Monday, March 14, 2016

Why is the Thinking Person Repulsed by Agenda 21?

Agenda 21 is a plan for how individuals ought to live.  Over the last 30+ years its ideas have been pushed, and became more formalized in Brazil in 1992.  While it was published by the United Nations, proponents will hastily point out that it is non-binding and voluntarily implemented, more of a "suggested blueprint."  In this way it is much more like NAMBLA, in that no one of forced to carry our the ideas presented, but it is offered as a "best practices" provider and as a support group.  Groups like ICLEI bring it to individual communities.

Wait a minute, what is Agenda 21 really about?  Agenda 21 essentially says that the way humans have been conducting themselves thus far is inappropriate and that in order to be sustainable, people must live differently.  Sounds like an OK idea, right?  So what is "sustainability" from the UN's perspective?  See the following Venn diagram:
So, of the three spheres included, the small portion in which there is an overlap is what they consider to be sustainable.  To the person unfamiliar with logic, reason and the scientific method, this might sound reasonable.  For those with an even elementary knowledge of philosophy, there are many blatant warning signals that pop up.

One of these alerts is that when examining something, a thinker out to be objective in regards to inclusion of issues.  Consider the below chart, which is similar to the above:

Notice that only three "spheres" were included, which is very subjective.  Environmental, Social and Economic were the three chosen factors, but what about the hundreds of others that might have been selected?  To put ANY confidence in A21, one would first have to accept that indeed the three spheres are the three most important factors.

Even withing the overlapping areas, look at the chosen terms, for example in the "Economic-Social" area.  Business Ethics, Fair Trade and Worker's rights are listed.  Perhaps these three were suggested by Karl Marx before his death?  The collectivist overtones are obvious, which is absolutely appropriate if a group of communist, socialist and democratic philosophers were having a think-tank weekend and chatting among themselves.  What is NOT appropriate is for this philosophy to be forced upon other individuals..

My few paragraphs of argument above only make up about 1% of my argument against Agenda 21.  Others have explained the elements of Agenda 21 far better than I am able.  What they have not done is clearly explain why it is a bad thing.

Why is Agenda 21 and the philosophy surrounding it EVIL?

Human liberty.  That is the answer.  There are things in life that are perhaps "better for us" than others, but what makes life a fun and exciting life is the journey, including the making of mistakes and the challenges that arise because of this.

Let's take the example of a mother and her 9-yr-old son on a Saturday afternoon.  For the sake of this argument we will assume that she is not a business owner and therefore has Saturday off from work.  She and her some throw a ball in the park for an hour at his school, and as they walk home they are laughing and having a great time.  They see an ice cream truck and decide to have an orange push-up.  They continue walking along laughing and eating their treats.

From a sterile perspective, this was a good couple hours.  The throwing of a ball is associated with competitive sports, an activity in which 1 team always loses and suffers the resulting mental anguish, which can lead to depression, suicide and in some cases even sadness.  Next, they buy a corn sugar syrup food item, which scientists agree is not healthful and is in fact bad for one's body.

I ask you to consider this set of decisions the mother made, and the billions of other decisions made by the 7 billion of us on earth.  Perhaps we could have made a "better" decision than the mother about the treat, perhaps a snack of fresh organic free-range kale would have been better?  This is where the philosophic question of human freedom of choice comes into our conversation.

"Is it acceptable for some people who think they know better to force other people to change THEIR preferred behavior?"

I am passionate about human freedom.  While I think that meth, bibles, beer, patchouli oil and other things and actions are not great, I think the greater bad would be be forcing a person not to use meth, read a bible, share a brew with pals at a pub, wear patchouli oil to a folk festival or participate in other nefarious activities.

Newtown Action Alliance Propaganda Fail #endgunviolence

No comments:

Post a Comment