciously know that it has happened."[7]
This plan for "behavior control" would include three essentials steps: (1) a supportive news and entertainment media willing to disseminate politically correct information and inspire values that erode the old boundaries, (2) a management system for measuring and monitoring change, and (3) universal participation in the dialectic (consensus) process.
The latter has become the norm in US schools, corporations, government agencies, and communities. The dialectic process used to control the masses in the former Soviet Union has invaded every corner of U.S. society – even churches. The goal is to involve every human resource (human capital) in the UNESCO program of lifelong learning -- a continual process of training and immersion in the new way of thinking and relating to others.
Footnotes:
1. Our Global Neighborhood, "UN Report of The Commission on Global Governance" (New York: Oxford University Press, 1995) at 357.
2. Forum Discusses Ways in Which To "Humanize" The City.
3. Maurice Strong didn't come to the Dialogue as scheduled.
4. I taped and transcribed this part of the "Dialogue" at the UN Conference on Human Settlements in Istanbul, 1996.
5. Brian McLaren, The Secret Message of Jesus: Uncovering the Truth that could change everything (Nashville: Thomas Nelson's W Publishing Group, 1006), at 169-170.
6. Trading US Rights For UN Rules .
7. Raymond Houghton, To Nurture Humaneness: Commitment for the '70's (The Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development of the NEA, 1970).
8. Brainwashing in America and Moulding Human Resources For The Global Workforce.
Americans Targeted for Behavior Modification
By Paul Walter *
November 16, 2004
http://www.citizenreviewonline.org/nov2004/16/ameicans.htm
"Fifty years is ample time in which to change a world and its people almost beyond recognition. All that is required for the task are a sound knowledge of social engineering, a clear sight of the intended goal - and power." -- Arthur C. Clarke, Childhood's End.
A recent measure in Santa Cruz, California was a prime example of how the people are being manipulated at the local level through what's called 'sustainable development' being done incrementally. Measure J was defeated by the people, but it is imperative that Americans fully understand that 'sustainable development' is the blueprint for destroying liberty and private property rights. Americans should make no mistake about the seriousness of this issue and how it will affect your life. Like a giant octopus spreading its tentacles, this type of measure and similar legislation is spreading across this country like a cancer.
[See, e.g.: The Image of the UN 'LOST' Leviathan, at: http://itssdjournalunclos-lost.blogspot.com/2008/01/lost-leviathan.html ].
['Negative' Sustainable Development] can be defeated by an educated citizenry as was demonstrated by the voters in Santa Cruz on November 2, 2004.
Measure J in Santa Cruz exemplified the underpinnings of 'sustainable development' by using local laws deceptively presented, but which were in fact, mini steps in behavior modification. This statement is validated by Linda Wilshusen, who was Executive Director of the Transportation Commission from the seventies until a short time ago expressed her opinion in 1988 when she said, "This concept of 'traffic management' has very little to do with science and engineering and a lot to do with sociology, marketing and behavior modification, as well as land use, parking and fuel availability, demographics and the like."
Wilshusen wasn't the only person to let the cat out of the bag. On September 16, 2004 during a presentation on Measure J to their local Chamber of Commerce, Supervisor Ellen Pirie insisted that the HOV lane proposed was needed: “If we add this lane, then we have more possibilities, because then we have a way of getting people out of their cars.” This is behavior modification through the back door.
Sustainable development should be the subject of discussion all across America, but most people don't know what it means, how it's being implemented and that the federal government is a willing participant in destroying our Republic. While some may automatically knee-jerk over such a statement, America's continued participation in the UN and programs like UNESCO spell even further destruction of our sovereignty and standard of living. Whether it's a 'traffic control' measure or one pertaining to the environment, non-governmental organizations, the worker ants of the globalists, push ahead each day in pursuit of world wide communism disguised by various labels. All of this is being kissed and blessed by local city fathers and state governments.
In his excellent piece titled 'Social Engineering for Global Change,' Carl Teichrib further educates on the 'International Baccalaureate Organization:
"Originally, the IBO was established to provide a common educational basis for international students that would be acceptable to universities around the world. With this in mind, IBO curriculum has, for over 35 years, emphasized that its students broaden their understanding of various cultures, languages, and points of view.
"Understanding other's points of view, cultures and languages is, in itself, a noble task - it's something that I work at pursuing and instilling within my own children and in myself. But underlining IBO's philosophy is something deeper; according to George Walker, the Director General at IBO, "International education offers people a state of mind: international-mindedness. You've got to change people's thinking." Hence, "students develop an awareness of moral and ethical issues and a sense of social responsibility...fostered by examining local and global issues."
"This is not simply ambiguous language. In advancing the international-mindedness of IBO, the organization has endorsed the Earth Charter - an earth-centered declaration which venerates global political-ethical-moral and spiritual unification. Some, such as Mikhail Gorbachev, have gone so far as to compare the Earth Charter with "those 10 or 15 Commandments which we all know about...those famous testaments."
"Providing the Earth Charter initiative with advanced support, the International Baccalaureate Organization has agreed to become an Earth Charter partnership entity, along with such groups as the Association of World Citizens, Friends of the Earth, Global People's Assembly, Rain Forest Action Network, the U.S. branch of the United Nations Association, and the World Parliament of Religion.
"Furthermore, IBO Deputy Director General, Ian Hill, sits on the Earth Charter Initiative Education Advisory Committee. Going further, IBO is currently looking at ways to incorporate the Earth Charter into the following curriculum areas; Theory of Knowledge, Environmental Systems, Environmental Science, Technology and Social Change, Peace and Conflict Studies, Experimental Science, Philosophy, Geography, History, Math, and the Arts.
"None of this would be very remarkable if the IBO were a small entity stuffed somewhere in a forgotten corner of the world - but it's not. Presently, almost 1,300 schools around the globe are authorized to offer IBO programs. And in the U.S. and Canada, just under 650 schools are tied in to the IBO, with 473 in the U.S. Adding to this, the IBO is linked into a number of United Nations' functions beyond the U.N. inspired Earth Charter and UNESCO - where it holds a special consultative status. The IBO has been involved in prep work for the U.N.'s World Summit on Sustainable Development, it's involved in a number of U.N. International Schools, and the organization works with a variety of United Nations Model programs. In other words, it's an organization with considerable "social change" inroads at the international level.
"Funding for the body also reflects this global-local-global approach. During the month of October, 2003, in a monetary show of support, the U.S. Department of Education awarded the IBO a grant of $1.17 million. According to the IBO press release, these U.S. taxpayer funds were to be specifically channeled into setting up IBO programs "in six middle and high school partnerships in disadvantaged areas in Massachusetts, New York and Arizona."
Fighting back means fighting smart. I urge you to educate yourself , your family, friends, neighbors and work colleagues on this issue. As time is precious for Americans working hard each day to bring home the bacon and familial obligations, NWVs has a fine six-hour video presentation on sustainable development that will help you and everyone you know understand this issue from the inside out. This excellent series should be shown at meetings for all groups and organizations. This is an American issue that affects you, your family, our liberty and freedoms.
Order: Liberty or Sustainable Development© 2004 Paul Walter - All Rights Reserved
Paul Walter was born in socialist Yugoslavia in 1945. He and his family emigrated to America in 1959. He served 3 years in the U.S. Armed Forces and became a U.S. citizen in 1963.
November 16, 2004
http://www.citizenreviewonline.org/nov2004/16/ameicans.htm
"Fifty years is ample time in which to change a world and its people almost beyond recognition. All that is required for the task are a sound knowledge of social engineering, a clear sight of the intended goal - and power." -- Arthur C. Clarke, Childhood's End.
A recent measure in Santa Cruz, California was a prime example of how the people are being manipulated at the local level through what's called 'sustainable development' being done incrementally. Measure J was defeated by the people, but it is imperative that Americans fully understand that 'sustainable development' is the blueprint for destroying liberty and private property rights. Americans should make no mistake about the seriousness of this issue and how it will affect your life. Like a giant octopus spreading its tentacles, this type of measure and similar legislation is spreading across this country like a cancer.
[See, e.g.: The Image of the UN 'LOST' Leviathan, at: http://itssdjournalunclos-lost.blogspot.com/2008/01/lost-leviathan.html ].
['Negative' Sustainable Development] can be defeated by an educated citizenry as was demonstrated by the voters in Santa Cruz on November 2, 2004.
Measure J in Santa Cruz exemplified the underpinnings of 'sustainable development' by using local laws deceptively presented, but which were in fact, mini steps in behavior modification. This statement is validated by Linda Wilshusen, who was Executive Director of the Transportation Commission from the seventies until a short time ago expressed her opinion in 1988 when she said, "This concept of 'traffic management' has very little to do with science and engineering and a lot to do with sociology, marketing and behavior modification, as well as land use, parking and fuel availability, demographics and the like."
Wilshusen wasn't the only person to let the cat out of the bag. On September 16, 2004 during a presentation on Measure J to their local Chamber of Commerce, Supervisor Ellen Pirie insisted that the HOV lane proposed was needed: “If we add this lane, then we have more possibilities, because then we have a way of getting people out of their cars.” This is behavior modification through the back door.
Sustainable development should be the subject of discussion all across America, but most people don't know what it means, how it's being implemented and that the federal government is a willing participant in destroying our Republic. While some may automatically knee-jerk over such a statement, America's continued participation in the UN and programs like UNESCO spell even further destruction of our sovereignty and standard of living. Whether it's a 'traffic control' measure or one pertaining to the environment, non-governmental organizations, the worker ants of the globalists, push ahead each day in pursuit of world wide communism disguised by various labels. All of this is being kissed and blessed by local city fathers and state governments.
In his excellent piece titled 'Social Engineering for Global Change,' Carl Teichrib further educates on the 'International Baccalaureate Organization:
"Originally, the IBO was established to provide a common educational basis for international students that would be acceptable to universities around the world. With this in mind, IBO curriculum has, for over 35 years, emphasized that its students broaden their understanding of various cultures, languages, and points of view.
"Understanding other's points of view, cultures and languages is, in itself, a noble task - it's something that I work at pursuing and instilling within my own children and in myself. But underlining IBO's philosophy is something deeper; according to George Walker, the Director General at IBO, "International education offers people a state of mind: international-mindedness. You've got to change people's thinking." Hence, "students develop an awareness of moral and ethical issues and a sense of social responsibility...fostered by examining local and global issues."
"This is not simply ambiguous language. In advancing the international-mindedness of IBO, the organization has endorsed the Earth Charter - an earth-centered declaration which venerates global political-ethical-moral and spiritual unification. Some, such as Mikhail Gorbachev, have gone so far as to compare the Earth Charter with "those 10 or 15 Commandments which we all know about...those famous testaments."
"Providing the Earth Charter initiative with advanced support, the International Baccalaureate Organization has agreed to become an Earth Charter partnership entity, along with such groups as the Association of World Citizens, Friends of the Earth, Global People's Assembly, Rain Forest Action Network, the U.S. branch of the United Nations Association, and the World Parliament of Religion.
"Furthermore, IBO Deputy Director General, Ian Hill, sits on the Earth Charter Initiative Education Advisory Committee. Going further, IBO is currently looking at ways to incorporate the Earth Charter into the following curriculum areas; Theory of Knowledge, Environmental Systems, Environmental Science, Technology and Social Change, Peace and Conflict Studies, Experimental Science, Philosophy, Geography, History, Math, and the Arts.
"None of this would be very remarkable if the IBO were a small entity stuffed somewhere in a forgotten corner of the world - but it's not. Presently, almost 1,300 schools around the globe are authorized to offer IBO programs. And in the U.S. and Canada, just under 650 schools are tied in to the IBO, with 473 in the U.S. Adding to this, the IBO is linked into a number of United Nations' functions beyond the U.N. inspired Earth Charter and UNESCO - where it holds a special consultative status. The IBO has been involved in prep work for the U.N.'s World Summit on Sustainable Development, it's involved in a number of U.N. International Schools, and the organization works with a variety of United Nations Model programs. In other words, it's an organization with considerable "social change" inroads at the international level.
"Funding for the body also reflects this global-local-global approach. During the month of October, 2003, in a monetary show of support, the U.S. Department of Education awarded the IBO a grant of $1.17 million. According to the IBO press release, these U.S. taxpayer funds were to be specifically channeled into setting up IBO programs "in six middle and high school partnerships in disadvantaged areas in Massachusetts, New York and Arizona."
Fighting back means fighting smart. I urge you to educate yourself , your family, friends, neighbors and work colleagues on this issue. As time is precious for Americans working hard each day to bring home the bacon and familial obligations, NWVs has a fine six-hour video presentation on sustainable development that will help you and everyone you know understand this issue from the inside out. This excellent series should be shown at meetings for all groups and organizations. This is an American issue that affects you, your family, our liberty and freedoms.
Order: Liberty or Sustainable Development© 2004 Paul Walter - All Rights Reserved
Paul Walter was born in socialist Yugoslavia in 1945. He and his family emigrated to America in 1959. He served 3 years in the U.S. Armed Forces and became a U.S. citizen in 1963.
US Government Behavior Modification Efforts During 1970's Deemed to Violate Individual Rights: Are the European Union and United Nations Headed There?
Individual Rights and the Federal Role in Behavior Modification; A Study Prepared by the Staff of the Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, Ninety-third Congress, Second Session
Published November 1974
http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/custom/portlets/recordDetails/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=ED103726&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=ED103726
This report responds to a directive issued to the Senate Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights to conduct an investigation into behavior modification programs, with particular emphasis on the federal government's involvement in the technology of behavior control and the implications of this involvement for individual rights.
Two basic considerations motivated the investigation: first, the concern that the rights of human subjects of behavioral research are sufficiently protected by adequate guidelines and review structures; and second, the question of whether the federal government has any business participating in programs that may alter the substance of individual freedom.
Although the material included in this report is by no means comprehensive, some initial findings are apparent: (1) there is widespread and growing interest in the development of methods designed to predict, identify, control, and modify individual behavior; (2) few measures are being taken to resolve questions of freedom, privacy, and self-determination; (3) the Federal government is heavily involved in a variety of behavior modification programs ranging from simple reinforcement techniques to psychosurgery; and (4) a number of departments and agencies fund, participate in, or sanction research involving various aspects of behavior modification.
Published November 1974
http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/custom/portlets/recordDetails/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=ED103726&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=ED103726
This report responds to a directive issued to the Senate Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights to conduct an investigation into behavior modification programs, with particular emphasis on the federal government's involvement in the technology of behavior control and the implications of this involvement for individual rights.
Two basic considerations motivated the investigation: first, the concern that the rights of human subjects of behavioral research are sufficiently protected by adequate guidelines and review structures; and second, the question of whether the federal government has any business participating in programs that may alter the substance of individual freedom.
Although the material included in this report is by no means comprehensive, some initial findings are apparent: (1) there is widespread and growing interest in the development of methods designed to predict, identify, control, and modify individual behavior; (2) few measures are being taken to resolve questions of freedom, privacy, and self-determination; (3) the Federal government is heavily involved in a variety of behavior modification programs ranging from simple reinforcement techniques to psychosurgery; and (4) a number of departments and agencies fund, participate in, or sanction research involving various aspects of behavior modification.
Euro-Academic Studies How to Employ Behavior Modification to Promote Ownerless Communal Society Consistent With 'Negative' Sustainable Development
Delineating Values, Emotions in Consumer Behavior: An Interdisciplinary Approach
http://www.transformations.khf.vu.lt/10/articles/ge10.pdf
By Dainora Grundley*
Department of Business Economics and Management, Kaunas Faculty of HumanitiesVilnius University
* Author of over 100 publications on marketing, sustainable consumption, sustainable development of institutions, emotional and green marketing, marketing and consumption efforts, brand management issues, cross-cultural management and marketing, customer service and customer behaviour, logistics and supply-chain management.
...Conclusions
Changing human behavior and existing lifestyles contributes to the vision of sustainable development, but it proves to be an insurmountable task over a short period of time. Instead, changing the design of product-service systems to reduce the behavioural pitfalls may potentially be an easier way towards sustainable development. Changing [product-service] system design requires [an] understanding [of] how consumer acceptance of more sustainable solutions is formed, influenced or changed, what the influencing factors are and what the leverage points for best results with lowest costs are. Understanding consumer perceptions and behaviour in this context is crucial.
However, the consumer decision-making process is much more complex and intricate than just a simple decision about shifting from owning a product towards paying per its use. Throughout this study, we demonstrated that products are not seen purely for their functional features, but rather products are complex combinations of various attributes, which, together with functionality, also bring status, serve as a key to a certain social class, reinforce one’s self-esteem, and much-much more.
[ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON UNITED NATIONS PRODUCT-SERVICE SYSTEMS IS AVAILABLE ON THE WWW.ITSSD.ORG WEBSITE AT:
http://www.itssd.org/Reductio%20Ad%20Absurdum/Reductio%20Ad%20Absurdum.pdf
http://www.transformations.khf.vu.lt/10/articles/ge10.pdf
By Dainora Grundley*
Department of Business Economics and Management, Kaunas Faculty of HumanitiesVilnius University
* Author of over 100 publications on marketing, sustainable consumption, sustainable development of institutions, emotional and green marketing, marketing and consumption efforts, brand management issues, cross-cultural management and marketing, customer service and customer behaviour, logistics and supply-chain management.
...Conclusions
Changing human behavior and existing lifestyles contributes to the vision of sustainable development, but it proves to be an insurmountable task over a short period of time. Instead, changing the design of product-service systems to reduce the behavioural pitfalls may potentially be an easier way towards sustainable development. Changing [product-service] system design requires [an] understanding [of] how consumer acceptance of more sustainable solutions is formed, influenced or changed, what the influencing factors are and what the leverage points for best results with lowest costs are. Understanding consumer perceptions and behaviour in this context is crucial.
However, the consumer decision-making process is much more complex and intricate than just a simple decision about shifting from owning a product towards paying per its use. Throughout this study, we demonstrated that products are not seen purely for their functional features, but rather products are complex combinations of various attributes, which, together with functionality, also bring status, serve as a key to a certain social class, reinforce one’s self-esteem, and much-much more.
[ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON UNITED NATIONS PRODUCT-SERVICE SYSTEMS IS AVAILABLE ON THE WWW.ITSSD.ORG WEBSITE AT:
http://www.itssd.org/Reductio%20Ad%20Absurdum/Reductio%20Ad%20Absurdum.pdf
Monday, January 21, 2008
Academics Use Psychosocial Babble to Justify Public Behavior Modification Consistent With ‘Negative’ Sustainable Development: 'Naming & Shaming' O.K.
Consuming Paradise? - Unsustainable Consumption in Cultural and Social-psychological Context
By Tim JacksonCentre for Environmental StrategyUniversity of Surrey
http://homepages.see.leeds.ac.uk/~leckh/leeds04/1.2Consuming%20Paradise.pdf
“[T]here is now an intriguing body of evidence to suggest that healthy psychological and social functioning may actually be impaired by high levels of materialism (Kasser 2002). In fact, this suggestion has provided the basis for a long-standing critique of materialism that had its roots in the debate between the Stoics and Epicureans about the nature of happiness several millennia ago. This critique was renewed with some vigour in the neo-Marxist critiques of industrial society that populated the first half of the twentieth century. And the same basic idea still informs many modern green critiques today: far from being necessary to our survival, materialism threatens our environment, engenders inequality and does not even make us happy.
If this were the whole story, it would be a very happy state of affairs for sustainable consumption. Reducing material consumption would not only protect the environment it would also make us all happier. We could all live better by consuming less. Unfortunately, things are not so simple, as Sen himself has pointed out. In a passage harking back to something Adam Smith (1776) once said about the desire to live a ‘life without shame’, Sen (1998, 298) argues that:
‘To lead a life without shame, to be able to visit and entertain one’s friends, to keep track of what is going on and what others are talking about, and so on, requires a more expensive bundle of goods and services in a society that is generally richer and in which most people have, say, means of transport, affluent clothing, radios or television sets, and so on... The same absolute level of capabilities may thus have a greater relative need for incomes (and commodities).'
Sen is clearly saying something recognisable about modern consumer society: namely that in this particular society we do appear to require a more expensive bundle of goods and services in order to carry out the functions he identifies. And we could certainly at this stage agree – provided that...these functions are themselves fundamental aspects of human motivation. At the same time there is something unsatisfactory in Sen’s explanation. Or rather, it is not really an explanation at all, merely a description of a contingent state of affairs: we behave this way in rich societies, because this is what rich societies are like, Sen seems to be saying.
The clue to enabling us to get beyond this, I contend, lies in the word ‘shame’... In feeling shame, an individual is responding to a relationship between his or her individual actions and others or the expectations of others. Shame defines itself between the individual and the group. It is also, vitally, a key signifier of the boundary between meaning and anomie – a point to which I return below. This apparently innocuous appeal to ‘a life without shame’ thus points us to an absolutely vital element in the search for an understanding of unsustainable consumption: the relationship between self and other.
... A little reflection shows that shame is not unique in this sense. Pride, approval, disapproval, loyalty, envy, belonging, affection, even disaffection and hate: these are all negotiations between self and other, between the individual and their peer group. The injunction to a life without shame is one that demands that we look to our relationships with others in pursuit of healthy functioning. We are driven, in other words, towards an undeniable overlap of social and psychological functioning, and to a second key proposition in support of our understanding of consumer society.
... The self only exists in relation to social conversation. Personal identity, in other words, is an emergent property of inherently social relations. In Mead’s view this emergent self plays an essentially evolutionary role. It is there to support the cohesion of the group. And it is able to achieve this precisely because it is a result of social conversations. These social conversations aprovide the mechanism both for negotiating and for internalising (in personal identity) the values, attitudes and beliefs of the social group. At the same time, it is clear that the concept of the self also plays a key role in negotiating and perpetuating culture. Cultural norms are internalised in individuals by way of social conversations.
... The implications of this view for understanding consumer society are quite profound. In the first place, of course, it undermines key principles of modernity, such as the centrality of individuality and individual choice...[I]ndividualism is in some sense a kind of myth. Methodological individualism – which holds that it is individuals operating as more or less unilateral agents under the influence of largely free choice who determine behavioural patterns...
... Instead we must look to social processes, social conversations, interactions between self and other as being absolutely vital influences on behaviour at both individual and social level. None of this is to deny the existence of individual cognitive deliberations. But it all points to the limits of deliberative processes, and the centrality of social influence at the heart of those deliberations.
An immediate casualty of this position is the rational choice model that lies behind most economic analyses of consumer choice. The economic model suggests that people make choices on the basis of a cognitive deliberation over private costs and benefits. Provided that certain conditions hold – in particular the availability of ‘perfect’ information – then such choices are assumed to be in the best interest of the individuals (ie ‘rational’) and therefore to be robust guide to actual behaviour. The failure of the model in real life – people rarely behave as economists might wish them to – is usually attributed to either a lack of information, or else to the existence of a series of ‘hidden’ costs and benefits that act as barriers or perverse incentives at the individual level.
The policy prescriptions that flow from the rational choice model tend to be relatively few and relatively straightforward. Typically policy-makers are enjoined either to improve information flows (eg through labelling, information campaigns and so on) or else to use financial incentives and disincentives to shift the balance between individual costs and benefits to reflect the existence of hidden social costs and benefits.
The limited success of such interventions is one of the reasons for a resurgence of interest in understandings of consumer behaviour and public attitudes. From the social-psychological perspective outlined here, limited success is only to be expected. The individual is constrained in taking pro-environmental or pro-social action by a variety of important factors. In addition to the economic and physical constraints that are conventionally acknowledged, the individual must negotiate his or her own conflicting motivations...
... What I have attempted to show in this paper is that some absolutely vital social and psychological functionings are mediated through our interactions with consumer goods. To the extent that we can achieve these functionings without the use of consumer goods, it would clearly be possible to shift attitudes and behaviours away from environmentally significant consumption towards sustainability. But the complexity of the relationships between identity, goods and social functioning should warn us against any simplistic prescriptions of social change in this direction. Moreover, the extent to which vital social functionings – such as identity creation, social cohesion and the defence against anomie – are mediated through material goods in the consumer society, suggests that resistance, indeed quite violent resistance to change is to be expected.
By Tim JacksonCentre for Environmental StrategyUniversity of Surrey
http://homepages.see.leeds.ac.uk/~leckh/leeds04/1.2Consuming%20Paradise.pdf
“[T]here is now an intriguing body of evidence to suggest that healthy psychological and social functioning may actually be impaired by high levels of materialism (Kasser 2002). In fact, this suggestion has provided the basis for a long-standing critique of materialism that had its roots in the debate between the Stoics and Epicureans about the nature of happiness several millennia ago. This critique was renewed with some vigour in the neo-Marxist critiques of industrial society that populated the first half of the twentieth century. And the same basic idea still informs many modern green critiques today: far from being necessary to our survival, materialism threatens our environment, engenders inequality and does not even make us happy.
If this were the whole story, it would be a very happy state of affairs for sustainable consumption. Reducing material consumption would not only protect the environment it would also make us all happier. We could all live better by consuming less. Unfortunately, things are not so simple, as Sen himself has pointed out. In a passage harking back to something Adam Smith (1776) once said about the desire to live a ‘life without shame’, Sen (1998, 298) argues that:
‘To lead a life without shame, to be able to visit and entertain one’s friends, to keep track of what is going on and what others are talking about, and so on, requires a more expensive bundle of goods and services in a society that is generally richer and in which most people have, say, means of transport, affluent clothing, radios or television sets, and so on... The same absolute level of capabilities may thus have a greater relative need for incomes (and commodities).'
Sen is clearly saying something recognisable about modern consumer society: namely that in this particular society we do appear to require a more expensive bundle of goods and services in order to carry out the functions he identifies. And we could certainly at this stage agree – provided that...these functions are themselves fundamental aspects of human motivation. At the same time there is something unsatisfactory in Sen’s explanation. Or rather, it is not really an explanation at all, merely a description of a contingent state of affairs: we behave this way in rich societies, because this is what rich societies are like, Sen seems to be saying.
The clue to enabling us to get beyond this, I contend, lies in the word ‘shame’... In feeling shame, an individual is responding to a relationship between his or her individual actions and others or the expectations of others. Shame defines itself between the individual and the group. It is also, vitally, a key signifier of the boundary between meaning and anomie – a point to which I return below. This apparently innocuous appeal to ‘a life without shame’ thus points us to an absolutely vital element in the search for an understanding of unsustainable consumption: the relationship between self and other.
... A little reflection shows that shame is not unique in this sense. Pride, approval, disapproval, loyalty, envy, belonging, affection, even disaffection and hate: these are all negotiations between self and other, between the individual and their peer group. The injunction to a life without shame is one that demands that we look to our relationships with others in pursuit of healthy functioning. We are driven, in other words, towards an undeniable overlap of social and psychological functioning, and to a second key proposition in support of our understanding of consumer society.
... The self only exists in relation to social conversation. Personal identity, in other words, is an emergent property of inherently social relations. In Mead’s view this emergent self plays an essentially evolutionary role. It is there to support the cohesion of the group. And it is able to achieve this precisely because it is a result of social conversations. These social conversations aprovide the mechanism both for negotiating and for internalising (in personal identity) the values, attitudes and beliefs of the social group. At the same time, it is clear that the concept of the self also plays a key role in negotiating and perpetuating culture. Cultural norms are internalised in individuals by way of social conversations.
... The implications of this view for understanding consumer society are quite profound. In the first place, of course, it undermines key principles of modernity, such as the centrality of individuality and individual choice...[I]ndividualism is in some sense a kind of myth. Methodological individualism – which holds that it is individuals operating as more or less unilateral agents under the influence of largely free choice who determine behavioural patterns...
... Instead we must look to social processes, social conversations, interactions between self and other as being absolutely vital influences on behaviour at both individual and social level. None of this is to deny the existence of individual cognitive deliberations. But it all points to the limits of deliberative processes, and the centrality of social influence at the heart of those deliberations.
An immediate casualty of this position is the rational choice model that lies behind most economic analyses of consumer choice. The economic model suggests that people make choices on the basis of a cognitive deliberation over private costs and benefits. Provided that certain conditions hold – in particular the availability of ‘perfect’ information – then such choices are assumed to be in the best interest of the individuals (ie ‘rational’) and therefore to be robust guide to actual behaviour. The failure of the model in real life – people rarely behave as economists might wish them to – is usually attributed to either a lack of information, or else to the existence of a series of ‘hidden’ costs and benefits that act as barriers or perverse incentives at the individual level.
The policy prescriptions that flow from the rational choice model tend to be relatively few and relatively straightforward. Typically policy-makers are enjoined either to improve information flows (eg through labelling, information campaigns and so on) or else to use financial incentives and disincentives to shift the balance between individual costs and benefits to reflect the existence of hidden social costs and benefits.
The limited success of such interventions is one of the reasons for a resurgence of interest in understandings of consumer behaviour and public attitudes. From the social-psychological perspective outlined here, limited success is only to be expected. The individual is constrained in taking pro-environmental or pro-social action by a variety of important factors. In addition to the economic and physical constraints that are conventionally acknowledged, the individual must negotiate his or her own conflicting motivations...
... What I have attempted to show in this paper is that some absolutely vital social and psychological functionings are mediated through our interactions with consumer goods. To the extent that we can achieve these functionings without the use of consumer goods, it would clearly be possible to shift attitudes and behaviours away from environmentally significant consumption towards sustainability. But the complexity of the relationships between identity, goods and social functioning should warn us against any simplistic prescriptions of social change in this direction. Moreover, the extent to which vital social functionings – such as identity creation, social cohesion and the defence against anomie – are mediated through material goods in the consumer society, suggests that resistance, indeed quite violent resistance to change is to be expected.
UK Government Guides Policymakers in ‘Art’ of Public Behavior Control: Recommends Restricted Economic Freedom & Strategic Use of ‘Fear’
Behaviour Change: A Series of Practical Guides for Policy-Makers and Practitioners
Number 5Understanding ChoiceSummer 2006
http://www.defra.gov.uk/science/project_data/DocumentLibrary/SD14008/SD14008_3805_INF.pdf
Defra’s 5 year strategy – (Delivering the Essentials of Life1) coupled with the UK Government sustainable development strategy (Securing the Future2) set out an ambitious agenda for environmental leadership and sustainable development. Embedding these core principles relies on influencing change and making it easier for producers and consumers to behave more sustainably. This is a sizeable task, since changing behaviours is a complex matter and innovative solutions are required.
In July 2005, Defra initiated a programme of research that aimed to broaden understanding of how Government (and others) can most effectively promote pro-environmental behaviour amongst producers and consumers.
... Producers choose to use resources in a way which may or may not be sustainable. Consumers choose to buy products which may or may not be sustainable in their use of resources. Such choices are important throughout the life span of a product, service, or utility from production, to purchase, to consumption and disposal. It is these choices which must take into account environmental pressures and sustainability issues over and above aesthetic appearance, must-have branding and basic functionality. The question therefore is how to make sustainability an automatic and primary part of producer and consumer choice, rather than a self-satisfying added extra.
... Restricting choice, constraining freedom
It is generally assumed that more choice is a good thing. However, there are many examples, within and beyond the environmental context, where behaviour change has been enforced (i.e. choice is restricted) and has subsequently led to changes in attitudes (e.g. banning smoking in public places for public health improvements).
Although behaviour change, driven by regulation, legislation and penalties can be very effective in producing results, it is often avoided as it is assumed that people want choice not legislation, and freedom not a “nanny state”.
Evidence suggests that there is a strong argument for the need to ‘kick start’ change through regulation.
...[P]eople are willing to change, but feel unable to do so. It takes a complex problem (obesity management) and shows it is not enough just to tell people what to do and how to do it. In this quote from Jane Ogden, the words ‘obesity epidemic’ could be replaced with the words climate change. It illustrates the urgency to do something:
“It would be dreadful if the obesity epidemic continued because we did too little. It would be disastrous if it continued because we feared doing too much.” (Ogden, 2005. pp.226)
... Case Study 1: The Paradox of Control in Managing Obesity Management, (Ogden, 2005).
... Non-psychological solutions to obesity management are often conceptualised as ‘letting people off’, ‘controlling’ or, horror of horrors, ‘the nanny state’. Obesity surgery is often thought of as not getting to the root of the problem and so inappropriate: choice is taken away from patients and decisions are made on their behalf. However, results of recent studies suggest that surgery not only results in dramatic weight loss, but alters the way in which people think about food: there is less preoccupation with food; people feel more in control of what and how they eat. Hence, the paradox of control. By taking choice and responsibility away from the individual through surgery, people regain the control that they had lost and achieve behaviour goals.
... A social network approach to influencing behaviour was explored in this research context to realise further the role of social networks as anchors of identity and behaviour which in turn affect decisions impacting on consumption and production.
... Provoking Emotions
The role of emotions and state of mind has been largely overlooked in research even though preliminary work suggests that ‘affect’ both positive and negative, has a powerful impact on behaviour (Kals and Maes, 2003).
Evidence suggests that sustainable behaviour can be substantially explained by moral emotions. Previous research has often focused on the role of negative emotions (such as fear) which plays part in the encouraging more positive environmental behaviour. However, recent transport research has shown that positive emotions play an important role in travel behaviour: the emotions evoked by travelling relate to people’s preference for a particular transport mode.
Case study 3 describes an experiment which evoked the emotion of fear as a basis for attitude change. It clearly shows that emotions have a part to play in encouraging sustainable consumption and production.
... Fear was confirmed as an important construct in influencing responses to information and it was concluded that negative emotion increases the extent to which information is systematically processed. The induction of fear was also influential over time. In generating fear appeal messages it should be remembered that risks associated with the environment are generally more likely to elicit low fear levels compared for example with public health issues. It is difficult to visualise a threat that is not immediately threatening in terms of personal proximity or time.
... This research has cross-cutting relevance to both the Sustainable Development Strategy (2005), and Defra’s Framework for Sustainable Consumption and Production (DEFRA 2003) as well as the work of many other Government departments, such as DTI, DfT and DCLG.
... The Choice Matters Final Report outlines an exemplar project using the example of influencing shoppers to buy locally produced food. The project is based on the approach of provoking emotions and would directly address sustainable consumption (e.g. through the reduction of air miles and supporting local food producers) and indirectly address sustainable production (e.g. through improvements to markets for British food suppliers). This project would aim to influence the general public and British food producers.
The example project suggests one application of this approach to address sustainable consumption and production. It could equally well apply to many other areas which link directly to the development of a sustainable economy, such as the purchase of other goods, the consumption of electricity and travel behaviour.
Number 5Understanding ChoiceSummer 2006
http://www.defra.gov.uk/science/project_data/DocumentLibrary/SD14008/SD14008_3805_INF.pdf
Defra’s 5 year strategy – (Delivering the Essentials of Life1) coupled with the UK Government sustainable development strategy (Securing the Future2) set out an ambitious agenda for environmental leadership and sustainable development. Embedding these core principles relies on influencing change and making it easier for producers and consumers to behave more sustainably. This is a sizeable task, since changing behaviours is a complex matter and innovative solutions are required.
In July 2005, Defra initiated a programme of research that aimed to broaden understanding of how Government (and others) can most effectively promote pro-environmental behaviour amongst producers and consumers.
... Producers choose to use resources in a way which may or may not be sustainable. Consumers choose to buy products which may or may not be sustainable in their use of resources. Such choices are important throughout the life span of a product, service, or utility from production, to purchase, to consumption and disposal. It is these choices which must take into account environmental pressures and sustainability issues over and above aesthetic appearance, must-have branding and basic functionality. The question therefore is how to make sustainability an automatic and primary part of producer and consumer choice, rather than a self-satisfying added extra.
... Restricting choice, constraining freedom
It is generally assumed that more choice is a good thing. However, there are many examples, within and beyond the environmental context, where behaviour change has been enforced (i.e. choice is restricted) and has subsequently led to changes in attitudes (e.g. banning smoking in public places for public health improvements).
Although behaviour change, driven by regulation, legislation and penalties can be very effective in producing results, it is often avoided as it is assumed that people want choice not legislation, and freedom not a “nanny state”.
Evidence suggests that there is a strong argument for the need to ‘kick start’ change through regulation.
...[P]eople are willing to change, but feel unable to do so. It takes a complex problem (obesity management) and shows it is not enough just to tell people what to do and how to do it. In this quote from Jane Ogden, the words ‘obesity epidemic’ could be replaced with the words climate change. It illustrates the urgency to do something:
“It would be dreadful if the obesity epidemic continued because we did too little. It would be disastrous if it continued because we feared doing too much.” (Ogden, 2005. pp.226)
... Case Study 1: The Paradox of Control in Managing Obesity Management, (Ogden, 2005).
... Non-psychological solutions to obesity management are often conceptualised as ‘letting people off’, ‘controlling’ or, horror of horrors, ‘the nanny state’. Obesity surgery is often thought of as not getting to the root of the problem and so inappropriate: choice is taken away from patients and decisions are made on their behalf. However, results of recent studies suggest that surgery not only results in dramatic weight loss, but alters the way in which people think about food: there is less preoccupation with food; people feel more in control of what and how they eat. Hence, the paradox of control. By taking choice and responsibility away from the individual through surgery, people regain the control that they had lost and achieve behaviour goals.
... A social network approach to influencing behaviour was explored in this research context to realise further the role of social networks as anchors of identity and behaviour which in turn affect decisions impacting on consumption and production.
... Provoking Emotions
The role of emotions and state of mind has been largely overlooked in research even though preliminary work suggests that ‘affect’ both positive and negative, has a powerful impact on behaviour (Kals and Maes, 2003).
Evidence suggests that sustainable behaviour can be substantially explained by moral emotions. Previous research has often focused on the role of negative emotions (such as fear) which plays part in the encouraging more positive environmental behaviour. However, recent transport research has shown that positive emotions play an important role in travel behaviour: the emotions evoked by travelling relate to people’s preference for a particular transport mode.
Case study 3 describes an experiment which evoked the emotion of fear as a basis for attitude change. It clearly shows that emotions have a part to play in encouraging sustainable consumption and production.
... Fear was confirmed as an important construct in influencing responses to information and it was concluded that negative emotion increases the extent to which information is systematically processed. The induction of fear was also influential over time. In generating fear appeal messages it should be remembered that risks associated with the environment are generally more likely to elicit low fear levels compared for example with public health issues. It is difficult to visualise a threat that is not immediately threatening in terms of personal proximity or time.
... This research has cross-cutting relevance to both the Sustainable Development Strategy (2005), and Defra’s Framework for Sustainable Consumption and Production (DEFRA 2003) as well as the work of many other Government departments, such as DTI, DfT and DCLG.
... The Choice Matters Final Report outlines an exemplar project using the example of influencing shoppers to buy locally produced food. The project is based on the approach of provoking emotions and would directly address sustainable consumption (e.g. through the reduction of air miles and supporting local food producers) and indirectly address sustainable production (e.g. through improvements to markets for British food suppliers). This project would aim to influence the general public and British food producers.
The example project suggests one application of this approach to address sustainable consumption and production. It could equally well apply to many other areas which link directly to the development of a sustainable economy, such as the purchase of other goods, the consumption of electricity and travel behaviour.
... Aims
The ultimate aim of the example project would be to increase the consumption of locally produced food. Underlying aims reflect the smaller goals that must be achieved in order to reach this objective. These include understanding:
• the role of positive and negative feelings and emotions in the purchase and consumption of locally produced food;
• how to make the purchase and consumption of locally produced food an instantly attractive option;
• how feelings towards the purchase and consumption of locally produced food can be evoked;
• the extent to which the purchase and consumption of locally produced food is driven by emotion rather than cognition;
• the role of emotion in automatising the purchase and consumption of locally produced food; and
• whether producers consider the role of mood and emotion during production.
Expected Outcomes
1. Increased purchase and consumption of locally produced food.
2. Wider use of farmers’ markets.
3. Pressure on mass purchasing supermarkets to offer a wider and improved range of locally produced food.
4. Improved recognition of existing and/or new identifying symbols indicating food is produced in Britain (e.g. the Little Red Tractor).
5. Recommendations on the development of policies to encourage the purchase and consumption of locally produced food.
Forner UK Prime Minister Tony Blair Was Determined to Modify Public Behavior Through Claude Helvetius’ ‘Education Thru Legislation' Program
BRITISH GOVERNMENT REPORT:
Changing behaviour through policy making
http://www.sustainable-development.gov.uk/what/priority/pdf/change-behaviour-model.pdf
“...Achieving sustainable development will depend largely on long-term changes in behaviours of individuals, communities, firms and the public sector.
Government can play a pivotal role in changing these behaviours over time. But it has to find a way of engaging with both individuals and the public, in supporting the development of new social norms and fostering facilitating conditions in a strategic and long-term approach to behaviour change.
This paper provides a detailed discussion of the changing behaviour model which is introduced in the sustainable development strategy “Securing the future”1 [Available via http://www.sustainable-development.gov.uk/index.htm ].
... Research that was commissioned by Defra shows the scale of the challenge we face in helping people to make better choices that deliver moving towards sustainable development and a “one planet economy”.
“Information does not necessarily lead to increased awareness, and increased awareness does not necessarily lead to action. Information provision, whether through advertisements, leaflets or labelling, must be backed up by other approaches.”
Demos & Green Alliance, 2003
...There is no point asking people to change if they don’t know how – or if they know what do, but what they need to do it is not available. We need to help people make responsible choices by providing them with the education, skills and information, and by making those choices easy with easily accessible alternatives and suitable infrastructure.
...Government will look at the most effective techniques to encourage and, where necessary, enforce, behaviour change. These might include taxes or other ways of giving price signals, peer pressure, league tables, funding, or regulation. We should also consider scope for positive incentives to reward good behaviour rather than penalties.
... “Sustainable development will not just be a subject in the classroom: it will be in its bricks and mortar and the way the school uses and even generates its own power. Our students won't just be told about sustainable development, they will see and work within it: a living, learning, place in which to explore what a sustainable lifestyle means.”
Prime Minister, September 2004
Behaviour change is a process that may unfold over months, years or, in the case of the most radical behaviour shifts, decades.
Changing behaviour through policy making
http://www.sustainable-development.gov.uk/what/priority/pdf/change-behaviour-model.pdf
“...Achieving sustainable development will depend largely on long-term changes in behaviours of individuals, communities, firms and the public sector.
Government can play a pivotal role in changing these behaviours over time. But it has to find a way of engaging with both individuals and the public, in supporting the development of new social norms and fostering facilitating conditions in a strategic and long-term approach to behaviour change.
This paper provides a detailed discussion of the changing behaviour model which is introduced in the sustainable development strategy “Securing the future”1 [Available via http://www.sustainable-development.gov.uk/index.htm ].
... Research that was commissioned by Defra shows the scale of the challenge we face in helping people to make better choices that deliver moving towards sustainable development and a “one planet economy”.
“Information does not necessarily lead to increased awareness, and increased awareness does not necessarily lead to action. Information provision, whether through advertisements, leaflets or labelling, must be backed up by other approaches.”
Demos & Green Alliance, 2003
...There is no point asking people to change if they don’t know how – or if they know what do, but what they need to do it is not available. We need to help people make responsible choices by providing them with the education, skills and information, and by making those choices easy with easily accessible alternatives and suitable infrastructure.
...Government will look at the most effective techniques to encourage and, where necessary, enforce, behaviour change. These might include taxes or other ways of giving price signals, peer pressure, league tables, funding, or regulation. We should also consider scope for positive incentives to reward good behaviour rather than penalties.
... “Sustainable development will not just be a subject in the classroom: it will be in its bricks and mortar and the way the school uses and even generates its own power. Our students won't just be told about sustainable development, they will see and work within it: a living, learning, place in which to explore what a sustainable lifestyle means.”
Prime Minister, September 2004
Behaviour change is a process that may unfold over months, years or, in the case of the most radical behaviour shifts, decades.
UK Government Provides Guidance On Behavior Modification Techniques Used to Shape Personal Lives of UK Citizens
UK BEHAVIOUR CHANGE FORUM – PROVIDING GUIDANCE ON HOW TO PURSUE A MORE SUSTAINABLE FUTURE
http://www.sustainable-development.gov.uk/government/task-forces/behaviour-change.htm
“We all - government, businesses, families and communities, the public sector, voluntary and community organisations - need to make different choices.
In order to evaluate and share what works best in practice, a Forum has been established across Government departments to promote and support better policymaking to deliver sustained behaviour change.
...The past 20 years have seen a growing realisation that the current model of development is unsustainable. In other words, we are living beyond our means. From the loss of biodiversity with the felling of rainforests or over fishing to the negative effect our consumption patterns are having on the environment and the climate. Our way of life is placing an increasing burden on the planet.
... Unless we start to make real progress toward reconciling these contradictions we face a future that is less certain and less secure. We need to make a decisive move toward more sustainable development. Not just because it is the right thing to do, but also because it is in our own long-term best interests. It offers the best hope for the future. Whether at school, in the home or at work, we all have a part to play. Our small everyday actions add up to make a big difference.
... The UK Government, Scottish Executive, Welsh Assembly Government and the Northern Ireland Administration have agreed upon a set of principles that provide a basis for sustainable development policy in the UK. For a policy to be sustainable, it must respect all five principles.
UK priorities
In terms of focusing our efforts, the UK has identified four priority areas for immediate action, shared across the UK, these are:
Sustainable Consumption and Production
Climate Change and Energy
Natural Resource Protection and Environmental Enhancement
Sustainable Communities
The UK Government also recognises that changing behaviour is a cross cutting theme closely linked to all of these priorities. In addition, Securing the Future identifies wellbeing as being at the heart of sustainable development.
http://www.sustainable-development.gov.uk/government/task-forces/behaviour-change.htm
“We all - government, businesses, families and communities, the public sector, voluntary and community organisations - need to make different choices.
In order to evaluate and share what works best in practice, a Forum has been established across Government departments to promote and support better policymaking to deliver sustained behaviour change.
...The past 20 years have seen a growing realisation that the current model of development is unsustainable. In other words, we are living beyond our means. From the loss of biodiversity with the felling of rainforests or over fishing to the negative effect our consumption patterns are having on the environment and the climate. Our way of life is placing an increasing burden on the planet.
... Unless we start to make real progress toward reconciling these contradictions we face a future that is less certain and less secure. We need to make a decisive move toward more sustainable development. Not just because it is the right thing to do, but also because it is in our own long-term best interests. It offers the best hope for the future. Whether at school, in the home or at work, we all have a part to play. Our small everyday actions add up to make a big difference.
... The UK Government, Scottish Executive, Welsh Assembly Government and the Northern Ireland Administration have agreed upon a set of principles that provide a basis for sustainable development policy in the UK. For a policy to be sustainable, it must respect all five principles.
UK priorities
In terms of focusing our efforts, the UK has identified four priority areas for immediate action, shared across the UK, these are:
Sustainable Consumption and Production
Climate Change and Energy
Natural Resource Protection and Environmental Enhancement
Sustainable Communities
The UK Government also recognises that changing behaviour is a cross cutting theme closely linked to all of these priorities. In addition, Securing the Future identifies wellbeing as being at the heart of sustainable development.
UK Government Recommends Mandatory Behavior Modification Techniques to ‘Reeducate’ Consumers, Consistent With ‘Negative' Sustainable Development
A Study into the Tools for Influencing Consumer Behaviour in TransportChoices: A Report Produced for UK Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs
http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/consumerprod/accpe/research/pdf/accpe_finrep.pdf
... The Advisory Committee on Consumer Products and the Environment (ACCPE) provides advice on policies to reduce the environmental impacts of products and services.
...The aim of this two month [2003] research was to identify the key sustainable development issues affecting car purchase choices and what tools could be used to address them. A key to this was to examine the scope for the end consumer to contribute to the Government’s climate change objectives....
This web-based research was undertaken to identify tools affecting consumer behaviour and transport choices. This highlighted a number of schemes and incentives that are used within the UK and throughout the world to encourage the purchase of alternatively fuelled vehicles (AFVs) and other energy efficient vehicles and also the tools that would impact on the use of vehicles....
Throughout the course of this study it became apparent that the greatest reductions in carbon dioxide levels could be achieved though behavioural change rather than technology change. By focussing on influencing individual behaviour patterns the UK Government can reduce CO2 levels quicker and to a higher degree, rather than waiting for technology changes to penetrate the market place.
A secondary impact of this behaviour change is that when technology change occurs the general population will be in a position to assimilate these changes with limited government intervention....
The following tools were identified from the research and the stakeholder workshop, and theirpotential impacts were modelled....
STANDARDS/TAXES/LABELLING...
Fuel efficiency standards...
Sliding scale tax on vehicles...
Carbon/fuel tax...
Vehicle labelling...
DEMAND REDUCTION...
Congestion pricing and toll rings...
Workplace parking charge...
Carpooling...
Teleworking...
Fuel price increase (10%)...
Videoconferencing...
Workplace travel plans...
Individual marketing...
TRAINING & AWARENESS...
[ECO-] Driver training...
Promotion of on-board technologies...
ALTERNATIVE FUEL TECHNOLOGY...
Alternative fuels...
FLEET MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS...
Motorvate...
Compulsory fleet auditing.
Sustainable Transport Organisations and NGOs:
• Transport 2000: Stephen Joseph, Denise Carlo, Carey Newson
• Friends of the Earth: Roger Higman• Environmental Transport Association: Andrew Davis
• Shell Foundation: Lee Schipper
• European Environmental Bureau: John Hontelez
• National Society for Clean Air: Tim Brown
• EPOMM UK: Kevin Scobell
UK Government Policy Makers:
• Commission for Integrated Transport: David Begg, Trevor Chinn
• Department for Transport: Mark Gaynor, Matthew Hammond, Caroline Wood
• Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution: Peter Hinchcliffe
• Energy Saving Trust: Jonathan Murray, David Lemon
• Carbon Trust: David Vincent
• Department of Trade and Industry: Ashley Roberts
• Consumer & Competition Policy Directorate: Johnathan Rees
• The Motorists Forum: David Prescott
http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/consumerprod/accpe/research/pdf/accpe_finrep.pdf
... The Advisory Committee on Consumer Products and the Environment (ACCPE) provides advice on policies to reduce the environmental impacts of products and services.
...The aim of this two month [2003] research was to identify the key sustainable development issues affecting car purchase choices and what tools could be used to address them. A key to this was to examine the scope for the end consumer to contribute to the Government’s climate change objectives....
This web-based research was undertaken to identify tools affecting consumer behaviour and transport choices. This highlighted a number of schemes and incentives that are used within the UK and throughout the world to encourage the purchase of alternatively fuelled vehicles (AFVs) and other energy efficient vehicles and also the tools that would impact on the use of vehicles....
Throughout the course of this study it became apparent that the greatest reductions in carbon dioxide levels could be achieved though behavioural change rather than technology change. By focussing on influencing individual behaviour patterns the UK Government can reduce CO2 levels quicker and to a higher degree, rather than waiting for technology changes to penetrate the market place.
A secondary impact of this behaviour change is that when technology change occurs the general population will be in a position to assimilate these changes with limited government intervention....
The following tools were identified from the research and the stakeholder workshop, and theirpotential impacts were modelled....
STANDARDS/TAXES/LABELLING...
Fuel efficiency standards...
Sliding scale tax on vehicles...
Carbon/fuel tax...
Vehicle labelling...
DEMAND REDUCTION...
Congestion pricing and toll rings...
Workplace parking charge...
Carpooling...
Teleworking...
Fuel price increase (10%)...
Videoconferencing...
Workplace travel plans...
Individual marketing...
TRAINING & AWARENESS...
[ECO-] Driver training...
Promotion of on-board technologies...
ALTERNATIVE FUEL TECHNOLOGY...
Alternative fuels...
FLEET MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS...
Motorvate...
Compulsory fleet auditing.
Sustainable Transport Organisations and NGOs:
• Transport 2000: Stephen Joseph, Denise Carlo, Carey Newson
• Friends of the Earth: Roger Higman• Environmental Transport Association: Andrew Davis
• Shell Foundation: Lee Schipper
• European Environmental Bureau: John Hontelez
• National Society for Clean Air: Tim Brown
• EPOMM UK: Kevin Scobell
UK Government Policy Makers:
• Commission for Integrated Transport: David Begg, Trevor Chinn
• Department for Transport: Mark Gaynor, Matthew Hammond, Caroline Wood
• Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution: Peter Hinchcliffe
• Energy Saving Trust: Jonathan Murray, David Lemon
• Carbon Trust: David Vincent
• Department of Trade and Industry: Ashley Roberts
• Consumer & Competition Policy Directorate: Johnathan Rees
• The Motorists Forum: David Prescott
United Nations Seeks to Reeducate & Legislate Consumer Behaviors Consistent With Malthusian ‘Negative’ Sustainable Development Doctrine
Influencing Consumer Behaviour to Promote Sustainable Tourism Development
By United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development NGO Steering Committee
http://csdngo.igc.org/tourism/tourdial_cons.htm
1. Problems
“...Many of the demand patterns in tourism reflect the unsustainable lifestyles of industrialised consumer societies. Tourism acts as an agent in exporting these life-styles and consumerist attitudes to less industrialised societies via demonstration effects and modelling. Tourism increases demand for imported consumer goods in the destinations, with detrimental effects on the environment, due to the ecological costs of transport and the high amount of waste generated. Increasing imports also reduce local/national economic gains, due to foreign exchange leakages.
The over-consumption of resources by tourists and tourism infrastructure, eg the excessive use of water, fire wood or food, is incompatible with sustainable development. The carrying capacity of natural environments is often exceeded with the addition of tourism demands. Tourist demand for resources (land, water, energy, food) may also compete with the needs of local people and may increase social inequality, gender inequality and injustice. Tourist transport, especially air travel, is highly energy intensive and causes pollutant emissions. Many tourism activities such as skiing, boating, mountain hiking, motorised watersports (eg jet skies), and trekking represent a stress to fragile ecosystems.
Tourists often lack information and awareness about their impact in a different culture and environment, about the impacts of tourism on socio-economic and socio-cultural development, and about the environmental costs of tourism. While tourists may be open to learning, they are often unaware of inappropriate behaviour and have little guidance on how to improve. Others may refuse to adapt to local life-styles, even if informed, insisting on their freedom to behave as they want.
By United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development NGO Steering Committee
http://csdngo.igc.org/tourism/tourdial_cons.htm
1. Problems
“...Many of the demand patterns in tourism reflect the unsustainable lifestyles of industrialised consumer societies. Tourism acts as an agent in exporting these life-styles and consumerist attitudes to less industrialised societies via demonstration effects and modelling. Tourism increases demand for imported consumer goods in the destinations, with detrimental effects on the environment, due to the ecological costs of transport and the high amount of waste generated. Increasing imports also reduce local/national economic gains, due to foreign exchange leakages.
The over-consumption of resources by tourists and tourism infrastructure, eg the excessive use of water, fire wood or food, is incompatible with sustainable development. The carrying capacity of natural environments is often exceeded with the addition of tourism demands. Tourist demand for resources (land, water, energy, food) may also compete with the needs of local people and may increase social inequality, gender inequality and injustice. Tourist transport, especially air travel, is highly energy intensive and causes pollutant emissions. Many tourism activities such as skiing, boating, mountain hiking, motorised watersports (eg jet skies), and trekking represent a stress to fragile ecosystems.
Tourists often lack information and awareness about their impact in a different culture and environment, about the impacts of tourism on socio-economic and socio-cultural development, and about the environmental costs of tourism. While tourists may be open to learning, they are often unaware of inappropriate behaviour and have little guidance on how to improve. Others may refuse to adapt to local life-styles, even if informed, insisting on their freedom to behave as they want.
The mass media, especially television through films and reports about events, sights, etc. in other parts of the world, are increasingly influential on travel decisions and consumer behaviour in the destinations. These programmes, however, often serve primarily as advertisements, painting images of destinations, rather than providing relevant information for potential travellers.
There is a lack of reliable and appropriate (e.g. age and gender dis-aggregated) research data on the determinants of tourist demand, motivation and behaviour. Few countries, whether tourist sending or tourist receiving countries, collect such data that are helpful under sustainable development criteria. Most studies of tourist behaviour focus on mainstream markets or market segments, rather than assessing or modelling sustainable alternatives.
Governments in many tourist destinations and local communities have little or no information on what to expect from tourism and the incoming tourists and how to influence and control tourism and guide tourist behaviour. They are controlled by international/global institutions, the industry and the consumers. Governments of the affluent countries are only beginning to look at the issues of outgoing tourism. Governments are not yet sufficiently aware of their responsibility and methods to influence tourist behaviour by political and legal guidelines/criteria and appropriate planning and policies.
Trade unions have fought successfully for shorter working hours and more vacation. However, they need to take more responsibility for helping to create a leisure industry that is more sustainable.
Consumer behaviour can and must be influenced by:a) Fighting unsustainable forms and aspects of tourism, at the various levels, by sanctioning unacceptable behaviour and discouraging inappropriate consumer behaviour. b) Promoting responsible and sustainable patterns of behaviour, at the various levels, by promoting best practises and encouraging responsible consumer behaviour.
There are different types of instruments and remedial measures available:
Legal measures (rules, regulations, sanctions);
Market based instruments, such as taxes to influence market prices;
Promotion of and (financial) support for best practice;
Industry self-monitoring/codes of conduct [STANDARDS];
Information, education and research.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
