Ecologists Urge Government To “Move Beyond Existent Levels Of Public Permission”

| |

Top Tier Gear USA


In a peer-reviewed paper put out by the American Institute of Biological Sciences titled “Social Norms and Global Environmental Challenges” (available ahead of print), to be published in the march 2013 edition of BioScience, a group of well-known scientists calls on government and scientists to start with the planned social engineering of “norms” and “values” in regards to environmental policies.

The objective, according to the authors, is that these engineered “norms” must work their way into existing ones so finally environmental policies will be accepted without reserve. A sustained campaign, in other words, with government and scientists working together as to gradually create changes in behavior so environmental policies will be more easily accepted over the course of some time.

“Life scientists could make fundamental contributions to this agenda through targeted research on the emergence of social norms”, the group asserts.

“Substantial numbers of people will have to alter their existing behaviors to address this new class of global environmental problems. Alternative approaches are needed when education and persuasion alone are insufficient.”

One of these proposed alternative approaches include more environmental regulations from the top down with the aim of conditioning the public to accept an increasing governmental control over personal behavior. The paper continues by saying that the best way to alter existing behaviors is through persuasive government regulations “such as penalties, regulations, and incentives” in order to “achieve significant behavior modification.”

“Effective policies, then, are ones that induce both short-term changes in behavior and longer-term changes in social norms”, the authors indicate.

Anticipating that regulatory interventions by government are sure to create resistance among the target population, the scientists express confidence that their recommendations “can be carried out in a way that abides by the principles of representative democracy, including transparency, fairness, and accountability.”

The way government may go about it, they argue, is by on the one hand “managing norms” through “such things as advertising campaigns, information blitzes, or appeals from respected figures”. The other aspect involved is the use of financial incentives and disincentives:

“Fines can (…) be an effective way to alter behavior, in part because they (like social norm management) signal the seriousness with which society treats the issue.”

By extension, the authors asses that behaviors and values will “coevolve” alongside increased government control in the form of state regulations and “fines”:

“A carbon tax might (…) prove effective even in the face of near-term opposition. What needs to be assessed is the possibility that behaviors and values would coevolve in such a way that a carbon tax—or other policy instrument that raises prices, such as a cap-and-trade system—ultimately comes to be seen as worthy, which would therefore allow for its long-term effectiveness”

“The probability of a boomerang effect from such appeals is low (except in the most avidly antiauthoritarian subpopulations).”

After the paper continues listing examples of past “information blitzes” which have proved to be a success, they stress that government (and the scientific community) should “move beyond” public consent when it comes to top-down regulations imposed on the American people:

Some have argued that regulations are inherently coercive and cannot or should not exceed implied levels of public permission for such regulations. An alternative viewpoint is that governments can and even should move beyond existent levels of public permission in order to shift norms, allowing public sentiment to later catch up with the regulation”.

The paper is concluded with three distinct recommendations to scientists and governmental agencies:

“(1) the greater inclusion of social and behavioral scientists in periodic environmental policy assessments; (2) the establishment of teams of scholars and policymakers that can assess, on policy-relevant timescales, the short- and long-term efficiency of policy interventions; and (3) the alteration of academic norms to allow more progress on these issues.”

By admitting they are willing to “move beyond existent levels of public permission” to push ahead with draconian environmental policies, these prominent scientists (among whom we find two Nobel laureates and one Paul Ehrlich) have proven their willingness to deceive the American population in order to fulfill an international agenda.

Delivered by The Daily Sheeple

We encourage you to share and republish our reports, analyses, breaking news and videos (Click for details).

Contributed by Jurriaan Maessen of ExplosiveReports.Com.

Wake The Flock Up! Please Share With Sheeple Far & Wide:
  • No level of propaganda or financial bullying will deter many of us that know your scam from outright opposition and counter information to the public at large. Your failing scams will always be met by the truth and no level of lying will snuff us out. You may win over the morons, but there will always be a counter position. Essentially, fuck you! We’re not your slaves.

  • Anonymous

    Don’t get vaccines. They’ve already infiltrated that area.

  • Justcause

    They will have a hard time with this generation, however our children will grow up essentially mind numbed robots due to media conditioning from birth.

  • ncjoe

    Please, don’t get vaccines. That way some fothe stupid genes will be eliminated from teh gene pool.

    • tward3

      Grammar and spelling a problem you have with. (Spoken in Yoda’s voice)

  • ncjoe

    You have a problem with environmental regulations, then you must have no problem with me shtting on your dining room table.

  • G-DAWG

    Why are these types even allowed to roam the earth. They should be shown how to alter their behavior, like assuming room temp. Unbelieveable

  • Locus

    Aside from overuse of typographical ligature (“fi”seems to be missing), nothing ground breaking here. It’s actually a fair academic summary of the techniques that have been tried to coerce people into new social norms, and it gives failure rates too.

    Though it seems the italic’d synopsis was deliberately sprinkled with ‘must use government to achieve our aims’ pixie dust. Though the rest of the study does not entirely agree.

    Coordinated shaping of social norms is not all bad, there was a time in the 70s when every third PSA on TV was against *littering* fer chrissake. That crying indian really got to me.

    The best defense is to raise children who are reasonably immune to peer pressure which includes coordinated ad campaigns, and can weigh benefit and risk of anything that is being ‘sold’ to them.

    ncjoe I would have no problem with you shitting on my dining room table if your effluent meets DEQ clean water standards for discharge. This involves at least several stages of flocculation, active media filtration, settling and skimming. But you would need to be a very large person to accommodate all the machinery and process inside.