Edited: May 20, 2025

The Hypnotic Spell in the Framing of Science

How the Framing of Science Influence the Public & Science Policy?

Abstract

Words are open to interpretation; they are shaped by the presuppositions that are the inherent assumptions made within language. Presuppositions that we believe are true may be subjective and conditional, yet they shape reality and the framing influences behaviour. The framing can promote a hypnotic “magic in the words” that can affect the way you think and change your internal state. Polarised framing can occur when presumptions are assumed to be true, this can lead to the wrong questions being asked. If we become fixed in our beliefs the map can be confused with the territory and the framing of the problem, can become the problem. Polarised framing gives a perceived truth that can lead to division and conflict. Ideology and pseudoscience can replace science and “the science” can become sensationalised. Polarisation of science communication can influence the development of effective solutions. It is the scientific process that can provide the true path, but the framing can influence our world view and therefore the direction of innovation and policy adoption. The concept of technocratic schemes is examined and how ideology and interference by corporations and governments influence innovation and potentially lead us on the road to disaster. A Technocratic Industrial Complex is defined as the large-scale state-initiated administrative ordering of nature and society in collaboration with elite corporate stakeholders to simplify, standardise and reform society and nature. Policymakers, researchers, and stakeholders must cooperate and work constructively, especially with those at the grassroots, to ensure intentions and innovative schemes create actions to support equitable and ecological futures. This investigation suggests that ideological technocratic schemes could lead to disaster.

Key words

Framing, authoritarian, ideology, science, technology, policy

Introduction: The Meanings of Words & Presuppositions

The meanings of words can often be interpreted in multiple ways even if we speak the same language. Conflict is inherent in all aspects of life, from relationships with others to societal structures, resistance and escape only perpetuate it (Krishnamurti, 1963). True understanding and freedom from conflict can only arise when one is willing to observe and listen to the full complexity of conflict without judgment or reaction. Krishnamurti (1963) stressed the importance of listening without condition, free from resistance, escape, or judgment. He encouraged an audience to give their full attention, setting aside distractions and preconceptions. This kind of listening is not about analysing or understanding concepts, but rather about being aware of the content of conflict, whether in personal relationships or societal structures. He thus encouraged the audience to focus their attention on the speaker’s words, rather than getting caught up in intellectual understanding or an emotional response. By doing so, one can begin to observe the nature of one’s own mind and the ways in which it creates conflict and suffering. Individuals who listen and observe in this profound way would be free from the corrupting influences of nationalism, ideology, and personal ambition. They would be able to create a fundamentally new and peaceful society (Krishnamurti, 1963).  

“A mind that has not understood conflict can never be at peace” (Krishnamurti, 1963).

Presuppositions are the inherent assumptions made within language that provide the framework when we communicate with one another (Bohm, 2013). Meaning can be perceived as a matter of fact, or true, subject to certain assumptions (Bohm et al., 1996). Neuro Linguistic Programming (NLP) defines presuppositions as beliefs, assumptions or principles that are widely understood to be true (Linder-Pelz, 2010). NLP is a powerful tool to communication, personal development, and psychotherapy associated with the codification of connection between neurological processes, language, and behaviour patterns. It is designed to help enhance performance for individuals, groups, or organisations (Knight, 2002; Linder-Pelz, 2010). It is used in education, sales and business, training and recruitment, and both professional and personal development. NLP aims to understand how our thoughts and behaviours are influenced by language and how we can change them to achieve specific goals (Knight, 2002; Linder-Pelz, 2010).  NLP works on the presumption that our beliefs are preformed, preorganized approaches to perception that filter our communication to ourselves in a consistent manner. NLP infers that controlling the level of abstraction, or framing, allows the unique filters and perspectives of individuals to be adapted. This is crucial for effective communication and conveying meaning (Knight, 2002; Linder-Pelz, 2010).

” Although the objectivity of science is a noble ideal, there is more hope of achieving it by recognising the humanity of scientists and their limitations than by pretending that science has a unique access to truth.” (Sheldrake, 2012).

Bohm (2013) states that dialogue is crucial to asking the right questions with scientific enquiry, yet every question contains implied presuppositions. Wrong or confusing presuppositions means the question will give no meaningful answer. Dialogue can be defined as a free flow of meaning between people in communication (Bohm, 2013). With dialogue there is no predefined intention except the inquiry into the flow of thought and investigating the process of thinking collectively together. This allows group participants to consider preconceptions and prejudices behind their thought processes and meanings and thus dissolve conflict. Bohm discusses that if the spirit of dialogue is present then there is no attempt to win an argument or discussion, or even make a particular view prevail. It is about common participation, in which people are not against each other but work with each other. So, in a dialogue, everybody wins (David Bohm Society, 2023).

 

“We saw the urgent need to end this confusion, through giving careful attention to the one-ness of the content of thought and the actual process of thinking which produces this content” (Bohm, 1980, p. 34).

Bohm (1980, 1992, 2013) suggested it is the thought process that is the source of the problems in the world. Bohm (1992) argues that we have a “systemic fault” in the whole of thought. Contradiction and conflict arise due to the different ways of framing reality (Bohm, 1980, 1992, 2013; Glaucons Journal, n.d.; Watts, 1951).

 

Overview

This article aims to explore how the presuppositions that we believe are true may be subject to certain conditions and how framing behind this alters our world view and influence science and policy in terms of the abstract ideological beliefs and the reality. It starts by exploring the framing of words and presuppositions. The map and the territory are discussed in terms of how abstract concepts are used to define reality are taken to be absolute. This framing is presumed true. The framing is then discussed as a problem to consider. The frames are discussed in terms of the map of the territory.  This is related to science and technology policy and  investigates the concept of technocratic schemes and how ideology and interference by corporations and governments influences outcomes and can lead us on the road to disaster.

The Magic in Words – Casting the Spell

“He who knows much about others may be learned, but he who understands himself is more intelligent. He who controls others may be powerful but he who has mastered himself is mightier still.” (Lao-Tsu, Tao Teh King)

Frames are language patterns or concepts linked by presuppositions (Bohm, 2013; Lakoff, 2010). Framing is the process of how people conceptualise opinions or change their mind on an issue (Chong & Druckman, 2007). A frame considered from the social and cognitive perspective is an abstract model or mental construct, an approximation to reality, based on assumptions and presumptions to help the thinking process. In the cognitive and brain sciences, frames have been defined based on unconscious structures relating to “semantic roles, relations between roles, and relations to other frames” (Lakoff, 2010, p. 3). In social and psychological sciences a frame is a set of conceptual and theoretical ideas or processes on how individuals, groups, and societies perceive and communicate in their environment (Chong & Druckman, 2007).

 

NLP presumes the body and mind are one and therefore the “way you think affects your internal state, which in turn triggers a physical reaction” (Knight, 2002, p. 20). NLP highlights how frames and the use of presuppositions are inherently accepted as true, even if they are false. This can be referred to as hypnotic (or trance inducing) language, the spell hidden in the framing of words. We are consciously or unconsciously brainwashing ourselves and others all the time (Knight, 2002). Sentences can be framed in such a manner to presuppose certain outcomes. This topic is beyond the scope of this document and the author recommends reading (Knight, 2002, chapter 7 ‘Hypnotic Language) for further clarification.

 

“Ambiguity is an important aspect of hypnotic language” (Knight, 2002, p. 114).

Hypnosis, the power of suggestion’ can affect the mind and the body and has been known to produce “miracle cures”. In medicine a patient can be given a placebo, an inert pill, and have improvements to health, there is no active causative chemical. Double-blind placebo-controlled studies aim to prevent bias, however, they are not ideal and can be open to abuse (Sheldrake, 2012). The placebo responses with health and sickness shows the integral relationship between hopes, meanings and beliefs and the physical and chemical reality in creating health. Prayer and meditation have also been associated with health and longevity (Sheldrake, 2012).

 

Public opinion research has highlighted that large changes in opinions can often occur when there is a change, that could be subtle, in the framing of an issue, this is known as the ‘framing effect’ (Chong & Druckman, 2007, p. 104). Beliefs therefore need not be true to help (or hinder) development of behavioural patterns. They can also be a metaphor, a figure of speech implicitly comparing two unrelated items (Thibodeau & Boroditsky, 2011). These can be powerful ways to frame by validating people’s evaluations of a belief, even if false. Presuppositions and underlying assumptions are not always true and can be used to frame a situation or problem (Oberholzer, 2013; Wahl-Jorgensen & Hanitzsch, 2009). For example, to say “I do not exist” presupposes your existence (Briggs, 2016; Watts, 1972). Those who control the narrative, and perceived rational facts, can influence behaviour and thus outcomes (Bernays, 2018, 2019; Cutler et al., 1969; Lakoff, 2010, 2014; Le Bon, 1905, 2009).

 

“The brain and cognitive sciences have radically changed our understanding of what reason is and what it means to be rational. Unfortunately, all too many progressives have been taught a false and outdated theory of reason itself, one in which framing, metaphorical thought, and emotion play no role in rationality. This has led many progressives to the view that the facts—alone —will set you free. Progressives are constantly giving lists of facts” (Lakoff, 2014).

Repetition of a frame is another way we can be conditioned. Edward Bernays (1891-1995), the “father of public relations”, was a pioneer in propaganda. He used the concept of habit formation by repetition in his marketing campaigns to influence behaviour. The repetition of a negative or positive frame reinforces it, over time it becomes ingrained in the very synapses of people’s brains, becoming the norm, or an accepted fact, even if it is not true. Repetition becomes reality. (Bernays, 2018, 2019; Cutler et al., 1969; Lakoff, 2010, 2014).

 

Frames can also be associated implicitly or explicitly with expectations which can influence the outcome. The concept of the Pygmalion effect was emphasised by George Bernard Shaw in his play ‘Pygmalion’ where the way people perceive and treated others influenced their behaviour and self-perception (Shaw, 2004). This has also been referred to as the Rosenthal effect which refers to a psychological phenomenon where high expectations or biases held by those in a position of perceived authority can sway the performance or behaviour of individuals being studied, taught, or evaluated. This can lead to improved or worsened performance when expectations are high or low respectively (Sheldrake, 2012). It is a form of experimenter bias, where the researcher’s conscious or unconscious expectations can affect the results of an experiment (Schade, 2018). Subliminal priming can affect outcomes and may have long-term effects on everyday behaviour (Lowery et al., 2007). The framing affects the way perceive reality and thus how this influences our internal state and behaviour, this can often be subtle and just accepted as true without question. When the presuppositions behind our understanding are changed there are new insights into understanding allowing new questions to be asked facilitating a paradigm shift in understanding (Bohm, 2013). When we gain an understanding of the inherent presuppositions within language the spell of our language can be broken (Bohm, 2013; Cutler et al., 1969; Krishnamurti, 1963; Lakoff, 2010, 2014).

The Framing of the Problem is the Problem

The Map & the Territory

History has shown that the scientific theory is not the same as facts, or absolute truth (Kuhn, 1970; Watts, 1951). Many scholars argue that honest science or truth is an idealistic viewpoint, and therefore unachievable (Bohm, 1992, 2003; Chong & Druckman, 2007; Gregory, 2018; Sang, 2009). This leads to a false path where the map is confused with the territory (Korzybski, 2004; Scott, 1998).

A Scientific Paradigm is a universally accepted scientific realisation that provides a framework of assumptions and agreed practices for problems and solutions to be discussed by scientists. Foucault’s used the term épistémè, the prevailing order of knowledge during a historical period (Foucault, 2005; Taylor, 2011). The ‘normally accepted science’, or dominant paradigm frames the questions scientists ask and how they are answered (Kuhn, 1970; Sheldrake, 2012). This can be based on a conditional truth, a statement accepted as true due to certain presumptions taken as fact (Bohm et al., 1996; Briggs, 2016) where scientists become entrenched in paradigms that define their own work (Saad, 2020). They become a science advocate for their own work where theories are taken with certainty and not questioned (Pielke, 2007). Anomalies that do not fit the dominant paradigm are normally dismissed or explained away. Science is held back by assumptions that have hardened into dogma creating a barrier against open-minded thinking (Sheldrake, 2012). Many people who may know very little about a scientific topic are converted to the “scientific” view and become “devotees” to the “Church of Science”, or “scientism” (Sheldrake, 2012). This may be a conscious or unconscious choice; however, it perpetuates current understanding by constraining meaning with preconceived ideas. It therefore prevents progress. To remedy this, scientists need to be willing to observe and listen to the full complexity of opposing views without judgment or reaction. (Krishnamurti, 1963). Bohm (2013) referred to this as dialogue.

 

“Science has “destroyed” the religious symbol of the world because, when symbols are confused with reality, different ways of symbolizing reality will seem contradictory” (Watts, 1951).

Many scholars referred this as the map confused as the territory (Bohm, 1980; Korzybski, 2004; Linder-Pelz, 2010; Scott, 1998).  Science provides theories to describe reality, theories are insights which are neither true nor false but provide clarity within certain boundary conditions. These boundaries are often perceived as true, making theories seen as absolute facts and therefore dogmatically believed (Bohm, 1980). Theories are also not a hypothesis or supposition, which needs rigorous experimental testing to confirm whether they are true or false (Bohm, 1980). There is “no conclusive proof of truth or falsity of a general hypothesis” (Bohm, 1980; Feynman, 2013; Hung, 2006; Kenny, 2007; Sheldrake, 2012). There is no certainty in science and the presuppositions, taken as fact, need questioning to ensure the map is not confused as the territory.

 

“Axioms are known to be true based on the evidence and faith that our intellects are correctly guiding us” (Briggs, 2016, p. 7).

The framing of science with an understanding of the presuppositions is therefore fundamental to asking the right questions. Briggs (2016) discusses this in terms of conditioning propositions (or premises) which may or may not be true. From the mathematical, logical, and philosophical perspective, propositions that are inductively true are referred to as axioms (Briggs, 2016). A greater understanding in science can be achieved by studying the connections and relationships between propositions, by changing any proposition in an argument, the relationship will also change (Briggs, 2016, p. 17).

 

 

“You have your way. I have my way. As for the right way, the correct way, and the only way, it does not exist.” Friedrich Nietzsche.

Politicisation of science can blur the line between a scientific hypothesis and a general statement believed to be true (Parenti, 2001; Pielke, 2007). Frames are subjective, dependent upon the ideology and predispositions of the decision makers (Hall & Deardorff, 2006). Political ideologies are characterised by systems of frames or representational systems that consequentially activate the ideological system due to the links to partisanship and ideological language used (Hall & Deardorff, 2006; Skinner & Stephens, 2003). Chong & Druckman, (2007) discuss the “framing effect”, where a seemingly insignificant change in the presentation of an issue (including the language used) can have large effects on the political outcome. Reframing public discourse is thus possible and therefore a new paradigm can be produced. This can even reframe what is perceived as common sense (Lakoff, 2014).

 

“The place to improve the world is first in one’s own heart and head and hands, and then work outward from there.” (Pirsig, 1974).

Lakoff (2010) states that many engaged in environmentalism have had the “old view” that “claimed that reason is conscious, unemotional, logical, abstract, universal, and imagined concepts and language as able to fit the world directly”, however, cognitive and brain sciences dismissed this (Lakoff, 2010, p. 72). The root of many problems is, primarily, the lack of accountability for our own actions and how we perceive the world (Krishnamurti, 1985, 2010; Krishnamurti & Bohm, 2003; Pirsig, 1974).

 

Rational knowledge may be summarised as “a system of abstract concepts and symbols, characterised by the linear, sequential structure which is typical of our thinking and speaking.” (Capra, 1975, p. 27). Without careful attention to the assumptions behind language it is easy for communication to be divisive and misinterpreted (Bohm, 2013). Our abstract mind cannot completely understand reality (Capra, 1975), our mental map is not the complete territory (Korzybski, 2004; Linder-Pelz, 2010; Scott, 1998). There can never be absolute experimental proof of the truth or falsity of a general concept that intends to cover the whole of reality (Bohm, 1980, p6).

 

“If we supposed that theories gave true knowledge, corresponding to ‘reality as it is’, then we would have to conclude that Newtonian theory was true until around 1900, after which it suddenly became false, while relativity and quantum theory suddenly became the truth. Such an absurd conclusion does not arise, however, if we say that all theories are insights, which are neither true nor false but, rather, clear in certain domains, and unclear when extended beyond these domains” (Bohm, 1980, pp. 5–6).

Bohm considered theories as insights instead of presuming one theory was true, and another false. We are “continually developing new forms of insight” (Bohm, 1980, p6), where older theories, that may not be falsified and were taken as fact, are replaced with newer ones.  We thus gain insights into new areas of knowledge and understanding. This can occur when we reframe the current understanding of reality. Bohm (1980) discusses how our framing, or fragmented thoughts, on “what the world is” are given a disproportionate importance. This leads to confusion making it impossible to find a solution to individual and social problems. Often we take these conceptual representation of reality, including scientific theories, as fact (Bohm, 2013; Capra, 1975). Lakoff, (2014) states that frames are taken as reality and even when a frame is negated it is activated. To not think about something, it needs to be silenced or replaced with another dominant frame. For example, “Don’t think of pink elephants”; the only way not to think of this is to think of something else, such as, “blue cars”. This is a very powerful technique to control the narrative (Knight, 2002; Lakoff, 2008, 2014).

 

“The world we see is far more than those words, but it is organized through a representation in which those words have had a big effect. The way we talk about things and the way we think about things affect how we see them” (Bohm, 1992, p. 143).

Frames thus influence the fragmentation of thought. The language structure even contributes to this fragmentation, presuppositions tend to be hidden very deep in the structure of our thought (Bohm, 1980). Even the grammatical structure of the language “sustain and propagate” fragmentation. The subject-verb-object structure of sentences “implies that all action arises in a separate entity, the subject” (Bohm, 1980, p. 36). It must also be noted that the framing in spoken language can also be associated with the emphasis placed on certain words which can be misinterpreted in written communication. Written communications can also be misinterpreted by the emotional state of the person projecting their reality when reading it.

 

“What is primarily needed is a growing realization of the extremely great danger of going on with a fragmentary process of thought. Such a realization would give the inquiry into how thought actually operates that sense of urgency and energy required to meet the true magnitude of the difficulties with which fragmentation is now confronting us” (Bohm, 1980, p. 24) .

Often sets of actions are turned into nouns as if they were objects, when in fact they are processes. Bohm defines the ‘rheomode’, derived from the Greek word “rheo,” meaning “to flow” where the verb rather than the noun plays the primary role in language. This alters conceptual understanding. Bohm introduced this concept as an experimental verbal mode of English. This is beyond the scope of this article and the author recommends reading about the rheomode in Chapter 2 of ‘Wholeness and the Implicate Order’ (Bohm, 1980, pp. 34–60). This concept of processes is a commonality between David Bohm and NLP. A classic example of this is “the science” (noun) compared to science (verb) as a process.

 

“In scientific inquiries a crucial step is to ask the right question. Indeed, each question contains presuppositions, largely implicit. If these presuppositions are wrong or confused, then the question itself is wrong, in the sense that to try to answer it has no meaning. One has thus to inquire into the appropriateness of the question. In fact, truly original discoveries in science and in other fields have generally involved such inquiry into old questions, leading to a perception of their inappropriateness, and in this way allowing for the putting forth of new questions. To do this is often very difficult, as these presuppositions tend to be hidden very deep in the structure of our thought” (Bohm, 1980, p. 36).

Words have a relative meaning (Capra, 1975) through conceptual frames (Lakoff, 2014). Verbal interpretations need to be understood but are imprecise (Capra, 1975). There is a lack of “shared meaning” which, according to Bohm (1985) is the biggest obstacle to progress, it hinders the dissemination of information. NLP discusses how framing techniques can be used to control communication and emotional behaviour (Knight, 2002; Linder-Pelz, 2010). The framing of the problem therefore has serious ramifications in science, academia, socio-economic activities, and policymaking. A wrong or confusing supposition (or a hypothesis in science) can thus lead to the wrong questions being asked resulting in false or misleading conclusions.

 

Frames, the Map Not the Territory

Proverbs 29:9 “If a wise man contendeth with a foolish man, whether he rage or laugh, there is no rest.” (King James Bible Online, n.d.).

We have stated, and presumed, that frames are not absolute yet often, as stated previously, presumed as fact (Bohm, 1980, 1992; Chinnaiah, 2018; Chong & Druckman, 2007; Gregory, 2018; Grint, 2005; Lakoff, 2014; Papafragou, 2000; Sang, 2009; Scott, 1998). When presumed as a fact the framing can be polarise. A polarised ideological belief system that is fixed and accepted without question is called dogma.

 

“…dogmatic systems have the two further disadvantages of involving false beliefs on practically important matters of fact, and of rousing violent hostility in those who do not share the fanaticism in question” (Russell, 2009b, p. 444).

When a belief system becomes dogmatic, it prevents dialogue (Bohm, 1980; Sheldrake, 2012). With contemporary issues in science, the old adage that “the road to hell is paved with good intentions” is an apt statement; well-intentioned actions and policies can have unintended negative consequences if they do not consider the broader context  of the whole system (Bohm, 1992; Carson, 1962; Howes, 2014; Pellow, 2014; Scott, 1998; Watts, 1951). Carson (1962) highlighted how mistakes can be made while attempting to make (perceived) improvements. Carson (1962) was credited with launching the modern environmental movement and raising awareness about the dangers of pesticides and other chemical pollutants. Carson argued that the extensive use of pesticides, caused serious environmental harm and risks to human health (Carson, 1962). Carson criticised the practices of the chemical industry and government regulators, arguing that they were prioritising industry profits over environmental and public health concerns. Carson’s book “Silent Spring” (1962) had a profound impact on public opinion and led to the banning of several harmful pesticides, including Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT), an organo-chloride crystalline chemical compound originally developed as an insecticide. DDT became infamous for its environmental impacts even though it was very effective.

 

“The highest virtue is not virtuous.
Therefore it has virtue.
The lowest virtue holds on to virtue.
Therefore it has no virtue.,” (Stenudd, 2015).

Paradoxically, after the DDT ban in 1972 by the WHO there were many deaths until new solutions became available (Moore & Albert, 2010). It was argued that her book contained many errors and many of the bold claims never happened (Gershon, 2019; Gilmore, 2017; Meiners et al., 2012; The Power of a Book, n.d.). Despite helping with the modern environmental studies and science policy research, “Silent Spring” was therefore criticised for ignoring the positive benefits of chemicals  (Morriss et al., 2012; Springer, 2017; Twidle, 2013). What Carson highlighted was a blessing and a curse depending upon how you frame the problem. This highlights the importance of considering the whole territory, not just the map we perceive to be true.

 

The Map: An Abstract System

Aporetic describes a doubt, uncertainty, and scepticism with science. The lack of aporia in science, or situation where “the science” is taken as a matter of fact, has been observed by many scholars and can lead to scientific bias (Agassi, 2016; Bohm, 1980, 1992, 2003, 2013; Bohm, Kelly, & Morin, 1996; Capra, 1975; Chong & Druckman, 2007; Cummings, Bridgman, & Brown, 2016; Foucault, 2005; Hall & Deardorff, 2006; Kuhn, 1970; Lakoff, 2008, 2010, 2014; Lambert et al., 2014; Parenti, 1986, 1996; Rosling, 2019; Scott, 1998). An irresolvable disagreement or logical disjunction in a scientific argument or theory can occur when a fixed paradigm is challenged with an alternative argument or theory (Kuhn, 1970).

There is a lack of permanence in relationships, concepts, ideas and thoughts, such as mental constructs, or abstract systems (Bohm, 1980, 1992, 2003). These are used to organise the world. Bohm (1992) stated that we are identified with mental constructs or abstract thought systems more than we are associated with what is truth. Schuster (2018) describes a system as a group of interconnected elements working together towards a common purpose or function. Systems have specific characteristics and consistent patterns of activities. A system is thus a series of interconnecting processes, an area of control with specific conditions and norms in order to function; it is a group of interacting individual or groups of units (or subsystems) that can change by pressure from the external environment or other factors (or other systems) (Bohm, 1992; Lakoff, 2010; Schuster, 2018). Systems thinking requires an understanding of these elements, the interconnections between them, and purpose or function of a system to understand any problem within them. Simple linear cause and effect cannot solve perceived problems of complex systems, and this could create unintended consequences that are not always beneficial.

 

Systems framed around abstract models are subject to certain assumptions (Lakoff, 2010). For example, scientists often presume that nature is a mechanical system governed by mathematical laws (Hinz, 1991; Lakoff, 2014), yet all systems are relative to various purposes and how they are framed (Bohm et al., 1996). None of them show the complete reality and therefore they are not absolute (Bohm, 1992; Watts, 1951). They provide an approximation to reality, like the adage “a map is not the territory”, providing guidance as to the right path (Korzybski, 2004; Scott, 1998). The framing limits the facts and what is even perceived as common sense (Lakoff, 2014). The framing of systems is influenced by the personality, values, norms, ideology, presumptions, and preconceived ideas of each person (Bohm, 2013; Bohm et al., 1996; Korzybski, 2004; Lakoff, 2014; Linder-Pelz, 2010; Scott, 1998). This will be reflected in the interpretation of the system and potential questioned asked and solutions to the perceived problems.

 

Framing in terms of systems and subsystems help simplify, organise, and understand the world allowing scientists to identify autonomous processes, map interdependencies, and provide hypothetical analysis (Lakoff, 2010). Interdependencies can be abstract, social, psychological, economic, or physical (Schuster, 2018). A person’s behaviour is associated with “their subjective understanding and internal representation of the world”, (Linder-Pelz, 2010, p79). This map is thus unique to everyone, and is not the territory (Korzybski, 2004; Linder-Pelz, 2010; Scott, 1998).

 

Abstract Framing of a Scientific Hypothesis

A hypothesis is a best guess (Feynman, n.d., 1999). A scientific hypothesis is a tentative, testable explanation for a phenomenon in the natural world. It is an educated guess based on prior knowledge and observation, but more informed than a simple guess (Feynman, n.d., 1999). A hypothesis is a specific, preliminary answer to a research question, guiding the investigation and helping to focus the study (Feynman, n.d., 1999). The scientific process usually starts with idea and observation leading to the formulation of a the hypothesis, usually deduced from logic, and follows this through to validation.

There are links between poor scientific practices and NLP techniques used to influence behaviour. While both scientific hypotheses and frames in NLP serve as conceptual frameworks for understanding and representing knowledge, they differ in their goal, structure, testability, abstraction, validation, and scope. Scientific hypotheses are designed to guide experimentation and prediction in a specific domain, whereas frames in NLP are used to facilitate inference and guide behaviour (Briggs, 2016; Feynman, n.d., 1999; Knight, 2002; Linder-Pelz, 2010). With the scientific process, a hypothesis is a testable statement that predicts the relationship between variables, guiding experimentation, or data collection (Briggs, 2016; Feynman, n.d., 1999). NLP represents a frame as a structured representation of knowledge, used to organise and relate concepts, entities, and relationships guiding communication. A scientific hypothesis typically consists of a clear statement of the expected relationship between variables, whereas a frame in NLP is a more flexible, abstract model that can highlight complex relationships between objects, characteristics, and roles. Scientific hypotheses are designed to be tested through experimentation or data analysis, whereas frames in NLP are often used to enable inference, classification, or generate goals, rather than being directly testable. Scientific hypotheses, although abstract, focus on specific, concrete phenomena, whereas frames in NLP can be more conceptual interpretation of reality, deducing or presuming general patterns and relationships across multiple domains and contexts. Scientific hypotheses are validated through empirical evidence and statistical analysis, whereas frames in NLP are typically validated through evaluation metrics, such as precision and recall on specific tasks. Scientific hypotheses typically address a specific research question or phenomenon, whereas frames in NLP make an abstract concept appear real and aim to directly influence human thought and behaviour (Feynman, n.d., 1999, 2011; Gurkovsky, 2015; Knight, 2002; Linder-Pelz, 2010).

The scientific process doesn’t prove; it only disproves. A theory is simply an explanation and is tested every time new information comes to light. If it fails, then it’s wrong or we gain more insights, but it is never proven correct. This is why the scientific process identifies the opposite of what you are trying to prove, the null hypothesis. For example, if you want to show that having a pet dog makes you happier, the null hypothesis would be that having a pet dog has no effect on your happiness.

 

Examples of the null hypothesis for different scenarios (source: unknown)

Medicine 1

Suppose you want to test whether a new drug lowers blood pressure. The null hypothesis would be that the drug has no effect on blood pressure, or that it may even increase it. The alternative hypothesis would be that the drug lowers blood pressure. You would write the hypotheses as follows:

H0: The drug does not lower blood pressure or increases it.

HA: The drug lowers blood pressure.

Medicine 2

Suppose you want to test whether a new vaccine was effective against disease X. The null hypothesis would be that the drug has no effect on disease X, or that it may make it worse. The alternative hypothesis would be that the vaccine was effective against disease X. You would write the hypotheses as follows:

H0: The vaccine does not prevent disease X or increases it.

HA: The vaccine was effective against disease X.

Education

Suppose you want to test whether a new teaching method improves test scores. The null hypothesis would be that the teaching method has no effect on test scores, or that it may even decrease them. The alternative hypothesis would be that the teaching method improves test scores. You would write the hypotheses as follows:

H0: The teaching method does not improve test scores or decreases them.

HA: The teaching method improves test scores.

Biology 1

Suppose you want to test whether the height of a certain species of plant is affected by sunlight. The null hypothesis would be that the height of the plant is not influenced by sunlight, or that it may even be negatively affected by it. The alternative hypothesis would be that the height of the plant is positively affected by sunlight. You would write the hypotheses as follows:

H0: The height of the plant is not influenced by sunlight or is negatively affected by it.

HA: The height of the plant is positively affected by sunlight.

Biology 2

Suppose you want to test whether the height of a certain species of plant is affected by CO₂ concentration. The null hypothesis would be that the height of the plant is not influenced by CO₂ concentration, or that it may even be negatively affected by it. The alternative hypothesis would be that the height of the plant is positively affected by CO₂ concentration. You would write the hypotheses as follows:

H0: The height of the plant is not influenced by CO₂ concentration or is negatively affected by it.

HA: The height of the plant is positively affected by CO₂ concentration.

Climate: Carbon dioxide causes global warming.

To test whether carbon dioxide causes global warming, the null hypothesis would be that carbon dioxide has no effect on global warming, or that it may even have a cooling effect. The alternative hypothesis would be that carbon dioxide has a warming effect on global warming. You would write the hypotheses as follows:

H0: Carbon dioxide does not affect global warming or has a cooling effect.

HA: Carbon dioxide affects global warming and has a warming effect.

These hypotheses assume that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas that absorbs and re-emits infrared energy, which contributes to the greenhouse effect and increases the Earth’s temperature. To reject the null hypothesis, you would need to show that there is a significant correlation between carbon dioxide levels and global warming, and that other factors (such as solar activity, albedo effect (Earth’s surface, clouds, or ice), aerosols, volcanoes, etc.) are not the main drivers of climate change.

The null hypothesis is a statement that assumes there is no causal relationship between variables or phenomena. Any observed difference is due to chance or error, and not due to a causal relationship. It is the default assumption that is tested by scientific experiments or statistical analysis. The null hypothesis can be rejected or refuted if there is enough evidence to show that it is incorrect beyond a reasonable doubt. It is what you assume to be true until you have enough evidence to reject it. Rejecting the null hypothesis means that you have found a significant difference or relationship that is not due to chance or error.

 

A hypothesis can serve a purpose

With NLP, an assumption or hypothesis can be considered true if it is useful to obtaining a particular outcome. For example “everything happens for a reason and a purpose, and it serves us.” This may or may not be true, however, this is not important, the concept is taken as real, even if it isn’t. If such a belief serves us to achieve better results, then this is what matters (Robbins, 1997).

Reification is the process in science where a model is mistaken for reality, when models are used with certainty instead of scientific data to judge the truth there is a risk that wrong conclusions are reached (Briggs, 2016, p. 158). A Technocratic Ideology can be defined as a reified technological solution or process to solve a perceived problem in society. Hence it is important to understand the difference between a scientific hypothesis and an abstract concept taken as fact.

 

“So it may be refined, modified, and even radically changed, through further observation, experiment and experience. But in order to be a ‘real fact’, it evidently has, in this way, to remain constantly valid, at least in certain contexts or over a certain period of time” (Bohm, 1980, p. 56).

Mathematical and computer models are also just hypothetical. If the model’s prediction does not match observation, it is wrong (Feynman, n.d., 1999, 2011).  Machine learning hypothesis testing machines yield insights both when they succeed and when they fail, however, substituting statistical inference for a hypothesis is not good scientific practice. Predictive statistics is a branch of statistics that focuses on developing models to ideally forecast future conclusions based on historical data and patterns (Briggs, 2016, p. 156).

All models are based on presumed assumptions and are therefore conditional. Its primary purpose is to quantify uncertainty and make probabilistic statements about a result and hence derive a potential conceptual understanding. Whereas a hypothesis is a specific, testable prediction about a phenomenon, derived from a theoretical framework or conceptual understanding. It provides a clear target for investigation and guides the design of experiments or data collection (Agassi, 2016; Feynman, n.d., 1999, 2011). A hypothesis therefore is not a conclusion, but rather a starting point for further exploration and verification providing insight (Bohm, 2013).

 

“Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way.” (Crichton, 2003).

The essence of the scientific process is straightforward, compare your prediction to nature, (an observation from experiment), if the hypothesis disagrees with experiment, then it is wrong. (Agassi, 2016; Feynman, n.d., 1999, 2011). The scientific method requires agreement or consensus in the experimental process for it to be validated “to define and test a mechanism of causation to prove cause” rather than correlation (Poyet, 2022, p. 443). This is the replication of the experiment for achievement of consistency and verification of results. This is a standard process for agreement in the scientific process.

 

“Therefore, consensus can be observed but hardly used as a proof of the validity of any theory, as claiming a consensus is the mere admission of an absence of proper evidence.” (Poyet, 2022, p. 21).

Often a political consensus is used as justification for a particular abstract problem. Consensus is a logical fallacy based on an argument from authority, it is a faith (based on false presumptions), not a science. It is therefore not rational scientific thought and implies there is a lack of proper evidence  (Crichton, 2003; Poyet, 2022) and, in certain fields, a lack of scientific rigour (Frank, 2015). Large political or corporate initiatives based on unverifiable scientific hypotheses is fraudulent behaviour (Poyet, 2022). Science should only inform political choices; it cannot determine what people “should” do (Pielke, 2007).

 

“…great religions are dissipated by following form without remembering the direct content of the teaching of the great leaders. In the same way it is possible to follow form and call it science but it is pseudoscience. In this way we all suffer from the kind of tyranny we have today in the many institutions that have come under the influence of pseudoscientific advisers. (Feynman, 1999, p. 163).

Feynman (1999) highlighted the value of rational thought and the importance of freedom of thought in science. The tacit skills of the scientific process are independent of the codified scientific facts. Institutions can be oppressed by pseudoscientific experts who teach people to make observations and lists and apply statistics, but they imitate science. To learn in science, you must doubt these experts and find out for yourself (Feynman, 1999, p. 163).

 

 

Polarisation framing in contemporary science.

Several scholars have examined the implications of polarisation and division in contemporary science with regards to the pursuit of sustainability (Kahan et al., 2010; Pumphrey, R. L. et al., 2017; Stoker & Curry, 2020). Kahan (et al., 2010) argued that the polarisation on climate change issues is driven by cultural and ideological values shaping public perceptions of risk and uncertainty rather than scientific ignorance. Pumphrey (R. L. et al., 2017) suggested that political polarisation hinders the development and implementation of policies and technologies aimed at promoting sustainability and stated that there is a need for greater collaboration among different stakeholders to overcome this obstacle. Stoker and Curry (2020) argue that climate change has become a highly politicised issue, with opinions divided along ideological, cultural, and economic lines.

Some scholars argue that this division between science and academia can motivate researchers to explore innovative approaches for promoting sustainability (Miller, 2019; Schlosberg et al., 2017). Schlosberg et al. (2017) discuss the concept of “environmental justice” and argue that it can provide a more nuanced and comprehensive framework for promoting sustainability, one that considers issues of power, representation, and social equity. Miller (2019) argues that the pursuit of sustainable development is an opportunity to rethink existing power structures and engage in transformative change at a systemic level: the sustainable Urban Delta is an example of this; it stimulates the population in cities to become food producing communities, thereby creating a healthy and sustainable living environment through inspiring and empowering residents to act (Sustainable Urban Delta, n.d.). Similarly, Auroville, an experimental university township developed in partnership with UNESCO in Viluppuram district was founded in 1968 by Mirra Alfassa. Auroville’s vision is to realize human unity in diversity, and to be a site of material and spiritual researches for a living embodiment of an actual human unity (Auroville, 2023; Taneja, 2018). Society can thus avoid polarisation and make effective decisions (Dryzek et al., 2019). However, Kahan (et al., 2010) state that the polarisation of science communication is a contributing factor preventing the development of effective sustainable solutions. This is not a true path (Watts, 1951).

 

Both skill-learning and education for inventive and creative behavior can be aided by institutional arrangement, but they are of a different, frequently opposed nature. (Illich, 1971, p. 17).

Illich (1971) argued that society has become institutionalised. This has created inefficient structures that don’t address the roots of many of society’s problems which has led to non-creative individuals doing mundane tasks, that they are not intrinsically motivated to do. The institutionalisation of values leads unavoidably to “global degradation and modernized misery” with pollution, social polarisation, and psychological impotence (Illich, 1971, p. 1).

RELATE ALSO TO SPRU WORK AND MLP

 

Technocratic Schemes, Ideologies and Disaster

Technocratic schemes

Scott (1998) referred to a high-modernist scheme as a technocratic fix to a perceived (systemic) problem that was (1) “undertaken in the name of and with the support of citizens seeking help and protection, and (2), that we are all beneficiaries, in countless ways” (Scott, 1998, p. 97). In his book “Seeing Like a State. How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed”, Scott (1998) discusses many schemes that led to disaster including Soviet Collectivization, Compulsory Villagization, and Taming Nature. A ‘Technocratic’, or ‘High-modernist’ scheme is defined as the administrative ordering of nature and society through a large-scale state-initiated intervention with the intention to simplify, standardize and reform society and nature. A Technocratic Scheme is influenced by the dominant paradigm. A Technocratic Ideology is defined as the idolisation of solutions and processes based on the certainty in science and technology to solve problems and create a better society (Scott, 1998). This is the politicisation of science or technology and generalises the map as the territory and could lead to disasterous outcomes (Scott, 1998). This will be discussed in more detail later.

 

“Now you see, if we say there are two nations, that’s the same kind of problem. You see, the people in the two nations may not be different, like France and Germany, right? Nevertheless they insist they are absolutely different. One says ‘Deutschland über Alles’, and the other says ‘Vive la France’, and they then say ‘We must set up tremendous boundaries; we must set up tremendous big fences across these boundaries; we must destroy anything to protect them, and you had the First world War.’ (Bohm, 1985, p. 27).

Watts (1952) stated that there is a perceived need to create security yet in doing so it can create the opposite effect. Inconsistent facts accrue leading to division and crisis (Sheldrake, 2012). This can lead to conflict or the potential for it, thus destroying the security the mental constructs were supposed to safeguard (Bohm, 1985, 1992; Sheldrake, 2012; Watts, 1951).

Scott’s concept of (High-Modernist) Technocratic Schemes is supported by Mumford’s (1984) framing of civilisation with “Authoritarian and Democratic Technics”. “Technics” was defined as the artefacts and processes of science or of an art that can transform our environment (Mumford, 1934). This could be considered as the economic and sociotechnical processes associated with improving and transforming technology and innovation (Pasmore et al., 2019; Smith & Stirling, 2008). “Authoritarian Technics” refer to a powerful system-centred process by authoritarian institutional or regime associated with central governance and/or a large incumbent organisation. “Democratic Technics” refer to the human needs and capabilities of personal communities at the grassroots bottom-up (local agent). They are two coexisting systems.

Authoritarian Technics are codified processes and procedures that serve the interests of a centralized system of power and control, while Democratic Technics are technologies that empower human creativity and freedom, using the local knowledge, tacit skills and diversity that are essential for human well-being. Examples of Authoritarian technics include national and international governance mechanisms, and large-scale institutions with policies and procedures. Examples of Democratic Technics include unions, local organisations, local decision makers including professional workers (doctor, nurse, labourer), groups of activists and protesters.

 

Democracy can be categorized into several distinct categories of governance structures. The different types of democracy reflect the various ways in which power can be shared among the people or delegated by them. They differ in the levels of participation, transparency, and accountability. Some being more incumbent, others being more elective and freer.

 

“Historic experience shows that it is much easier to wipe out democracy by an institutional arrangement that gives authority only to those at the apex of the social hierarchy than it is to incorporate democratic practices into a well-organized system under centralized direction, which achieves the highest degree of mechanical efficiency when those who work it have no mind or purpose of their own.” (Mumford, 1964, p. 2)

 

‘Authoritarian and Democratic Technics’ were seen as two mutually exclusive systems that work in synergy to maintain a healthy equilibrium. Mumford argued that democracy can be destroyed by an authoritarian institutional arrangement that fails to consider the democratic grassroots. However, although the Authoritarian Technics is powerful, it is also inherently unstable, whereas Democratic Technics, although relatively weak, are resourceful and durable human-centred processes.

 

“Where it goes brutally wrong is when the society subjected to such utopian experiments lacks the capacity to mount a determined resistance” (Scott, 1998, p. 89).

Scott (1998) stated that a complete disaster could occur – from a state-initiated social engineered technocratic scheme, (1) if there was administrative ordering of nature and society, (2) where a willing and able authoritarian state enabled a technocratic ideology, and (3) the civil society was suppressed and unable to resist the plans. A suppressed civil society is defined as one that is deprived of its autonomy and diversity by the state’s intervention where grassroots interventions are suppressed. It is one that is subjected to the Technocratic ideology, where the state imposes the administrative order on the complex and diverse real situation.

Potential problems with authority- based instruments

Although regulation has many advantages, it also has many problems. Control and monitoring the correct enforcement of regulations requires high financial and management costs. It has been argued that innovation is stifled because there no incentives with policy to go beyond legal requirements (Knill & Tosun, 2012b). There is also the danger of regulatory capture which can occur if a public authority or agency that is supposed to act in the public interest favours commercial or special interests that it has been charged with regulating. “Regulatory capture is particularly likely when the design of regulatory rules requires detailed scientific and technical information” (Knill & Tosun, 2012b, p. 24). This is because the regulating authorities rely, and can even depend on, the regulated industries (policy addressees) as they usually have the necessary complementary assets and greater knowledge. This gives the industries an important leverage to influence regulatory decisions (Knill & Tosun, 2012b).

 

Technocratic Industrial Complex

The term Military-Industrial Complex (MIC) was first coined by President Eisenhower in 1961. The MIC refers to the multifaceted relationship between a country’s military establishment and the defence industry that supplies it where vested interest that influences public policy benefit from the partnership between the military (obtaining weapons), and the defence industry (earning profits from supplying them) (Shellenberger, 2023; Weber, 2024). President Eisenhower warned against the potential dangers of unchecked influence by the MIC.

The Censorship Industrial Complex (CIC) is a term coined by Micheal Shellenberger in his testimony to ‘The House Select Committee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government’, March 9, 2023 (Shellenberger, 2023). The CIC is a complex web of government agencies, corporations, intelligence services, and media outlets that collude to suppress speech and silence online voices with misinformation and disinformation (Marshall & Shellenberger, 2023; Randall, 2023; Shellenberger, 2023).

We can define the Technocratic Industrial Complex (TIC) as the multifaceted relationship between national and international governance organisations, philanthropic foundations, and the CIC where vested interest that influences public policy benefit from this partnership. With the Technocratic Schemes the reification of science promotes the saliency for large-scale state-initiated interventions in collaboration with elite corporate stakeholders and philanthropic foundations to simplify, standardize and reform society and nature where vested interest that influences public policy benefit from these collaborations. The aggressive marketing campaigns and collaboration between the chemical industry and public officials with financial inducements associated with certain pesticide programs highlighted by Carson (1962) is an example of the TIC (Carson, 1962).

 

“How have intellectuals managed to be so wrong, so often? By thinking that because they are knowledgeable— or even expert— within some narrow band out of the vast spectrum of human concerns, that makes them wise guides to the masses and to the rulers of the nation.
But the ignorance of Ph.D.s is still ignorance and high-IQ groupthink is still groupthink, which is the antithesis of real thinking.” (Sowell, 2010, p. 260).

Mazzucato (2013) stated that stakeholders can be reluctant to take on risk so in the past governments have taken responsibility for high-risk investments in innovation, by, for example, providing the initial funding and support for breakthrough technologies. Governments have thus played a direct entrepreneurial role in driving innovation in partnership with industry. Mazzucato (2013) argues that this can be a more active and influential role. Mazzucato argued that the conventional policy and relationship between government and innovation needs to change, a passive, bureaucratic state could hinder innovation, whereas an active, entrepreneurial state drives innovation and technological progress. (Mazzucato, 2013). This idea promotes cooperation between stakeholders and government. The United Nations Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 17 also promotes these collaborations (UN, 2022). The governments take the risk, corporations reap the rewards of innovation, however, also implying the tax payers pay the price for any failures. Today, with the help of social media and the global communications network, citizen support for perceived problems enables international support for global Technocratic Schemes. Mazzucato ‘s approach risks adopting Scott’s concept of a high modernist scheme backed by an authoritarian regime. Presuming a frame to be true, fixed and accepted without question can confuse the map for the territory, prevent dialogue, and promote zealous behaviour.

It is therefore important to consider if governments and policymakers promote Technocratic schemes, (1) with administrative ordering of nature and society, (2) where a willing and able authoritarian state enabled a Technocratic ideology, and (3) the civil society is suppressed and unable to resist the plans.

 

Framing, Choice, and Politics

With the concepts of framing, the TIC, and Technocratic schemes, we will now explore the effect this has on policy outcomes from the perspective of ideological framing, the media, corporations, and governments.

The Illusion of Choice and “pre-emptive political decisions”

“There has never been a shortage of people eager to draw up blueprints for running other people’s lives.” (Sowell, 2018, p. 75).

Governments follow an ideology that is the map not the territory, they direct certain legislative orders, “based on their limited knowledge, their inclinations, their prejudices, the reification of science, and their personal experiences” using propaganda to make the whole country comply (Krishnamurti, 1957). Other political decision-making strategies involve acting before a threat becomes imminent or certain, based on the supposition that inaction will lead to a greater cost than if action was taken (Pielke, 2007). This can create saliency for policy adoption by creating value disputes through information, Pielke (2007) referred to this as “pre-emptive political decisions”. Examples of TIC schemes associated with “pre-emptive political decisions” are (1) the pre-emptive political decision which justified the claim that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction and posed an imminent danger to the US and its allies providing saliency for the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003  (Pielke, 2007), and (2) the recent COVID pandemic response which was a collaboration on a global scale between governments, the WHO, the media, and other organisations (Auld et al., 2021; Schwab & Malleret, 2020; Shellenberger, 2023). (The former is also a MIC, which is part of the TIC).

 

With “pre-emptive political decisions” there can be negative consequences when a government’s, (or inter-governmental organisation’s), message is misleading. Without considering the broader context, policymakers risk developing policies that could have unintended negative consequences and potential lock-in to an inferior path. For example, with regards to socio-economic inequality, the push for renewable energy technologies may result in the displacement of workers and the concentration of industry in already affluent regions (Jorgenson et al., 2018). Without a focus on social equity and justice, initiatives can perpetuate existing inequalities, particularly for marginalised communities (Schlosberg et al., 2017). It was also discussed earlier that the WHO’s decision to ban DDT led to many unnecessary deaths until new solutions became available.

The Media, Government and Corporations

“The masses have never thirsted after truth. They turn aside from evidence that is not to their taste, preferring to deify error, if error seduces them. Whoever can supply them with illusions is easily their master; whoever attempts to destroy their illusions is always their victim.”  (Le Bon, 2009, p. 137).

NLP highlights how movies, books, TV shows or other forms of media change people’s internal representations and states. This can be a blessing or a curse. It means that a large number of people’s internal representations can be changed and therefore a considerable number of people’s states, and thus massive numbers of people’s behaviours can be influenced by the Mainstream Media (MSM). NLP can thus use our understanding of the triggers to human behaviour, and the present-day technology for communicating these new representations to the masses, and change the future of our world (Robbins, 1997). When we change the behaviours of the masses, we can change the course of progress.

In La Psychologie des Foules Le Bon stated that those who control the illusion are the masters of the masses (Le Bon, 1905, 2009). There are many examples of where the media has a huge influence in the types and ways that information is perceived by the public (Feynman, 1999; Ottati et al., 2016). Barnhizer & Candeub (2019) argued that the illusion of truth, or “fake news”, undermines the rule of law and favours the political control by a dominant oligarchic elite. The media in general agree with the government because their action is dictated by vested ideological or financial interests of the politicians (Kingdon, 1995; Krishnamurti, 1957).

 

“The more cunning the organizer, the greater the possibility of controlling man’s mind.” (Krishnamurti, 1957).

Entertainment and news are tools for advertisers to promote their objectives. The corporate and government elites control the news, and the opinions are disseminated in the media, making choice apparent but, an illusion (Gilens, 2012; Gilens & Page, 2014; Parenti, 1986). Extreme and neurotic mass communication is reinforced by the unethical behaviour of elites (Dryzek et al., 2019).

 

“The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum—even encourage the more critical and dissident views. That gives people the sense that there’s free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate.” (Chomsky, 2011, p. 240).

Liberal democracy has been considered the start of fraud masking the continued rule by elites (Fukuyama, 2015; Gilens, 2012; Gilens & Page, 2014). Elites, Multinational Corporations (MNCs) and charitable foundations appear to have control of the media through their partnerships with governments and they in turn enhance polarisation (Dryzek et al., 2019).  Although the media isn’t the only cause of ‘misguided’ information (Rosling, 2019) there is a correlation between the amount of coverage of issues in the media and the public’s level of concern and this may influence policy adoption (Kingdon, 1995; Murphy & Devine, 2018; Mutz & Soss, 1997).

 

Parenti (1986) states that the media self-censor and “faithfully serves the official viewpoint” but do not always do so in the ways that policymakers want. Priming and telling the public about a topic before they can rationalise it are tools that are used by the media (Entman, 2007; Lowery et al., 2007; Ottati et al., 2016; Parenti, 1986). Misleading the public  creates a false reality (Hood, 2011; Lightfoot & Ratzer, 2022; Parenti, 1986, 1996, 2001; Sobieraj & Berry, 2011).  Similarly, planned campaigns to frighten the public create controversy (Catt, 2023; Daily Telegraph, 2023) and this has been called the ‘demonology of spin’ (McNair, 2004).

 

“I think we live in an unscientific age in which almost all the buffeting of communications and television words, books, and so on are unscientific. That doesn’t mean they are bad, but they are unscientific. As a result, there is a considerable amount of intellectual tyranny in the name of science.” (Feynman, 1999).

Bertrand Russel (2009) stated that such fear encourages a herd mentality where groups can end up persecuting those who do not comply, “Neither a man nor a crowd nor a nation can be trusted to act humanely or to think sanely under the influence of a great fear”(Russell, 2009b, p. 70). This was seen in the recent pandemic by both government institutes and the public.

 

“Under the influence of great fear, almost everybody becomes superstitious”(Russell, 2009b, p. 70).
“Fear generates impulses of cruelty, and therefore promotes such superstitious beliefs as seem to justify cruelty.” (Russell, 2009b, p. 70).

In the UK, this has dominated both British political journalism, and academic writing on public relations (PR) since the rise of New Labour in the 1990s (McNair, 2004). Ethical constraints by the PR and journalists is needed, however, the polarised relationship between both groups protects against the excesses of either, and makes the political process more transparent to the media audience (McNair, 2004). However, this can constrain the debate and give the illusion of free thinking (Chomsky, 2011, p. 240) and assumes that the public can discern between the manipulative uses of framing, cause and effect, and the honest scientific facts, which may not be the case (Medearis, 2001). It also assumes that all opposing parties are not influenced by the same lobbyists (Iftinchi & Hurduzeu, 2018). If the news cannot be sensationalised the media often concentrate on personal traits and values rather than on the real context of an issue (Parenti, 1986).

 

Policy Adoption & Framing

“The opinions that are held with passion are always those for which no good ground exists; indeed the passion is the measure of the holder’s lack of rational conviction. Opinions in politics and religion are almost always held passionately.” (Russell, 1928, p. 3)

Policy adoption is a reductive process with the implicit assumption that a particular policy is right (Lakoff, 2014) aiming to create a single preferred choice of action (Pielke, 2007). Strong frames can be created around presumptions, that may or may not be true (Chong & Druckman, 2007; Wahl-Jorgensen & Hanitzsch, 2009). They may not necessarily be an “intellectually or morally superior arguments”; they can be exaggerations and complete lies and play on “the fears and prejudices of the public” (Chong & Druckman, 2007, p111). Frames can be used in manipulative or deceptive ways to mislead the public (Hood, 2011). Spin and propaganda are manipulative uses of framing. Spin can be used to make an embarrassing or unethical situation look normal (e.g. ‘paedophile’ cf. ‘minor attractive person’). Propaganda aims to get the public to accept a false frame with the intention of maintaining or gaining more political control (Hood, 2011; Lakoff, 2014; Parenti, 1986; Wahl-Jorgensen & Hanitzsch, 2009). As a propaganda system the mainstream media can limit the scope of acceptable opinion by continually reinforcing frames and thus giving the illusion of free thinking (Chomsky, 2011).

 

Wicked problems

“We have this systemic fault; and you can see that this is what has been going on in all these problems of the world…” (Bohm, 1992, p. 26).

Mittiga (2021) discussed the growing “authoritarian environmentalism” governance mode and political legitimacy, particularly regarding climate change, where (perceived) catastrophic events allow for a more authoritarian approach. Mittiga distinguished between Foundational and Contingent Legitimacy. Foundational Legitimacy refers to “a government’s ability to ensure the safety and security of its citizens” (Mittiga, 2021, p. 3). Contingent Legitimacy is associated with acceptable ways to exercise power while maintaining Foundational Legitimacy. What is regarded as acceptable and what is perceived as a perceived catastrophic event are, however, subjective. With the framing of climate change as a ‘wicked problem’ it has come to be seen as an existential threat (Massey, 2022). Similarly, the recent pandemic has been framed as a wicked or super wicked problem (Auld et al., 2021; Schiefloe, 2021).

Wicked problems are defined as systemic abstract beliefs associated with evolving policy problems that do not correspond exactly to the conventional models of policy analysis (Peters, 2017; Rittel & Webber, 1973). The wicked, or perceived wicked, problems faced by policymakers are complex and hard to resolve, a simple ‘right’ answer may be ambiguous (Grint, 2005; Massey, 2022). Grint (2005) argue that collaboration is essential for progress to be made with a wicked problem; the framing is crucial as it determines the questions asked rather than providing right answers. Reified scientific suppositions used by policymakers can be considered perceived wicked problems. Many of the apparent wicked problems we face today may however not meet the criteria to be classed as wicked (Peters, 2017).

Rosling (2019) discussed that there is a need for a more intelligent assessment process with complex systems. Similarly, Lakoff (2010) stated that the correct frames for understanding policy may need defining correctly. There is a need to move away from the linear cause and effect thinking to a more systemic approach in order to prevent unintended consequences that may not benefit a sustainable future (Schuster, 2018). Yet, the meaning of an abstract concept can be very different depending upon how it is represented. Concepts can be only partially correct or even illusory, reality is filtered by our perception, filtered by our framing and thus a cause of conflict due to the contradiction of ‘facts’ (Bohm, 1980). There is a systemic fault in the thinking process making collaboration difficult (Bohm, 1992) where those in control of the illusion (or level of abstraction) can easily be the master of the masses (Knight, 2002; Le Bon, 2009; Linder-Pelz, 2010).

Policy adoption is not always simple and is open to interpretation, politicians and policymakers need more than clear data (Bohm, 1992; Rosling, 2019). With the apparent complex wicked problems in political science the polarised framing currently used by policymakers may need to be radically reconsidered to prevent confusion, misperceptions, and unintended consequences. Systems should be considered rather than looking at simple cause and effect, or for someone to blame when things go wrong or looking for heroes when things go right (Rosling, 2019).

 

“When you live in the shadow of insanity, the appearance of another mind that thinks and talks as yours does is something close to a blessed event” (Pirsig, 1974, p. 260).

A group (or community) may have shared abstract frames yet between groups there is contradiction and division due to the models being fixed, limited and often polarised (Bohm, 1992, 2003). Even though polarised framing may not give a complete picture of the whole problem it does create an easy-to-understand problem and captures an audience offering simple solutions and saliency required for policy change or business decisions. When it is presumed that a scientific theory is a scientific fact, or reified, then it is often interpreted in a righteous way and worthy of veneration. This is the definition of religion (Encyclopedia Britannica, n.d.), or scientism (Sheldrake, 2012). Watts’ (1951) stated that religious symbols get confused with reality. A reified scientific insight is a Technocratic Ideology, an abstract symbol, or map of the territory.

Science and Technology Policy

Science and Technology Policy (STP) is a set of processes and decisions that aim to influence the use of science, technology and innovation (STI) for improving society. This could be for the purpose of, for example, economic growth, social welfare, environmental protection, or national security (Strings, 2022). STP endeavours to improve and generate the use of science and technology for society, industries, and/or individual firms (Nightingale, 2019c). STP is very broad, involving many governing agencies leading to coordination problems, inconsistencies and confusion between regulatory and promotional policies, a comprehensive policy mix must consider path dependency and lock-in. Policy needs to balance energy security, economic development, with environmental impacts and society concerns (Kates et al., 2005). STP can play a pivotal role in defining the direction of innovation towards (for example, sustainable) goals. Innovation is the, (often uncertain), process of taking a novel idea, process or product and commercialising it with the aim of making and improving a concept, process or product for successful commercial exploitation (Coad et al., 2014; Nightingale, 2019a). The partnerships between governments and industry can lead to a more sustainable outcome.

Irrational Beings & Policy Adoption

“Crowds, doubtless, are always unconscious, but this very unconsciousness is perhaps one of the secrets of their strength” (Le Bon, 2009, p. 10).

“Crowds instinctively recognise in men of energy and conviction the masters they are always in need of” (Le Bon, 2009, p. 240).

Democracies rely on norms and ‘the rule of law. This depends on rational analysis (Barnhizer & Candeub, 2019).  Many scholars have argued that the majority of people are possibly irrational and unable to discern what might be considered a logical argument, being influenced by emotion and desires they are susceptible to manipulation (Homans et al., 1966; Huxley, 1974; Krishnamurti, 2018; Le Bon, 2009; Li et al., 2014; Medearis, 2001; Nye, 1977).

 

“Once you have crafted lenses that change your perspective, it is a great temptation to look at everything through the same spectacles.”  (Scott, 1998)

The polarisation of science makes the information accessible to the public and, it is more salient for the development of new policy. However, when science is taken as a matter of fact, an ideological belief in the scientific and technical processes can develop where science advocacy replaces honest science (Bohm, 1980; Pielke, 2007). The ideological framing is not a complete understanding, it is fragmented, the map is not the territory (Bohm, 1980; Scott, 1998). The scientific message can also be considered sub-standard or fraudulent and could lead to devastating outcomes (Poyet, 2022). When the message is fragmented and polarised, this can lead to conflict (Bohm, 1980, 1992; Bohm et al., 1996; Bohm & Krishnamurti, 2004; Briggs, 2016, 2021). The world is a complex dynamic system and a fixed belief taken as fact is a presumption (Bohm, 1980, 1992).

Implications of Framing for Science and Science Policy Research

Information has to make sense to the public in terms of their system of frames, otherwise it is ignored (Lakoff, 2010). Framing cannot be avoided; politicians and political journalists frame situations using their prejudiced agenda. Framing uses language (and often subliminal messages and presumptions) to structure the situation to a cause (Bohm, 2013; Capra, 1975; McNair, 2004; Wahl-Jorgensen & Hanitzsch, 2009). Scientist are prone to deception by the illusion of objectivity, this hinders finding the truth (Sheldrake, 2012). This ‘dishonest science’ becomes a divide leading to conflict (Bhattacherjee, 2012; Whitehead, 2014). The politicisation of science is vulnerable to framing (Parenti, 2001) and this has enormous implications to the impartiality of science and science policy research (Pielke, 2007).

 

“The biggest scientific delusion of all is that science already knows the answers.” (Sheldrake, 2012, p. 7).

For the academic community, ideological framing can prevent healthy scepticism and discourse in science and promotes division between those who perceive an abstract model as true or false (Bohm, 1992). Even if most scientists are aiming for the same holistic outcome of ‘a better world’, the polarised framing, where “the science is settled” leads to a perceived truth where the dogma associated with it encourages division and conflict (Bohm, 1980, 1992, 2013; Watts, 1951). This is Scientism (Sheldrake, 2012).

 

“…if somebody doesn’t listen to your basic assumptions you feel it as an act of violence, and then you are inclined to be violent yourself.” (Bohm, 2013, p. 46).

It is the scientific process that can provide the path to truth (Bohm, 2013; Feynman, 1999; Pielke, 2007; Popper, 1966; Russell, 2009a; Saad, 2020; Watts, 1951). Scientist must remain impartial and provide a range of possible outcomes and resolving scientific debates will resolve political debates (Pielke, 2007). By removing value judgements science can be a tool for impartially providing certain options, (Pielke, 2007). New questions may be asked if we turn the underlying assumptions into questions (Sheldrake, 2012). Policymakers, researchers, and stakeholders must work together constructively to overcome these challenges, promote innovative solutions, and ensure that intentions are effectively translated into actions that support equitable, just, and ecological futures.

To summarise, preconceived ideas dominate the questions asked and solutions framed. A suppressed civil society is deprived of its autonomy and diversity by the state’s intervention where grassroots interventions are suppressed by a TIC. With government involvement in technocratic schemes where stakeholders benefit without considering the needs of society there is a risk of disaster (Scott, 1998). There needs to be interventions to protect the democratic movements and careful consideration of the map and the territory.

Moving forward, with dialogue, we can openly discuss the presumptions behind our thought process and attain greater understanding (Bohm, 2013). However, this can as stated, be hindered by the dogma associated with the “Scientism” (Sheldrake, 2012). There needs to be a clear impartial method to highlight when policymakers are influenced by the Technocratic Industrial Complex.

The Framing of Ecology & Sustainability – are these suitable terms?

Our Common Future

Ecology relates to the study of interactions among living things and their environment. This involves a greater understanding of ourselves and our environment. Bohm (1980) argued, from a more philosophical perspective, that science has become too focused on reductionism and analysis, leading to a fragmentation of knowledge and a failure to see the interconnectedness of phenomena. Rachel Carson (1962) with her book “Silent Spring” was recognised as helping with the modern environmental studies launching ecology into the mainstream. Ecology relates to the study of interactions among living things and their environment. This involves a greater understanding of ourselves and our environment. Yet, Ecology is a word that has fallen out of fashion in politics and science and often replaced with the term sustainability. The 1987 Brundtland Report, also known as “Our Common Future,” commissioned by the United Nations (UN) and led by Gro Harlem Brundtland, produced for the UN, is often credited with coining the phrase  “sustainable development” as we understand it today (Harlem, 1987). “Sustainable development” is defined as the ability to meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs (Keeble, 1988). Sustainability has been defined as “the particular system qualities of human well-being, social equity and environmental integrity” (Leach et al., 2007).

The Differences Between Ecology & Sustainability

There are subtle and important differences between ecological and sustainable. The definition sustain is “to cause or allow something to continue for a period of time” (Cambridge Dictionary, n.d.) which implies staying the same. Inherent in the word sustainable is the presumption of sustaining being “correct”. Sustainability is associated with conservation and permanency with regards to protecting the planet, how we perceive it should be, usually on the premise of humankind verses nature (Gregory, 2018; Russell, 1928; Sang, 2009; Watts, 1951). This framing of the nature is a presumption accepted as a norm and not always challenged (Joost & Meerloo, 1956; Wahl-Jorgensen & Hanitzsch, 2009). This is an abstract ideology, the world is a complex dynamic system where such permanence is a presumption that is often taken as fact (Bohm, 1980, 1992). According to some scholars, this pursuit of permanence leads to attachment, fear of loss, jealousy, fear and hate; yet there is no permanence in anything (Bohm, 1980, 1992, 2003; Jiddu Krishnamurti, 2010).

The Global Technology Fix

A contemporary example associated with the Technocratic Industrial Complex is the global technology fix promoted by governments, global NGOs and corporations for the creation of a sustainable world. Bohm (1985) discusses the idea of one world. This is acknowledged by the “Think-global, act local” concept embraced by many governments, and nongovernment organisations including the WEF, EU, and UN (Poyet, 2022; Schwab & Malleret, 2020; UN, n.d.-b; Wecke, 2021). However, as stated previously, according to many scholars this too, when idolised, could create the opposite effect. Idealistic and reductive concepts could be argued a necessary evil, however, they create a divide (the map and the territory) and thus create conflicts, we are unable to move towards a more holistic truth where we are part of nature (Bohm, 1980, 1985, 2013; Watts, 1951).

The UN & IPCC’s Framing of a Perceived Climate Problem

The United Nations is an example of an organisation with a global agenda. The International Panel for Climate Change (IPCC) is the political science division of the UN, and their reports provide a major source of data. The UN defines climate change as the long-term shifts in temperatures and weather patterns with the caveat “since the 1800s, human activities have been the main driver of climate change, primarily due to the burning of fossil fuels like coal, oil and gas” (UN, n.d.-c). This is a presumption taken as fact.

The media message is often sensationalised, reporting the worst case scenarios, and usually not contested: science should be apolitical (Saad, 2020) which does not appear to be the case. – as it appears to be – acting as a science advocate (Pielke, 2007). The honest broker (in this context) should seek to provide clarity on the scope of choice (expanding it) and allow the decision makers to narrow the focus based on their own preferences. However, the issues advocate narrows the scope of choice based on (political) value judgements. Pielke, (2007) stated that, to be impartial, scientists should act as an honest broker; the representative of the IPCC, and its report often serve as a Stealth Issus Advocate due to some policy options being favoured over others.

The IPCC’s remit is to prepare “comprehensive Assessment Reports about the state of scientific, technical and socio-economic knowledge on climate change, its impacts and future risks, and options for reducing the rate at which climate change is taking place”(IPCC, n.d.). There are several underlying assumptions that are taken as a matter of fact and not questioned in the IPCC’s remit, including the presumption of only focusing on the future risk (with the implication of no benefits) and the rate of change (implying an urgency). It has been framed as a Wicked Problem. Whether this is intentional or not, this framing of the science is inherently biased and is a presumption not necessarily fact (Bohm, 1980, 1992; Lakoff, 2010).

While the Earth functions as a system, there is no comparable coordination in the human world. In that case the planet will impose the necessary adjustment, regardless of humankind, and rewild itself. (Gray, 2023, p. 46)

One of the main IPCC objectives is to investigate human related factors affecting the climate which leaves most other factors untouched (IPCC, n.d.). It presupposes the human factors are the cause. By focusing on the Anthropocene factors the framing of the narrative is controlled. It has been argued that the IPCC has a monopoly on the climate-knowledge-for-policy and it needs strict regulation (Tol, 2016). Some scholars even dismiss the Anthropocene global warming consensus (Frank, 2015). For decades the UN IPCC has been promoting in the media apparent wicked Anthropocene problems (IPCC, n.d.; Massey, 2022; Tol, 2016), it appears the repetition of a negative or positive frame has become reinforced over time and ingrained in the very synapses of people’s brains; it is perceived the norm, or an accepted fact, even if it may not be true. This has become hidden in the structure of our thought. Therefore this has not been questioned by many academics, politicians and journalists (Laframboise, 2012; O, 2023; Poyet, 2022; Tol, 2016). The empirical data suggests this is false, the climate is chaotic and CO₂ follows warming and the IPCC is misleading the public (Poyet, 2022).

Therefore time, effort & money appears to have been wasted on this. A crucial step in scientific inquiry is to ask the right question. This can be achieved when we understand the implications, or the presumptions, behind the original problem. Presupposing we are the cause to climate change may prevent us from asking more appropriate questions. Possibly it is time to ask new questions regarding the climate. For example, could we be spending far less on adapting to change? This is what humans have been doing for centuries. This brings us back to Carson and the subject of sustainability and ecology in the environmental movement. Is the framing of sustainability and ecology correct terminology?

 

The Road to a Sustainable Future

But of course, to understand this whole question, much more is required.” (Bohm, 1985, p. 25).

Enormous changes have been happening in the socio-technical system over the past decades with a technological paradigm shift away from fossil fuels to a sustainable energy system (Abas et al., 2015; Bergman & Foxon, 2021; Lombardi & Vannuccini, 2021; Mathews, 2013). A technoeconomic paradigm shift is a technology change characterised by the creation of space for the new technology, the growth or surge with it, and the ending of, or reduction in a previous technology (Perez, 2004). This shift has been exacerbated by the recent COVID pandemic. The challenges and opportunities of pursuing a sustainable future have been widely discussed and debated in academic and popular discourse for many years (Keeble, 1988). In particular, the issue of polarisation in contemporary science and academia has emerged as a key factor that can influence the success or failure of efforts to achieve sustainability (Kahan et al., 2010; Pellow, 2014; Rosling, 2019). However, the relationship between green intentions and the broader philosophical socioeconomic context has not always been carefully studied.

We need to encourage ecological processes, framing and policies in harmony with natural cycles (Bohm, 1985; Gregory, 2018; Lakoff, 2010; Sang, 2009; Watts, 1951). We need more than just a technological paradigm shift, we need a shift in the fundamental way we perceive our planet to create an ecological world (Bohm, 1985, 1992; Gregory, 2018; Lakoff, 2010; Lockwood, 2020; Pirsig, 1974; Rosling, 2019; Sang, 2009; Scott, 1998; Watts, 1951). A transition to a new sustainable paradigm appears to be prejudiced, suggesting that potentially there will not be the true transition needed to create a more ecological world. Trust in science and academia could be severely eroded by such implications.

 

“While asserting that the poor create their own poverty, ruling elites pursue policies that take from the needy and give to the greedy”. (Parenti, 1996, p. 27).

With the premise that global elites and government control the agenda in the TIC it appears that local needs are side-lined in favour of corporate and top-down governance needs (Parenti, 1996, 2016). With Sustainability taken as an ideology, again, this implies it is an Authoritarian Technocratic Ideology.

A Shift in Framing

Bohm suggests that we must shift our perspective to a more holistic and interconnected view of the universe to overcome these limitations. From a philosophical perspective, a technological paradigm is often associated with the “mastery of nature”, rather than working with nature (Bloom, 1991; Lakoff, 2014; Mearsheimer, 2018; Russell, 1928). Bohm (1980) emphasised that we cannot control nature. Being a part of nature the framing of “us and nature” can be replaced with just nature. With dialogue we can communicate with greater understanding gaining insights into the presumptions behind language. This paradigm shift in understanding allows for new questions to be asked based upon holistic presumptions. With this premise politicians and scientists can frame situations with a holistic perspective. It is important to consider the broader term of ecology where the word sustainable is often used. We are part of nature, and it is constantly changing, and we do not need to fear this.

“The place to improve the world is first in one’s own heart and head and hands, and then work outward from there” (Pirsig, 1974).

The consequences from the perspective of thinking global and acting local, indicates that we need to look at the grassroots for change, which is, ultimately, ourselves, being accountable for our own actions and how we perceive the world (Krishnamurti, 1985, 2010; Krishnamurti & Bohm, 2003; Pirsig, 1974). Instead of expecting government to be responsible for change, we must be part of the change.

 

Technocratic Schemes and the Road to Hell

One of the key themes the framing of science highlights is the influence of dogmatic scientific consensus on public opinion and thus the saliency to create changes in public policy. There is the implication that the framing of the problem can create worse outcomes if we allow imagination to guide our perception of reality.

How does a Technocratic Global Ideology lead to disaster?

A Technocratic Global Ideology is defined as global sociotechnical authoritarian solutions and processes based on the perceived certainty that science and technology will solve the sociotechnical problems and create a better society. However, has STP and a Technocratic Global Ideology contributed to destroying democracy by the institutional arrangement that gives authority only to those at the top of the social hierarchy (Mumford, 1964)?

The Road to a Global Technocratic Industrial Complex

The Industrial Revolution began in England at the end of the 18^th Century, leading to the diffusion of knowledge, complimentary assets, specialisation of skills and creating great wealth for many nations. As a result, the propagation of knowledge, complimentary assets and wealth became unevenly distributed around the world (Nightingale, 2019b; Pérez, 2010). The current techno-economic paradigm, it has been argued, has had negative consequences on the environment, society, and the economy. Firms are locked into business models stifling new growth with no financial incentive to build to better standards, incumbents need encouragement to change to a sustainable business model and to promote new markets allowing market forces to dictate the outcome or be displaced. Lock-in mechanisms can stabilise a socio-economic system (investments, behaviour patterns, vested interests, infrastructure, subsidies and regulations) (Geels, 2010).

Sustainable Schemes & partnerships between industry & government

Due to the perceived concerns about climate change, resource depletion, and increases in social inequality the transition to a sustainable techno-economic regime is important for policymakers around the world (Drechsler et al., 2009; Eyre & Killip, 2019). Achieving a sustainable future could be improved by careful consideration of a range of social, economic, and environmental factors. Sustainability is thus a political process associated with a variety of contested decisions that can be uncertain and ambiguous (Demeritt et al., 2011). Policies are developed in line with sustainability. Policies are methods that can be framed with a defined governing process, and adopted, implemented, and enforced by a public body to solve an apparent problem on the political agenda (Knill & Tosun, 2012a).

Democracy & Global Governance

At this point in our review of how economic and other social conditions have evolved to such a threateningly devastating future outlook for many if not all humans, we wish to recall that inexorable cosmic evolution is intent on integrating all humanity in one global government and, therefore, on eliminating all of planet Earth’s nations and on doing so in a hurry. The most difficult of all the world’s sovereignties to eliminate is clearly that of the U.S.A. We recall having forecast this termination of the U.S.A. at least fifteen years ago. The 150 nations are 150 clots in the economic bloodstream of our planet. The headlong rush into the atomic holocaust is in fact a far more threatening development than the natural economic demise of the U.S.A., which in fact may be viewed as simply a self-removing planetary-economics-blood-clot event. (Fuller, 2016, pp. 54–55).

Medearis (2001) examined two different ideas of democracy that have been proposed by the economist Joseph A. Schumpeter, (1) a theory that emphasised the competitive nature of democratic elections and viewed democracy as a means of peaceful and periodic changes in leadership, and (2) a theory emphasised the role of political elites and argued that democracy is based on the idea of competition between leaders and political parties. Parenti (1986) quoting Davis (1979) stated that the goal of the United States in the 1950 was to make the world safe for multinational corporate exploitation (Parenti, 1986). Fuller (2016) stated that the U.S.A. is the most difficult sovereignty to eliminate yet nations need to evolve into one global government.

In addition to this ‘minilateralism’ has been described (in a variety of policy areas, associated with trade, climate change, security, and development) as a type of global cooperation involving several countries working together on a specific topic or policies. ‘Minilateralism’ is a scaled down version of multilateralism and is potentially a way to dodge the challenges of global governance: it can lead to fragmentation and exclusion in international decision-making, thus undermining the principles of democracy, accountability, and transparency in global governance (Brummer, 2014).

 

Global governance & NGOs

Global governance organisations, such as the World Health Organisation (WHO), the World Economic Forum (WEF) and the United Nations’ (UN), are collaborating with elite organisations to develop policies on a global scale. Examples of global policies that involve the WHO, the WEF, and the UN (and other elite organisations) include: (1) the Strategic Partnership Framework between the WEF and the UN (its aims are to speed up the implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (WEF, 2019); (2) the Great Reset initiative by the WEF (this proposes to reshape the global economy and society since the COVID-19 pandemic; it has been criticised as enhancing the interests of corporations and elites (Wecke, 2021).

“Collective fear stimulates herd instinct, and tends to produce ferocity towards those who are not regarded as members of the herd”. (Russell, 2009c).

The UN and partnerships

On a global scale, the United Nations (UN) mission statement is “the maintenance of international peace and security” and was originally established to stop the loss of lives through destruction of property from wars (UN, n.d.-a, n.d.-b). The development of policies in line with the United Nations sustainable development goals could also be perceived as instrumental in the creation of a ‘sustainable’ future. These common goals could unite the world. With the growing links and reliance between the UN and partnerships with corporations and philanthropic foundations there is a growing risk that UN agencies, funds and programmes are eroding the multilateral character of – and undermining -democratic global governance (Seitz & Martens, 2017). The United Nations Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 17 clearly promotes such collaborations. “The SDG 17, Partnerships Guidebook” describes how multi-stakeholder partnerships can build relationships to deliver exceptional results with the Sustainable Development Goals (UN, 2022). Multinational corporations (MNCs) can reduce risk by engaging with government officials and politicians by lobbying and advocacy to influence policy adoption (Iftinchi & Hurduzeu, 2018). However, Iftinchi & Hurduzeu (2018) discuss the lack of transparency and public disclosure at the UN. Charities such as the Gates and the Rockefeller Foundations have considerable influence on political developments, but they are not accountable to the ‘beneficiaries’ of their activities.

Institutional and market structures can influence policy adoption and can lead to path dependencies. Where the adoption of new policies plays a crucial role in developing new systems, there may be negative consequences and a lock-in to an inferior path, if policy makers are not mindful of their choices (Escaping Carbon Lock-In, 2002; Fouquet, 2016; Unruh, 2000). This implies that some agents for policy change may not be ‘fit for purpose.’

Examples of technocratic schemes

Scott (1998) stated that a complete disaster from a state initiated social engineered technocratic scheme could occur if, (1) if there was administrative ordering of nature and society, (2) where a willing and able authoritarian state enabled a Technocratic ideology, and (3) the civil society was suppressed and unable to resist the plans. We will now briefly examine some examples from this perspective.

Example 1: Changes in Farming Techniques to Promote the Green Agenda

According to the World Economic Forum (WEF) farming can become more sustainable and help fight climate change (WEF, 2021a). The WEF (2021) have listed many ways farming can become more sustainable to fight the perceived climate change agenda. No-till farming is a technique involving planting seeds in small holes in the soil without disturbing the rest of the soil. This reduces CO₂ emissions from soil microbes and preserves soil carbon and quality. Regenerative farming is a technique that focuses on restoring soil health by using cover crops, crop rotation, compost, and animal manures. This enhances soil fertility, biodiversity, and carbon sequestration. Organic farming is a technique that only uses natural pest control methods and biological fertilizers, without any chemicals or pesticides. This protects soil quality, water resources, and human and animal health. Technology and innovation use digital tools to monitor and optimize crop production, reduce food waste, and improve supply chain efficiency. This can save water, energy, and land resources, and increase food security. Vertical farming uses innovation to produce food crops in controlled environments reducing the need to use valuable land resources  (WEF, 2021a).

With these farming schemes we need to consider if the local knowledge, tacit skills and diversity that are essential for human well-being have been ignored. Many farmers are against the proposed and imposed authoritarian changes in farming techniques that are by the global green agenda. This dispute is multi-faceted, and a complex issue associated with socio-economic issues including cost of living, cheaper foreign imports and global climate change (ideology) (BBC News, 2024; Guardian, 2024), Farmers are concerned that these new techniques will reduce their productivity, profitability, and competitiveness  (Guardian, 2024; The Guardian, 2024). Due to this, protests and conflicts between farmers and authorities have occurred in France, Belgium, Germany, Spain, and Italy. According to the mainstream media (MSM) farmers demand more recognition, protection, and assistance from the governments and the EU to cope with the changing market and regulatory conditions (BBC News, 2024; Guardian, 2024). MSM presumes a top-down government solution is required to solve this protest. However, the perspective of Scott (1998) and Mumford (1964) it appears that farmers have not been adequately consulted, compensated, or supported by the policymakers and stakeholders and are therefore sceptical about the effectiveness and necessity of the new techniques to address the perceived environmental challenges. Recently, the UK has also seen disputes between the government and the farmers due to the changes with inheritance tax, this has been viewed as militant action by MSM, yet some online sources view this as government deceit (@SprinterFamily, 2024; Kelso, 2024).

The farmers dispute illustrates an authoritarian scheme with (1) the administrative ordering of nature and society, and (2) an authoritarian state willing and able to enable a Technocratic Climate Change Ideology.  This is two out of the three steps that could lead to a complete disaster. Is civil society being suppressed and unable to resist these plans?

Example 2: Ultra-low emissions zones (ULEZ)

The ULEZ Scheme is an authoritarian policy that aims to reduce air pollution due to perceived climate change (ideology) from drivers of vehicles that do not meet certain emission standards by charging a daily fee in London. The Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) covers all London boroughs and operates 24/7, every day of the year, except Christmas Day. The daily charge for non-compliant cars, motorcycles, vans and minibuses is £12.50, while lorries and buses pay £100 (Ultra Low Emission Zone – Transport for London, n.d.). This has caused much controversy since its expansion, local grassroots movements are opposing the scheme (BBC News, 2023; Guardian, 2023; Ma et al., 2021). There is, however, resistance to these plans by a vigilante group called the “Bladerunners” (Sayce, 2023; Somerville & Bullen, 2023).

This scheme, according to Scott (1998) is an authoritarian scheme with (1) the administrative ordering of nature and society, and (2) an authoritarian state willing and able to enable a Technocratic Ideology.  This is two out of the three steps that could lead to a complete disaster. The Bladerunners appear to be resistance against civil society being suppressed by these plans.

Example 3: 15-Minute Cities and Central Bank Digital Currency

“15-minute cities” are an urban planning concept that aims to create spaces where human needs are within a 15-minutes’ walk from their homes. They aim to promote health and sustainable living. The concept is being adopted in various cities around the world, however it has been criticised as (1) it risks excluding some disadvantaged communities, (2) there are difficulties providing diverse and affordable services in all neighbourhoods, and (3) the potential backlash from car users and businesses (WEF, 2021b).

Some people have concerns that link 15-minute cities to plots to control people’s movements and choices with the use of digital currency (Silva, 2023). Recently the President of the European Central Bank, Christine Lagarde stated that “Climate change” requires a redesign to the entire economy and financial system, in line with the “green” Net Zero transition – including the need to “reduce our carbon footprint in everything we do, from banknotes to how we supervise banks” (Lagarde, 2021).

This is a technocratic ideology associated with climate change and the development of a carbon neutral economy by an authoritarian regime (Lagarde, 2021; Scott, 1998). Although this is yet to be fully implemented, there appears to be a willing and able European government able to implement the scheme. So far, it appears, local agents have not been fully involved in the process. Again, if true, this is two out of the three steps that could lead to disaster (Scott, 1998). Further investigation could highlight any pitfalls and prevent disaster.

Example 4: Artificial Intelligence (AI)

Technology has made it possible for humans to exploit the forces of nature, and at the same time also become alienated from it (Bloom, 1991; Lakoff, 2014; Mearsheimer, 2018; Russell, 1928; Spengler, 2015). Modern innovative technology dominates our culture, the natural and organic is put aside (Spengler, 2015). Although Bohm (1980) emphasised that we cannot control nature, Spengler (2015) argued that after humans become the master of nature, humans will end up being a slave to technology and that many of the Western world’s great achievements may soon become spectacles for our descendants to marvel at, like the pyramids of Egypt or the baths of Rome. From Spengler’s perspective, the procedures and processes lend themselves to the AI future, however this may lead to issues at the grassroots, thus according to Scott (1998) this AI Authoritarian System implies a potential disaster.

Example 5: Global Pandemic Response

The global response to the COVID-19 pandemic has varied widely, ranging from strict lockdowns to minimal restrictions. Experts worldwide have emphasized the importance of scientifically guided interventions to limit the spread of SARS-CoV-2 and its impact on human health. The World Health Organization (WHO) declared a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC) on January 30, 2020, and characterized the outbreak as a pandemic on March 11, 2020. In 2021, cities and provinces around the globe implemented a range of public health and social measures to tackle COVID-19 outbreaks. On May 5, 2023, the WHO Emergency Committee recommended that the PHEIC status be lifted, signalling a new phase in the pandemic response, the global emergency had been de-escalated but not over. 

Throughout the pandemic, various public health measures were adopted, including lockdowns and limitations on access to public spaces. This situation was framed as a Wicked Problem (Auld, Bernstein, Cashore, & Levin, 2021; Massey, 2022; Schiefloe, 2021) allowing for an authoritarian approach to decision making. The pandemic response was (1) an administrative ordering of nature and society, (2) where a willing and able authoritarian state enabled a dogmatic Technocratic approach (ideology), and (3) the civil society was suppressed and unable to resist the plans. There have been conflicting views on the pandemic response. Some have argued that the media was bias and favoured the authoritarian decisions and ignored or silenced dissent. It could be argued that our world is becoming more standardised with policies and procedures. This reliance on management structures appears to be at the expense of the individual tacit skills of the staff. Doctors appear to be mechanics following a manual rather than engineers and scientists using their knowledge and skills. Those who spoke out were silenced. This implies that democratic grassroots processes were ignored. Did this authoritarian structure within the medical organisations mean there was a greater likelihood of poor policy decisions being made with the response to the pandemic? Some have argued that this is the case and many now distrust the medical organisations.

 

The Global Technocratic Complex & the Road to Hell

The concept of the road to hell being paved with global intentions, where the state and elite organisations develop authoritarian policies on a global scale, the Technocratic Global Ideology appears not to consider the ‘representatives’ and the civil society at the grass roots (in which there is no direct financial gain). If, as Mumford stated, the Democratic Technics  (i.e. the technologies that empower human creativity and freedom, the local knowledge, tacit skills and diversity that are essential for human well-being) are ignored or stifled, then two out of the 3 elements (Scott, 1998) – that lead to a complete disaster – are present; the third element being a suppressed civil society unable to resist the plans. With the framing of the situation as a wicked problem, with the implication of impending disaster where the implementation of the Technocratic Global Ideology will solve the perceived problem, this analysis implies there are systemic faults in policy and processes. Has global politics contributed to destroying democracy by the institutional arrangement that gives authority only to those at the top of the social hierarchy (Mumford, 1964)? It is important that we consider whether policy adoption leads to potential disaster and how we can prevent it. We need to identify policies and processes associated with the (global) agenda that might lead to a disaster. We need to identify policies and processes that have been adopted and are leading to a disaster or suppressed civil society. There are a growing number of grass-roots organisations that could mount a determined resistance to a Technocratic Global Ideology. Are these organisations justified? Or are they aiding the impending disaster? By framing the system around technocratic ideology it can provide valuable insights that can help polity and policymakers implement impartial schemes that account for a wider aspect of the socio-economic system.

 

The Energy Industrial Complex & Technocratic Ideology

Following on from the framing discussed above we can frame this industry in terms of the industrial complex, green schemes and green ideology. The ‘Energy Industrial Complex’ is defined as the large-scale state-initiated administrative ordering of nature and society based on a ‘Green Technocratic Ideology’ in collaboration with elite corporate stakeholders associated with (oil, gas, coal and renewable) energy generation to simplify, standardize and reform the Energy industry. A Technocratic Green Ideology (TGI) can be defined based on the perceived certainty in science and technology as environmentally sustainable solutions and processes that will solve the ecological problems and create a better society. Using such terminology can help us identify whether impending disaster could occur due to an authoritarian state-initiated scheme.

 

“When people say ‘we’ must fight against social injustice or global warming, it is an inexistent agency they are identifying with. God is also inexistent, but no more so than Humanity. Both can only be defined by their absence” (Gray, 2023).

Although the framing of this analysis presumes systemic faults in policy and polity, with the implication of impending disaster with the implementation of the Green Technocratic Ideology, it is currently an area requiring further investigation. We need to consider how we can prevent a potential disaster from the implementation of a Green Technocratic Ideology, or how we can prevent a green agenda being an ideology. We need to consider what mechanisms, policies and processes associated with the green agenda might be – or are being – adopted, that could lead to a suppressed civil society. Plus, what grass roots movements (‘Democratic Technics’) are there that can mount a determined resistance to a Green Technocratic Ideology. With this framing it leads to the question: how does The Energy Industrial Complex Ideology influence the transition to a sustainable future?

 

Bibliography

Abas, N., Kalair, A., & Khan, N. (2015). Review of fossil fuels and future energy technologies. Futures, 69, 31–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.FUTURES.2015.03.003

Agassi, J. (2016). Popper and His Popular Critics Thomas Kuhn, Paul Feyerabend and Imre Lakatos (Vol. 26, Issue 3). Springer.

Auld, G., Bernstein, S., Cashore, B., & Levin, K. (2021). Managing pandemics as super wicked problems: lessons from, and for, COVID-19 and the climate crisis. Policy Sciences, 54(4), 707–728. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-021-09442-2

Auroville. (2023). Auroville in Brief. https://auroville.org/page/brief

Barnhizer, D. D., & Candeub, A. (2019). Elite Theory, Media Regulation, and “Fake News.” SSRN Electronic Journal.

BBC News. (2023). Ulez: What is it and why is its expansion controversial? BBC. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-66268073

BBC News. (2024). Why Europe’s farmers are taking their anger to the streets. BBC. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-68095097

Bergman, N., & Foxon, T. (2021). Drivers and effects of digitalisation on energy demand in low carbon scenarios SPRU Working Paper Series Science and Technology Policy Innovation and Project Management Energy Policy Sustainable Development Economics of Innovation. SPRU Working Paper Series (ISSN 2057-6668).

Bernays, E. L. (2018). Propaganda. Desert.

Bernays, E. L. (2019). Crystallizing Public Opinion (Vol. 14, Issue October). G&D Media.

Bhattacherjee, A. (2012). Scholar Commons Social Science Research: Principles, Methods, and Practices. Creative Commons Attribution.

Bloom, A. (1991). The Republic of Plato. Second edition. Translated with Notes and an Interpretive Essay. In Basic Books. A Division of Harper Collins Publishers.

Bohm, D. (1980). Wholeness and the Implicate Order. Routledge.

Bohm, D. (1985). Unfolding Meaning: A Weekend of Dialogue.

Bohm, D. (1992). Thought as a System. Routledge.

Bohm, D. (2003). The Essential DAVID BOHM (L. Nichol, Ed.). Routledge.

Bohm, D. (2013). On Dialogue. In L. Nichol (Ed.), On Dialogue. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203180372

Bohm, D., Kelly, S., & Morin, E. (1996). Order Disorder and the Absolute: An Experiment in dialogue.

Bohm, D., & Krishnamurti, J. (2004). The Ending of Time. In Krishnamurti Foundation.

Briggs, W. M. (2016). Uncertainty. William M Briggs.

Briggs, W. M. (2021). Everything You Believe Is Wrong. William M Briggs.

Brummer, C. (2014). Minilateralism : how trade alliances, soft law, and financial engineering are redefining economic statecraft. Cambridge University Press.

Cambridge Dictionary. (n.d.). Cambridge Dictionary. Retrieved April 3, 2023, from https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/

Capra, F. (1975). The Tao of Physics (Issue 1). Shambhala Publications, Inc.

Carson, R. (1962). Silent Spring. A Mariner Book. Houghton Mifflin Company.

Catt, H. (2023). Matt Hancock: Leaked messages suggest plan to frighten public – BBC News. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-64848106

Chinnaiah, P. (2018). Jiddu Krishnamurti on World Predicament. Proceedings of the XXIII World Congress of Philosophy, 16, 71–76. https://doi.org/10.5840/WCP23201816573

Chomsky, N. (2011). How the World Works (A. Naiman, Ed.). Soft Skull Press.

Chong, D., & Druckman, J. N. (2007). Framing Theory. Annual Review of Political Science, 10, 103–126. https://doi.org/10.1146/ANNUREV.POLISCI.10.072805.103054

Coad, A., Cowling, M., Nightingale, P., Pellegrino, G., Savona, M., & Siepel, J. (2014). UK Innovation Survey: Highly innovative firms and growth.

Crichton, M. (2003). Aliens Cause Global Warming. Caltech Michelin Lecture.

Cutler, H. W., Dodge, S., Fine, B., Fleischman, D. E., Ginsburg, A. R., Jones, J. P., & Samstag, N. (1969). The Engineering of Consent (E. L. Bernays, Ed.). University of Oklahoma Press.

Daily Telegraph. (2023). Matt Hancock’s plan to ‘frighten the pants off everyone’ about Covid. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/03/04/project-fear-covid-lockdown-files-matt-hancock-whatsapp/

David Bohm Society. (2023). The David Bohm Society. https://www.davidbohmsociety.org

Demeritt, D., Dobson, A., Li, T. M., Leach, M., Scoones, I., & Stirling, A. (2011). Pathways to sustainability: Perspectives and provocations. Environment and Planning A, 43(5), 1226–1237. https://doi.org/10.1068/a227sym

Drechsler, W., Kattel, R., & Reinert, E. S. (Eds.). (2009). Techno-economic Paradigm. Essays in Honour of Carlota Perez. Anthem Press.

Dryzek, J. S., Bächtiger, A., Chambers, S., Cohen, J., Druckman, J. N., Felicetti, A., Fishkin, J. S., Farrell, D. M., Fung, A., Gutmann, A., Landemore, H., Mansbridge, J., Marien, S., Neblo, M. A., Niemeyer, S., Setälä, M., Slothuus, R., Suiter, J., Thompson, D., & Warren, M. E. (2019). The crisis of democracy and the science of deliberation. Science, 363(6432), 1144–1146. https://doi.org/10.1126/SCIENCE.AAW2694

Encyclopedia Britannica. (n.d.). Retrieved July 23, 2024, from https://www.britannica.com/

Entman, R. M. (2007). Framing bias: Media in the distribution of power. Journal of Communication, 57(1), 163–173. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00336.x

Escaping Carbon Lock-In, 30 Energy Policy 317 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0301-4215(01)00098-2

Eyre, N., & Killip, G. (Eds.). (2019). Shifting the focus: energy demand in a net-zero carbon UK (Issue July). Centre for Research into Energy Demand Solutions. Oxford, UK.

Feynman, R. P. (n.d.). The Feynman Lectures Website: The Feynman Lectures on Physics. Caltech’s Division of Physics, Mathematics and Astronomy. https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/

Feynman, R. P. (1999). The Pleasure of finding Things Out. In Basic Books. A Division of Harper Collins Publishers.

Feynman, R. P. (2011). Feynman on Scientific Method [Video recording]. seabala.

Feynman, R. P. (2013). The Feynman Lectures on Physics. Caltech. https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/

Foucault, M. (2005). The Order of Things. An archaeology of the human sciences. In A Companion to Foucault. Taylor and Francis e-Library.

Fouquet, R. (2016). Path dependence in energy systems and economic development. Nature Energy, 1(8). https://doi.org/10.1038/nenergy.2016.98

Frank, P. (2015). Negligence, Non-science, and consensus Climatology. Energy and Environment, 26(3), 391–415.

Fukuyama, F. (2015). Political Order and Political Decay. From the Industril reolution to the Globalization of democracy. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

Fuller, B. R. (2016). Grunch of Giants. The Estate of R. Buckminster Fuller.

Geels, F. W. (2010). Ontologies, socio-technical transitions (to sustainability), and the multi-level perspective. Research Policy, 39(4), 495–510. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2010.01.022

Gershon, L. (2019). Rachel Carson’s Critics Called Her a Witch. SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY – JSTOR Daily. https://daily.jstor.org/rachel-carsons-critics-called-her-a-witch/

Gilens, M. (2012). Affluence & Influence Economic Inequality and Political Power in America. Princet on Univer sity Press.

Gilens, M., & Page, B. I. (2014). Testing theories of American politics: Elites, interest groups, and average citizens. Perspectives on Politics, 12(3), 564–581. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1537592714001595

Gilmore, N. (2017). The Deafening Criticism of Silent Spring. Saturday Evening Post. https://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/2017/09/deafening-criticism-silent-spring/

Glaucons Journal. (n.d.). Retrieved September 1, 2023, from https://glauconsjournal.wordpress.com/2016/09/30/alan-watts-as-a-philosopher-of-language-and-process/

Gray, J. (2023). The New Leviathans: Thoughts After Liberalism. Penguin Random House group.

Gregory, J. (2018). Effortless Living. Wu-Wei and the Spontaneous State of Natural Harmony. Simon and Schuster.

Grint, K. (2005). Problems, problems, problems: The social construction of ‘leadership.’ Human Relations, 58(11), 1467–1494. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726705061314

Guardian. (2023). Ulez: what is it, how much does it cost and why is it so controversial? Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jul/23/ulez-london-what-is-it-how-much-does-it-cost-and-why-is-it-so-controversial

Guardian. (2024). Why are farmers protesting across the EU and what can the bloc do about it? Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/feb/02/why-are-farmers-protesting-across-the-eu-and-what-can-the-bloc-do-about-it

Gurkovsky, R. (2015). The Real Mind Control. A book that will help you understand Neuro-Linguistic Programming. In Ravens Ppress.

Hall, R. L., & Deardorff, A. V. (2006). Lobbying as Legislative Subsidy. American Political Science Review, 100(1), 69–84. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055406062010

Harlem, G. (1987). Brundtland Report, Our Common Future – Call for Action. In Conservation (Vol. 14, Issue 4).

Hinz, W. (1991). Alan Watts’ Theological Anthropology and Its Implications For Religious Education. March.

Homans, G. C., Pareto, V., Finer, S. E., & Mirfin, D. (1966). Sociological Writings. Political Science Quarterly, 81(3), 513. https://doi.org/10.2307/2147682

Hood, C. (2011). The Blame Game. Spin, Bureaucracy, and self-Preservation in Government. In Princeton University Press.

Howes, M. J. (2014). Environmental Policy & Regulation – is it necessary?

Hung, E. H. C. (2006). Beyond Kuhn. In Metascience. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11016-007-9140-7

Huxley, A. (1974). The art of seeing.

Iftinchi, V., & Hurduzeu, G. (2018). How Multinational Corporations Use Lobbying and Advocacy To Mitigate Political Risks. Oradea Journal of Business and Economics, 3(Special), 18–26. https://doi.org/10.47535/1991ojbe040

IPCC. (n.d.). The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. IPCC. Retrieved August 14, 2014, from www.ipcc.ch

Jiddu Krishnamurti. (2010). Don’t Make a Problem of Anything: Discussions with J Krishnamurti.

Joost, A., & Meerloo, M. (1956). The Rape of the Mind. The Psychology of Thought Control, Menticide, and Brainwashing (Vol. 4, Issue 1). Progressive Press.

Jorgenson, A. K., Shwom, R., & Jordaan, S. M. (2018). The economic implications of renewable energy transitions in fossil fuel–dominated economies: An analysis of the South African case. Energy Research & Social Science, 44, 299–308. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2018.05.001

Kahan, D. M., Jenkins-Smith, H., & Braman, D. (2010). Cultural cognition of scientific consensus. Http://Dx.Doi.Org/10.1080/13669877.2010.511246, 14(2), 147–174. https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2010.511246

Kates, R. W., Parris, T. M., & Leiserowitz, A. A. (2005). What is sustainable development? Goals, indicators, values, and practice. Environment, 47(3), 8–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/00139157.2005.10524444/ASSET//CMS/ASSET/73E57DAF-0B5E-4DFA-85D7-AE834CC32E8A/00139157.2005.10524444.FP.PNG

Keeble, B. R. (1988). The Brundtland Report: “Our Common Future.” In Medicine and War (Vol. 4, Issue 1, pp. 17–25). Taylor & Francis Group . https://doi.org/10.1080/07488008808408783

Kenny, A. (2007). Philosophy in the Modern World Volume 4. 7823–7830.

King James Bible Online. (n.d.). Retrieved July 24, 2024, from https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org

Kingdon. (1995). Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies.

Knight, S. (2002). NLP at Work Neuro Linguistic Programming The Differenc Business that Makes a Difference in Business. Nicholshingas Brealey Publishing.

Knill, C., & Tosun, J. (2012a). Public Policy: A New Introduction. In Culture. Palgrave MacMillan.

Knill, C., & Tosun, J. (2012b). The Nature of Public Policies. In Public Policy (pp. 14–39). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-137-00800-8_2

Korzybski, A. (2004). SUPPLEMENT III A NON-ARISTOTELIAN SYSTEM AND ITS NECESSITY FOR RIGOUR IN MATHEMATICS AND PHYSICS. Semantic Scholar, 747–761.

Krishnamurti, J. (1957). The collected works of J. Krishnamurti, Volume 10, A light to lighten (Vol. 10).

Krishnamurti, J. (1963). Public Talk 2 New Delhi, India – 27 October 1963.

Krishnamurti, J. (1985). The Way of Intelligence. Krishnamurti Foundation India.

Krishnamurti, J. (2010). The Book of Life. HarperOne.

Krishnamurti, J. (2018). Meeting Life. Writings and Talks on Finding Your Path Without Retreating from Society. Krishnamurti Foundation America.

Krishnamurti, J., & Bohm, D. (2003). The Limits of Thought. Discussions. In Routledge. Taylor & Francis Group.

Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions. In Knowledge and Postmodernism in Historical Perspective: Vol. Second edi (Second). THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO PRESS. https://doi.org/10.5840/philstudies196413082

Laframboise, D. (2012). The Delinquent Teenager who was Mistaken for the World’s Top Climate Expert. Ivy Avenue Press.

Lagarde, C. (2021). Christine Lagarde : Climate change and central banking. International Climate Change Conference, January, 1–5.

Lakoff, G. (2008). Don’t Think of an Elephant!: Know Your Values and Frame the Debate – George Lakoff – Google Books. Chelsea Green Publishing.

Lakoff, G. (2010). Why it Matters How We Frame the Environment. 4(1), 70–81. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524030903529749

Lakoff, G. (2014). Praise for The All New Don’t Think of an Elephant! Praise for the first edition, Don’t Think of an Elephant! Chelsea Green Publishing.

Le Bon, G. (1905). Psychologie des foules. Édition publiée par Félix Alcan (9th ed.).

Le Bon, G. (2009). The Crowd. A Study of the Popular Mind. The Floating Press.

Leach, M., Scoones, I., & Stirling, A. (2007). Pathways to Sustainability: an overview of the STEPS Centre approach.

Li, Y., Ashkanasy, N. M., & Ahlstrom, D. (2014). The rationality of emotions: A hybrid process model of decision-making under uncertainty. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 31(1), 293–308. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10490-012-9341-5

Lightfoot, H. D., & Ratzer, G. (2022). The Sun Versus CO2 as the Cause of Climate Change Projected to 2050. Journal of Basic & Applied Sciences, 18, 16–25. https://doi.org/10.29169/1927-5129.2022.18.03

Linder-Pelz, S. (2010). NLP Coaching An Evidence-based approach for coaches, leaders and individuals. Kogan Page.

Lockwood, M. (2020). Routes to credible climate commitment : The UK and Denmark compared. December.

Lombardi, M., & Vannuccini, S. (2021). A paradigm shift for decision-making in an era of deep and extended changes SPRU Working Paper Series Science and Technology Policy Innovation and Project Management Energy Policy Sustainable Development Economics of Innovation. SPRU Working Paper Series (ISSN 2057-6668).

Lowery, B. S., Eisenberger, N. I., Hardin, C. D., & Sinclair, S. (2007). Long-term effects of subliminal priming on academic performance. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 29(2), 151–157. https://doi.org/10.1080/01973530701331718

Ma, L., Graham, D. J., & Stettler, M. E. J. (2021). Has the ultra low emission zone in London improved air quality? Environmental Research Letters, 16(12). https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/AC30C1

Marshall, W., & Shellenberger, M. (2023). Michael Shellenberger: Exposing the censorship industrial complex. The Spectator. https://www.spectator.co.uk/podcast/michael-shellenberger-exposing-the-censorship-industrial-complex/

Massey, A. (2022). Editorial: Silent Spring: can we fix wicked problems? Public Money and Management, 42(2), 53–54. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540962.2022.2003595

Mathews, J. A. (2013). The renewable energies technology surge: A new techno-economic paradigm in the making? Futures, 46, 10–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.FUTURES.2012.12.001

Mazzucato, M. (2013). The Entrepreneurial State: Debunking Public vs. Private Myths in Risk and Innovation. Anthem Press.

McNair, B. (2004). PR must die: Spin, anti-spin and political public relations in the UK, 1997–2004. Journalism Studies, 5(3), 325–338. https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670042000246089

Mearsheimer, J. J. (2018). Great delusion: Liberal dreams and international realities. In Great Delusion: Liberal Dreams and International Realities. https://doi.org/10.1080/23340460.2019.1613054

Medearis, J. (2001). Joseph Schumpeter’s Two Theories of Democracy. In Joseph Schumpeter’s Two Theories of Democracy. https://doi.org/10.4159/harvard.9780674186439

Meiners, R., Desrochers, P., & Morriss, A. (Eds.). (2012). Silent Spring at 50: The False Crisis of Rachel Carson. Cato Institute.

Miller, T. R. (2019). Environmental justice as a movement-building paradigm for a just sustainability transition. Sustainability Science, 14(5). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-019-00716-w

Moore, & Albert, P. (2010). Confessions of a Greenpeace Dropout: The Making of a Sensible Environmentalist. In Beatty Street Publishing, Inc.

Morriss, Andrew., Meiners, Roger., & Desroches, Pierre. (2012). Silent Spring at 50 : the False Crises of Rachel Carson. 377.

Mumford, L. (1934). Technics and Civilization. Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd. https://doi.org/10.5840/zfs19354343

Mumford, L. (1964). Authoritarian and Democratic Technics. In Technology and Culture (Vol. 5, Issue 1). Winter.

Murphy, J., & Devine, D. (2018). Does Media Coverage Drive Public Support for UKIP or Does Public Support for UKIP Drive Media Coverage? https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123418000145

Mutz, D. C., & Soss, J. (1997). Reading Public Opinion: The Influence of News Coverage on Perceptions of Public Sentiment. JSTOR, 61(3).

Nightingale, P. (University of S. (2019a). Lecture 4 – Innovation and Value.

Nightingale, P. (University of S. (2019b). Lecture 7 – International Trade and Global Innovation.

Nightingale, P. (University of S. (2019c). Lecture 10: Science and Technology Policy – SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY AND INNOVATION: MARKETS, FIRMS AND POLICIES 752N1.

Nye, R. A. (1977). The anti-democratic sources of elite theory: Pareto, Mosca, Michels in SearchWorks articles. SAGE.

O, H. (2023). Climate Crisis Fun Facts! Independently published.

Oberholzer, C. (2013). THE ROLE OF NEURO LINGUISTIC PROGRAMMING IN IMPROVING ORGANISATIONAL LEADERSHIP THROUGH INTRAPERSONAL COMMUNICATION DEVELOPMENT UNIVERSITY OF PRETORIA. Unversity of Pretoria.

Ottati, V., Wilson, C., & Lambert, A. (2016). Accessibility, priming, and political judgment. Current Opinion in Psychology, 12, 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2016.04.010

Papafragou, A. (2000). Modality: Issues in the Semantics- Pragmatics Interface (U. Jaszczolt, K.M. University of Cambridg & U. Turner, K. University of Brighton, Eds.). Elsevier.

Parenti, M. (1986). Inventing Reality. The Politics of the Mass Media. St. Martin’s Press Inc. New York.

Parenti, M. (1996). Dirty Truths: Reflections on Politics, Media, Ideology, Conspiracy, Ethnic Life, and Class Power.

Parenti, M. (2001). You are being lied to (R. Kick, Ed.). The Disinformation Company Ltd.

Parenti, M. (2016). The Face of Imperialism. Taylor & Francis.

Pasmore, W., Winby, S., Mohrman, S. A., & Vanasse, R. (2019). Reflections: Sociotechnical Systems Design and Organization Change. Journal of Change Management, 19(2), 67–85. https://doi.org/10.1080/14697017.2018.1553761

Pellow, D. N. (2014). Total Liberation – The Power and Promise of Animal Rights and the Radical Earth Movement. University of Minnesota Press. https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Total_Liberation/-S90DwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=The+power+and+promise+of+animal+rights+and+the+radical+earth+movement.&pg=PT10&printsec=frontcover

Perez, C. (2004). TECHNOLOGICAL REVOLUTIONS, PARADIGM SHIFTS AND SOCIO-INSTITUTIONAL CHANGE. Globalization, Economic Development and Inequality: An Alternative Perspective.

Pérez, C. (2010). Technological dynamism and social inclusion in Latin America: A resource-based production development strategy. Cepal Review, 100, 121–141. https://doi.org/10.18356/7dce2f27-en

Peters, B. G. (2017). What is so wicked about wicked problems? A conceptual analysis and a research program. Policy and Society, 36(3), 385–396. https://doi.org/10.1080/14494035.2017.1361633

Pielke, R. A. (2007). The honest broker: Making sense of science in policy and politics. The Honest Broker: Making Sense of Science in Policy and Politics, 1–188. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511818110

Pirsig, R. (1974). Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance An Enquiry into Values. In HarperColllins e-books (April 10,). Harper Colllins.

Popper, K. (1966). The open society and its enemies Vol. 1 & 2 (5th edition) (5th ed.).

Poyet, P. (2022). The Rational Climate e-Book: Cooler is riskier (2nd ed., Issue October).

Pumphrey, R. L., Decker, D. J., &, & Newman, C. E. (2017). Collaborative governance, political polarization, and the natural resources management professional. Journal of Forestry, 115(4), 279–285. https://doi.org/10.5849/jof.2016-048R1

Randall, D. (2023). Curtailing the Censorship Industrial Complex. National Association of Scholars. https://www.nas.org/blogs/article/curtailing-the-censorship-industrial-complex

Rittel, H. W. J., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences 1973 4:2, 4(2), 155–169. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01405730

Robbins, A. (1997). Unlimited Power : The New Science Of Personal Achievement. In Unlimited Power The New Science of Personal Achievement (p. Free Press).

Rosling, H. (2019). Factfulness. In Review of Global Management. Hodder & Stoughton Ltd. https://doi.org/10.19083/rgm.v4i1.924

Russell, B. (1928). Sceptical Essays. In Philosophical Studies (Vol. 31). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.5840/philstudies1986/19873154

Russell, B. (2009a). Education and the Social Order (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/9780203864838

Russell, B. (2009b). The Basic Writings of Bertrand Russell. Taylor & Francis.

Russell, B. (2009c). Unpopular Essays (Routledge Classics) Paperback (1st ed.). Routledge.

Saad, G. (2020). The Parasitic Mind. How Infectious Ideas Are Killing Common Sense. In Angewandte Chemie International Edition, 6(11), 951–952. Regnergy Publishing.

Sang, L. H. (2009). The Daodejing of Laozi The Living Dao: The Art and Way of Living A Rich & Truthful Life translated with annotations by The Daodejing of Laozi 2 2 Acknowledgements.

Sayce, R. (2023). Who are the ULEZ Blade Runners? Story behind the name given to camera vandal. Metro News. https://metro.co.uk/2023/08/01/ulez-blade-runners-london-camera-vandals-19228527/

Schade, C. D. (2018). Free Will and Consciousness in the Multiverse. Physics, Philosophy, and Quantum Decision Making.

Schiefloe, P. M. (2021). The Corona crisis: a wicked problem. Scandinavian Journal of Public Health, 49(1), 5–8. https://doi.org/10.1177/1403494820970767

Schlosberg, D., Collins, L. B., & Niemeyer, S. (2017). Theorizing power in justice and environmental governance: The complexity of rights and the politics of knowledge. Environmental Politics, 26(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2016.1199624

Schuster, S. (2018). The art of thinking in systems : improve your logic, think more critically, and use proven systems to solve your problems – strategic planning for everyday life. 177.

Schwab, K., & Malleret, T. (2020). Covid 19: The Great Reset. Forum Publishing.

Scott, J. C. (1998). Seeing Like a State. How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed. In J. C. Scott (Ed.), Politics of Urbanism (Vol. 44, Issue 4). Yale Agrarian Studies Series. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0010417502210385

Seitz, K., & Martens, J. (2017). Philanthrolateralism: Private Funding and Corporate Influence in the United Nations. Global Policy, 8(August), 46–50. https://doi.org/10.1111/1758-5899.12448

Shaw, G. B. (2004). Pigmalion.

Sheldrake, R. (2012). The Science Delusion: freeing the spirit of enquiry. Coronet.

Shellenberger, M. (2023). The Censorship Industrial Complex. U.S. Government Support For Domestic Censorship And Disinformation Campaigns, 2016 – 2022. Shellenberger Testimony March 9, 2022.

Silva, M. (2023). 15 minute cities: How they got caught in conspiracy theories. BBC. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66990302

Skinner, H., & Stephens, P. (2003). Speaking the same language: the relevance of neuro‐linguistic programming to effective marketing communications. Journal of Marketing Communications, 9(3), 177–192. https://doi.org/10.1080/1352726032000129926

Smith, A., & Stirling, A. (2008). Social-ecological resilience and socio-technical transitions: critical issues for sustainability governance. Brighton STEPS Centre Working Paper, 8(8), 1–25. https://doi.org/ISBN 978 1 85864 5425

Sobieraj, S., & Berry, J. M. (2011). From incivility to outrage: Political discourse in blogs, talk radio, and cable news. Political Communication, 28(1), 19–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2010.542360

Somerville, E., & Bullen, J. (2023). Watch: Anti-Ulez ‘Blade Runner’ vigilantes vandalise cameras in London. The Telegraph. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/08/30/ulez-vandals-say-damaging-cameras-is-voluntary-work/

Sowell, T. (2010). Dismantling America. Perseus Books Group.

Sowell, T. (2018). Discrimination and Disparities. Basic Books.

Spengler, O. (2015). Man and Technics A Contribution to a Philosophy of Life. Arktos Media Limited.

Springer, N. (2017). An analysis of Rachel Carson’s : silent spring. 96.

Stenudd, S. (2015). Tao Te Ching. The Taoism of Lao Tzu (2nd ed.). CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform.

Stoker, G., & Curry, J. (. (2020). Polarized climate politics. Oxford Research. Encyclopedia of Climate Science.

Strings. (2022). CHANGING DIRECTIONS Steering science, technology and innovation towards the Sustainable Development Goals. https://doi.org/10.20919/FSOF1258

Sustainable Urban Delta. (n.d.). Retrieved April 20, 2023, from https://sustainableurbandelta.com/

Taneja, R. (2018). What Is Auroville In India? 5 Facts You Should Know. NDTV. https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/what-is-auroville-in-india-5-facts-you-should-know-1817268

Taylor, D. (Ed.). (2011). Michel Foucault Key Concepts. Routledge.

The Power of a Book. (n.d.). Environment & Society Portal. Retrieved January 18, 2024, from https://www.environmentandsociety.org/exhibitions/rachel-carsons-silent-spring/power-book

Thibodeau, P. H., & Boroditsky, L. (2011). Metaphors we think with: The role of metaphor in reasoning. PLoS ONE, 6(2). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0016782

Tol, R. S. J. (2016). THE IMPACTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE ACCORDING TO THE IPCC. Climate Change Economics, 07(01), 1640004. https://doi.org/10.1142/s2010007816400042

Twidle, H. (2013). Rachel Carson and the Perils of Simplicity: Reading Silent Spring from the Global South. Ariel: A Review of International English Literature, 44(4), 49–88. https://doi.org/10.1353/ARI.2013.0028

Ultra Low Emission Zone – Transport for London. (n.d.). Transport for London. Retrieved February 2, 2024, from https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/driving/ultra-low-emission-zone

1. (n.d.-a). Peace, dignity and equality on a healthy planet. United Nations. https://www.un.org/en/our-work/maintain-international-peace-and-security
2. (n.d.-b). United Nations Charter. https://www.un.org/en/about-us/un-charter/full-text
3. (n.d.-c). What Is Climate Change? | United Nations. Unted Nations. Retrieved August 30, 2023, from https://www.un.org/en/climatechange/what-is-climate-change
4. (2022). THE SDG PARTNERSHIP GUIDEBOOK A practical guide to building high impact multi-stakeholder partnerships for the Sustainable Development Goals First Edition. UN.

Unruh, G. C. (2000). Understanding Carbon Lock-in. Energy Policy, 28(12), 817–830. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0301-4215(00)00070-7

Wahl-Jorgensen, K., & Hanitzsch, T. (2009). The Handbook of Journalism Studies. In K. Wahl-Jorgensen & T. Hanitzsch (Eds.), Routledge Taylor & Francis Group. Routledge Taylor & Francis Group.

Watts, A. W. (1951). The wisdom of Insecurity. A Message for an Age of Anxiety. Vantage Books.

Watts, A. W. (1972). In My Own Way. Pantheon Books.

Weber, R. N. (2024). military-industrial complex. Encyclopedia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/topic/military-industrial-complex

Wecke, I. (2021). Conspiracy theories aside, there is something fishy about the Great Reset. Insight and Inspiration in Turbulent Times. https://www.resilience.org/stories/2021-08-24/conspiracy-theories-aside-there-is-something-fishy-about-the-great-reset/

WEF. (2021a). Agriculture: Evaluating sustainable farming techniques. World Economic Forum. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/04/sustainable-farming-techniques-agriculture-climate-change/

WEF. (2021b). The 15-minute city meets human needs but leaves desires wanting. Here’s why. World Econmic Forum. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/11/15minute-city-falls-short/

Whitehead, M. (2014). Environmental Transformations. Routledge.