No, it is not about the famous novel by Jane Austen.
Yes, it is primarily about pride. The most dangerous pride that human civilization now faces. A pride that results from the fact that man is considered the only rational (known) being.
That man is the only rational being is true. So far, only man is controlled not only by genes, but also by memes. We are driven by the co-evolution of genes and memes. For this reason, our bodies (genetic phenotypes) are the result of both, and our cultural artifacts (memetic phenotypes) are also the result of both.
This is where prejudice comes into play: the prevailing social theories confuse “the only rational being” with “the being that is uniquely rational.” The immediate devastating result is the absolute prejudice and neglect of all limbic brain systems, which are much older than the cortical brain structure that is home to rationality (albeit with a very, very simplified topology!). The next devastating result is a necessary “evolution” of the previous one: Since rationality is located in culture, it is culture, namely the educational system, that shapes the individual. Genes no longer matter; it is culture that makes a man. Well: and a woman. Well: and the next 61 or more genders, depending on social constructivism.
Equal as the same
The next necessary step is that globally all individuals are or should be the same. Not equal, but the same. If we strive to make this world as equitable as possible for all individuals, and if culture, politics and education are the only factors that make human beings human, then building a world with 100% equal individuals is possible.
Social constructivism, based on the false notion that man is a unique being who can outsmart evolution and rationally construct himself, is a fundamental ideology not only of global institutions such as the United Nations but nowadays in all national institutions around the world run by progressives. (To understand the dichotomy of progressivism and conservatism, see the Political Brane Topology post.
Hate speech agenda
Hate speech has become a major issue at the United Nations. Do we need any more arguments to understand that the UN not only supports but leads to social constructivism?
Let me clarify this statement. If hate speech were still defined the way it used to be:
Speech that is intended to offend, insult, intimidate, or threaten an individual or group based on a trait or attribute, such as sexual orientation, religion, color, gender, or disability.
then there is no problem with UN agenda. Anyone who supports the UN Declaration (like me) should support such an agenda.
But the definition is no longer valid. The actual definition, the definition that comes from social constructionist practice and can even be observed in certain laws, is:
Language that ascribes to individuals belonging to different genders, groups, religions, colors, sexual orientations, or disabilities a difference in their genetic origins and thus the impossibility of being culturally equal.
To put it another way, you are already engaging in hate speech today if you are not a social constructionist. My article, Fake News, a Construction of Reality, is thus doomed to failure.
Social constructivism leads to climate change fallacy
It is a really bad and sad joke that the same rationality that, on the one hand, has driven the Enlightenment, the development of science, and the theory of evolution, on the other hand, has brought to power the idea that man can escape the laws of evolution. Not equality, but pride is the underlying value of an ideology that sees man as the one responsible for everything that happens on earth. The assumption is that we can uniquely influence our environment. The laws of evolution by natural selection apply to the entire biosphere, but not to humans, or so progressives think.
Human rationality is destroying the environment. We should feel guilty about it. Guilt about Christ’s crucifixion is replaced (for atheists who are rational) by guilt about the environment, with guilt about climate change accepted as a major implanted guilt not only by the UN but also by the majority of industry leaders and by my late grandmother.
But there is an important difference between guilt toward Christ and guilt toward the environment. The latter can be eliminated with the same rationality. If we are a major contributor to climate change, we can manage our behavior to stop changing it.
This is a pride greater than Mount Everest and deeper than the 9th circle of Dante’s Hell. If Dante were writing his poem now, he would have built the 10th circle for all those who share and act upon such pride, provided he built it large enough.
Both hate speech and climate change panic share the values of social constructivism. Both deny evolution as natural selection, both deny the complexity that underlies not only evolution but all natural phenomena, and both overestimate the capacities of human rationality. Social constructivism should therefore be considered a major threat to human civilization at this time.
This is the first revision of a post from 2019.