There's been a lot of talk about strange coalitions - Baptists and bootleggers - pursuing a variety of policies lately. One is the joint effort of paleo-socialist ideologues (AKA Baptists) and CEOs of major corporations (AKA bootleggers) to increase minimum wages. The involvement of ideologues makes sense, not that their policies make sense, but the involvement of bootleggers needs some splainin. The thing is that the bootleggers wouldn't actually be harmed by the increase, since they already pay above the proposed new rates for the most part, but their smaller competitors would be harmed. When this is added to the perceived public relations benefits it makes sense too, not that their policies make any real sense.

This isn't new or unusual - the Baptists and bootleggers coalition wasn't a one off thing - but democratic societies seems to be suckers for this sort of foolishness. It's the same sort of thing discussed in the earlier post Cheese Food where a coalition of large food packers and ideologues combined to enact punitive regulations that drove smaller competitors out of business.

Another recent B&B coalition is that of paleo-greens and corporate CEOs of energy companies to regulate carbon emissions. The CEOs trumpet their public spiritedness and deep concern for the welfare of humanity, while counting coup on their competitors less able to bear the costs of regulation. That the regulations won't help with their stated purposes is obvious and invariant with these sorts of coalitions. They aren't about good governance, they're about hate, envy and greed.

The deep disconnect between problems and threats - such as climate change - and the policies proposed by B&B coalitions is growing deeper. Policy proposals make ever less sense from an objective scientific point of view. Brad Allenby talks about an aspect of this, though he sees it as a generation gap - no, a chasm - made greater than normal by rapid technological change.

One of the underappreciated sources of policy malfunction is the increasing disconnect between established worldviews, generally resistant to change, and the accelerating technological, economic and social change that characterizes our world. . .

This decoupling is evinced not just by institutions but by discourses. More specifically, the ongoing failure of the environmental and sustainability (E&S) communities to deal with the accelerating evolution of scientific, technological and security discourses is becoming so complete that it is difficult to conceive of successful reintegration. What would an environmentalism that integrated knowledge of cutting edge science and technology, and the challenges of security in a world increasingly challenged by the democratization of WMD, even look like?

The underlying reflexive anti-establishment, anti-modernity posture of the E&S discourses, evidenced by, e.g., opposition to genetically modified organisms (GMOs), calls for banning nanotechnology, and efforts to socially engineer consumption patterns, especially those of the United States, are not encouraging. . .

More subtle but fundamental is the sea-change in cognitive structure between younger cohorts and their elders. While there has always been a generation gap -- rebellion is a familiar epiphenomenon of youth -- the intersection of technological evolution (especially information technology), restructuring of information and cognitive networks, and changes in social relationships toward more virtual models, is leading to generational differences in worldview that are profound and for the most part invisible to the E&S discourses. . .

There seems an almost willful blindness among many E&S activists, and a tendency towards reinforcement of ideological purity, rather than meaningful engagement with the changes sweeping over the cultural, psychological, and physical landscapes. It is almost as if these discourses had gone from cutting edge, to mainstream, to retro, without the participants even noticing.

As I see it those discourses always were retro. What has changed is that it was once hip to be retro, then mainstream, but increasingly its just lame and irrelevant, and that makes the old codgers angry. They are old and in the way instead of young and in the way. The confusions and excesses of youth had a sort of charm that is now entirely lacking.

Society functions as it always has functioned - ideologues compromise their already tattered principles to make common cause with fellow travelers who do not share their manic zealotry - to the detriment of society. The Baptists and bootleggers not only made life less sensible, they enabled organized crime to become well established. The paleo-socialists and the food packers discussed in that old post drove out competitors and gave us the industrial food system so many now lament. The E&S community and energy companies now seek to enact a variety of policies that will make life less comfortable, more expensive and in the end less environmentally benign or sustainable.

Allenby's question is interesting:

What would an environmentalism that integrated knowledge of cutting edge science and technology, and the challenges of security in a world increasingly challenged by the democratization of WMD, even look like?

It would not be crunchy. It would not be retro. It would not be angry or revolutionary. It would not be dissident. It would not be politicized.

The childish impulse to choose up sides and struggle for power is a tap root of nonsense policies. Political leadership is an oxymoron. Conceptual solutions to current issues need to be developed by the members of society in full engagement with one another, engagement that includes the highly disparate perspectives of a broad spectrum of society rather than only narrow interests who claim primacy for an issue. Politicians are merely functionaries who are hired to implement those previously determined solutions. They don't lead, they can't lead, since their incentives are contrary to good governance. They just want the job, and that's a severe character defect that makes them unfit to wield real power.

Allenby wonders if younger folks can help.

Generation Y tends, for example, towards mental models that integrate urbanization, information technology and multiple information and communication networks and virtual experiences (from the mundane constant texting and conversing on cell phones to the complex emergent cultural patterns of Second Life and World of Warcraft).

Interestingly, what accompanies this ontological shift is not the 1950's nightmare of an absolutist technocratic bureaucracy, but rather the opposite, a postmodernist solipsism and individuality: the technology enables one to access the video or music of one's choice, increasingly unconstrained by huge corporate music or entertainment conglomerates.

Indeed, in virtual realities such as Second Life, the individual (as avatar and as socializing being) is explicitly constructed, a quite interesting instantiation of existential philosophy (within bounds of corporatism, notes the Marxist). This tends to be displayed in an individualistic pursuit not of happiness, but of personal reality, with several concomitant implications: traditional communal action is less common, and overarching worldviews are less appealing.

Especially given the paucity of research, it is too early to tell what sort of self or social system will emerge from these interesting intersections, or even how widespread and meaningful these shifts are. It is not too early, however, to regret the failure of much of the E&S discourses to adapt.

It is early days still, but it seems an empty hope that E&S discourse will adapt. E&S is a hopelessly retro world view that depends entirely on the broadcast model rather than the peer-to-peer model enabled by ubiquitous ICT. Change is too difficult to ignore or gloss over with hoary old platitudes when people speak to one another rather than passively absorbing broadcasts from "leaders". Heightened awareness of change and possibility makes one more forward looking. It may be that frameworks can be developed that fully embrace change and so seek to find superior paths and postures while going with that undeniable flow. Instead of the drunken stagger of the old codgers carroming off obstacles that they deny exist, something more rapid and graceful seems possible. That "traditional communal action is less common, and overarching worldviews are less appealing" among these youths is hopeful since it is a necessary attribute of effective social engagement with the threats and changes we are experiencing in ever larger amounts.