Should we scare the hell out of people?

[Technosoul]

This topic is about the use of fear as a motivation tool, and if facts or turisms should be stated if they scare people into changing their behavior. This topic centers around big oil and our concerns about how that might effect the environment.

The framework for this debate has been outlined on the link webpage, which you need to review first, before adding your opinions, facts, or comments.

Does fear really work as a motivational tool for creating changes in our culture?

http://transitionculture.org/?p=284

Also, the webpage allows you a peak into collage teachings on this topic, and you can comment on that factor also, is it the duty of collage teachers to use education to promote their personal beliefs about political matters.

[Osborn F Enready]

We shouldn't use fear, we should use facts, and the basic idea that preparation for events is dependent on success, and a lack of it almost always causes failure to some degree.

As one of our forefathers Patrick Henry said:

“It is natural for man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts ... For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth, to know the worst, and to provide for it.”
-Patrick Henry

Fear is only valid if that fear is indeed real, based on fact and clear logic.

Peak Oil has been proven to a very large portion of the "recognized" scholars to be not only valid, but quite real. This in itself should dictate further investigation and attempt to understand all RELEVANT facts. The fear, if there is any, should be a direct result of our lack of understanding, denial or inability to deal with what seems to be obvious logical flaws in our pre-existing course.

I don't think we should use fabricated fear to manipulate people, but if fear is a DIRECT result of facts and education, then I choose fear over ignorance and guaranteed extinction, and use the fear to prevent the acts that logic dictate will eventually come.

For example, on Peak Oil:

Does anyone, deny that oil will EVENTUALLY run out?

If not, then wouldn't it be wise, and quite prudent to act to change our ways to become less dependent on oil for necessities?

Food, and isolationst production abilities are a necessity in a world of no oil. Therefore, we should be moving TOWARDS that, not AWAY from that as we currently are in our trend toward "globalism" and offshoring of labor, as well as our current trend of monopoly creation, as opposed to reduction.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready We shouldn't use fear, we should use facts, and the basic idea that preparation for events is dependent on success, and a lack of it almost always causes failure to some degree. As one of our forefathers Patrick Henry said: “It is natural for man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts ... For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth, to know the worst, and to provide for it.” -Patrick Henry Fear is only valid if that fear is indeed real, based on fact and clear logic. Peak Oil has been proven to a very large portion of the "recognized" scholars to be not only valid, but quite real. This in itself should dictate further investigation and attempt to understand all RELEVANT facts. The fear, if there is any, should be a direct result of our lack of understanding, denial or inability to deal with what seems to be obvious logical flaws in our pre-existing course. I don't think we should use fabricated fear to manipulate people, but if fear is a DIRECT result of facts and education, then I choose fear over ignorance and guaranteed extinction, and use the fear to prevent the acts that logic dictate will eventually come. For example, on Peak Oil: Does anyone, deny that oil will EVENTUALLY run out? If not, then wouldn't it be wise, and quite prudent to act to change our ways to become less dependent on oil for necessities? Food, and isolationst production abilities are a necessity in a world of no oil. Therefore, we should be moving TOWARDS that, not AWAY from that as we currently are in our trend toward "globalism" and offshoring of labor, as well as our current trend of monopoly creation, as opposed to reduction.

That seems to be well stated, cannot see any reason someone could debate the logic in that perspective.

What about the other question, should collage teachers be allowed to promote a personal political agenda - keeping in mind that a collage is only partly funded by taxpayer money. Would freedom of speech apply to all teachers, even within public schools. Or are they obligated to appear un-opinionated?

[tman_ndsu08]

Fear is a horrible motivational tool.

You'll only make peope angry to trying to scare them into changing. They'll only change if they want to or they'll die.

[Osborn F Enready]

Technosoul said: That seems to be well stated, cannot see any reason someone could debate the logic in that perspective.

I say:
Thank you.

Technosoul said: What about the other question, should collage teachers be allowed to promote a personal political agenda - keeping in mind that a collage is only partly funded by taxpayer money. Would freedom of speech apply to all teachers, even within public schools. Or are they obligated to appear un-opinionated?

I say:
You are asking the wrong person this question Techno. There is NO way I would ever support a FORCED deduction, funded public school.

Since that is the system we have, I would say in THIS system, I don't support the system itself, so the question to me, is irrelevant.

I am working to ABOLISH this system, so I do not have intrest or concern for its welfare in ANY sense.

[Osborn F Enready]

T-Man said: Fear is a horrible motivational tool.

I say:
That is not only wrong, but OBVIOUSLY and PROVABLY wrong.

Manufactured fear is most DEFINITELY a bad motivational tool, aka the "war on terror" or "9-11" or the "resurrection of Christ" or whatever.....

REAL, as you would say, TANGIBLE fear is quite a good, and possibly the BEST motivational tool KNOWN TO MAN.

Example:
Man knows lack of air causes death. Man fears loss of air, and does not PURPOSELY put himself into positions of "losing the option to breathe" if at all possible, unless they CRAVE and ENJOY the rush that the fear gives them.

T-Man said: You'll only make peope angry to trying to scare them into changing. They'll only change if they want to or they'll die.

I say:
Never the less, most people fear dying, hence the idea that if they are informed of all the facts, they will usually do what most likely will prevent or stall death.

[Lullaby Chainer]

What comes to mind when I glanced through this thread..

http://www.sillymortal.com/neat/zazoo_commercial.html

^^

[Osborn F Enready]

That is a funny video Lullaby, thanks for sharing. LOL

[Technosoul]

The webpage noted a counter debate - that we tried to make people fear the build-up of nuclear bombs with facts about the effects of a nuclear winter. That was a long time ago and we did not stop or get rid of our nukes because we feared nuclear winter, point being that fear of death, even death of the whole planet, cannot motivate change, because in the past it did not work to effect change.

So is it pointless to scare people with facts? Is it pointless to give warnings about global warming when we know that such fears will not make people park their SUVs and buy a hydro?

How then can we effect real change? Can we teach positive ideas instead, and would positive an inspirational ideas have more impact towards change then pointing out negitive things?

What is your take on those thoughts?

[Osborn F Enready]

Techno said: The webpage noted a counter debate - that we tried to make people fear the build-up of nuclear bombs with facts about the effects of a nuclear winter. That was a long time ago and we did not stop or get rid of our nukes because we feared nuclear winter, point being that fear of death, even death of the whole planet, cannot motivate change, because in the past it did not work to effect change

I say:
The facts, that produce fear, cause people to react in different ways.

For example, nukes are not feared by all. Some people, embrace nukes and all that comes with them.

Secondly. In regards to nuclear weapons, they were created by both collective and capitalist nations, out of natural curiousity and quest for knowledge, as well as fear of "being behind the curve".
Nuclear weapons ARE a form of defense, and questionably weapons of deterrence. Their fear is two fold, since the fear of NOT having the abilty to defend or at least "return fire" is greater than the fear of absolute annhialation with nary a point of meaningful resistance.

Third. The fear of nuclear weapons is very much out of reach of the public, since the majority of the public lacks the knoweldge, desire and ability to act as one to stop this particular type of action by effectively petitioning, and or removing funding from government, by the time Nuclear Weapons were understood fully for what they are.

An analogy for comparison on that last point.....

A gun, pointed at me by an individual I can see, face to face, is MUCH more threatening (to me) than the threat of a "reported" sniper that nobody has seen, only seen the results of.

The gun pointed at me face to face, I can affect directly. The sniper nobody sees, I cannot directly affect, therefore I am "more wary, perhaps more cautious", but I am not nearly at the level of fear that a person in my face would instill.

We all know guns exist, and we all know guns can be used to kill, yet we still function everyday and many value guns for protection and security as opposed to fearing and loathing them. I view that much like Nuclear Weapons. Some are pro-nuke, some are anti-nuke, both sides have some valid points, but neither is a clear nor proven, nor accepted "right" for all situations answer. Therefore the "fear" that motivates the action, is not great enough or widespread enough to provoke a systemic reaction against the idea.

Techno said: So is it pointless to scare people with facts? Is it pointless to give warnings?

I say:
No. It in my opinion is not "pointless" to do something that will cause skeptical thought, discussion and or debate and investigation.

The best results however come from a synergistic, multi-layered approach of all key forms of undestanding, and perception such as using both audio and visual prentation in this or similar order....


Communicate
Debate
Investigate
Educate
Debate
Conclude
Resolve
Execute

Techno said: How then can we effect real change? Can we teach positive ideas instead, and would positive an inspirational ideas have more impact towards change then pointing out negitive things?

I say:
WE can only know the difference between positive and negative by both being present, and active.

Very few things are all positive, or all negative, but we often tend to focus on what we deem more pressing to our point of view, or what the facts belie.

Sometimes, actually, often I think one must pose the questions of the "devils advocate" to truly unearth the most crucial points of any topic.

For example, even arriving at the resolve of being ambivalent, being ambivalent still required a choice to be made.

[Arawn-ap-Hywel]

Does fear really work as a motivational tool for creating changes in our culture?

Only when backed up by armed force!

Facts and truth without spin or rhetoric presented boldly nd with passion might shock and awaken people. The artical covers this.
If the people (audience) is shocked by facts then the fear is then self induced.
We cannot help those who hide and shrivel through their own fears.

Truth is often harsh, try telling a man he is dying of cancer when you know he doesn't want to hear it. (I have witnessed this when a Dr told my uncle, a man who could not face the truth)

There is far too much spin in the world. We tread on eggshells for no good reason. The Governments of the world hide reality in an attempt to remain popular. The outcome is no one beleives in their governance any longer.

The long term projections whether right or wrong are being made. These are models of possibilities, built on facts. We (collectively) seem incapable of comprehending our vulnerability Tsunami and Hurricanes prove our ignorance and the political will for inaction.

Yes tell the Truth give the Facts if it scares the hell out of folks then that's their problemn. But at least begin the education, debate and measures that provide reassurance. The chance to continue and contribute to the new world, howver dark it might seem

[Technosoul]

Two answers above, both sound okay to me even if a little different.

We seem to have two kinds of fears, those that are unfounded or too abstract to digest, and those that are more urget due to the clear and present danger at hand. Nuclear war is a bit abstract and it is hard to make it appear like a urgent or present danger.

Fear of shadows on a bedroom wall would be different, because our imagination is playing tricks.

Fear of falling, for example, would motivate us to hang on or not to jump off a building like superman.
Such fears would be viewed also as logical and intelligent.

Fear of the unexpected and unpredictable is something else, having to do with a sense of insecurity. Humans know that other humans can be unpredictable and that can be a bit scary when we got stuff like H-bombs for humans to play around with.

Fear has its own yin and yang - good and bad potentials. The ablity, knowledge, and wisdom to interpret those feelings would be keynote. Then we can act out of logic rather then just the emotions of fear alone.

Data can genereate fear, anger, even be inspirational and make us feel happy. Each can motivate a action - so it is important to examine if those emotional reactions to data is due to a logical reason and it the data would move us in the right direction - by reviewing the data and our internal reactions in the light of wisdom (calmness - from another state of non-emotional objectivity). If we have time to do so. That is just a little philosophy that came to mind and not a hardliner rule.

[Technosoul]

Now a preacher might create a scary illustration about what hell would be like for the sinners.

At first we might react with fear - because we believe that a preacher would tell truths.

Then we could ask our self "why is he scaring me - what does he want from me or what is he trying to get me to do - what are his real motivations for presenting such data"

If we continued to watch and take notes - from outside the emotions of the fear - we might discover a lot of interesting things - perhaps a wide range of turims that the preacher had not intended for us to discover.