Who are the major players in the social engineering of human society?
Sorry, I didn't think this topic posted. I had a poll going with it and aborted the idea when I realized the number of choices the poll would have!Originally posted by selfAdjoint
Yes and I forgot to list Education. Education holds a wide range of social engineering tools.Originally posted by selfAdjoint
I think that in addition to the ones you listed there are groups of private individuals who try to influence public behavior through the media, and also to influence the government through write in campaigns and so on. One such group that has been very successful is MADD. And you should examine the campaign against smoking - there's a bunch of sociology theses there as to who did which and which were important and which just sideshows. But it was an enormous, and directed, change in social behavior. Why have we been so successful with tobacco while the War on Drugs goes nowhere?
Sorry to hear about your experience with your dad. I'm not sure about the prohibitionist's war, a drug war or any other war. War is a term that is used in negative/deconstructive social engineering practices.Originally posted by selfAdjoint
I'm not sure about the tobacco thing. As I've posted elsewhere, I gave up smoking years ago after seeing (a)a good friend and former boss die of emphysema and (b) seeing how pathetically dependent on tobacco my own father was on his death bed. That's a pretty strong negative experience and it worked for me, although I wouldn't recommend it to anyone else.
About MADD though I do have a piece of information. Many of the founding members of MADD were members of the WCTU (the old Womens' Christian Temperance Union, which was one of the big promoters of Prohibition, back in the day). So this was a new battle in an old war.
I didn't know the "poor" owned anything, let alone a neighborhood. The worst case scenario you describe happens in cities with a poor understanding of social engineering. Good social engineering is a bit like looking 2 blocks ahead of you when your driving. You want to see any obstructions or potential accidents and adjust your method of transport to suit any upcoming problems before you zip on through the intersection or school zone. And so, in keeping this this, good social engineering finds a place and solution for every condition that arises out of change.Originally posted by selfAdjoint
Yes, although gentrification tends to take neighborhoods away from the poor people who lived there and give them to the prosperous people who can afford to gentrify.
A simpler process for social change in poor and rundown neighborhoods is cleanup fixup. Replace all broken windows, and ensure they remain unbroken. Clean up vacant lots. Clean up dirty buildings and raze hopeless vacant ones. Get the people themselves to do this, not the government, although funding often comes from the government. Local preachers are a big resource for motivating this. All this has been proven to reduce crime even in very "bad" neighborhoods.
Your derogatory assumptions about me are incorrect. How's your reading comprehension ability?Originally posted by selfAdjoint
You and I will never agree. If poor people did "own" their homes there wouldn't be much opportunity for gentrification. The reason gentrification works is the the living quarters of the poor are owned by non-poor people, who find they can make more money gentrifying than collecting low rents from poor people. The people who lived in the neighborhood before gentrification had no say in the matter. That's no problem to you, for whom poor people are apparently worthless dross to be swept away in the upscale paradise. But they matter to me because they are human beings who are being unhoused without any choice of theirs.
Just fine. If I came down too heavy I apologize, but what I saw in your post was the typical "libertarian" attitude toward community.Originally posted by Unkaspam
Your derogatory assumptions about me are incorrect. How's your reading comprehension ability?
Economic disparity between social groups stimulates a strong emotional response. Its comparable to the friction created by the Indian cast system. One difference is that democracy has allowed for the creation of independant monetary systems within the democratic society. Any citizen of the United States can create their own currency.Originally posted by selfAdjoint
Just fine. If I came down too heavy I apologize, but what I saw in your post was the typical "libertarian" attitude toward community.
Social engineering could be described by using the Ten Commandments as an example. How to behave. How to "get along" as a group.Originally posted by FZ+
Particularly parents have a huge effect in the beliefs, attitudes and so on of their children. I agree about the society self-engineering though.
But can you clarify what you mean by social engineering?
I'm looking forward to your analysis, and particularly the role played in such engineering by competition regulators, be they direct (e.g. "Competition Commission", FAA), or indirect (e.g. legal institutions).I suggest that, today, it is the Corporation or, more accurately, the amalgamation of corporations, seen as the multcorporate multinational corporation, that uses a wide variety of implimentations to engineer society in directions that best serve the interests of these/this group(s).