Top Down or Bottom Up

If you are intent on Saving the World do you take a Top Down or Bottom Up approach?

Bottom up, as in, rally people to a cause.  Get at least some enthused enough to take some action. i.e. Change to buying energy efficient light bulbs. Excellent work but when you do the numbers pretty ineffectual in your effort to save the world.

Top down, as in, I am global supreme leader, you will only use energy efficient light bulbs or I will ensure you are punished for not doing so.  We have the United Nations and the Security Council to dictate and enforce but that too seems pretty impotent with respect to saving the world.

This is the stage where many give up, the realisation that no matter what we do, the world is running head long towards a cliff and there is no stopping it.  The rationale is “I don’t think it will happen in my natural lifetime – what happens after that is of little consequence to me”.  Our thoughts are probably true, we don’t reflect on them too much because they make us think of ourselves as selfish bad people,  we use it just enough to be able to live with the enormity of the problem.  Some get to old age, thinking we are that much closer to the cliff than when they were born, feeling sorry for the generations to come, but happy that they won’t be around to experience it.  Many believe the top down approach is working with things going perfectly to plan.  God (The Global Supreme Leader) has it all in hand. Revelations is literal and we should all rejoice as we approach the edge of Armageddon.

The jeux de position Top down versus Bottom up presents in a quest to save the world would indicate the quest is pointless.

If we look at risk versus reward. It it is personally less risky to believe in God.  (A supreme Global Leader whoes existance can’t be proven and must be taken on faith) If God doesn’t exist you personally no worse off than those who didn’t believe in God. However if God does exist, and paradise is something you aspire to, the the reward is high for no risk. 

Unfortunately as a group the same analysis doesn’t hold.  If motivation to take action of individuals believing that the future is under control and it isn’t, then Armageddon is a self-fulfilling prophesy regardless of your beliefs. Personal saviour, group demise.

Our motivation for personal survival, here on earth, and in the afterlife for those who believe in it, could be used to veer us away from the cliff. No Armageddon. We would all survive. Including future generations.

A mechanism which hooks into our primordial survival instinct to accentuate activities that promote group survival is required.

That primordial Survival Instinct is often interpreted as Greed. Was Gordon Gekko right? Can Greed be good?

Leave a Reply