Is Stage Green Currently Losing Influence?

[bmcnicho]

I see Trump’s victory as partially representing a collective rejection of Stage Green values, and I’ve been contemplating to what extent this could represent a long term trend of backsliding, or if this is a more narrow reaction to current conditions.  If this is a long term trend, I find this concerning, as most of us would agree that the best path forward collectively is the embracing of Stage Green, so we can then move on to Tier 2.

The problem I see is that Stage Green has largely failed to meaningfully deliver materially on its values, leading the general public to prefer Stage Orange values and below, which at least presents the aesthetics of success at a surface level and appeals to people’s low consciousness impulses.  Also, people are commonly exposed to an underdeveloped and immature version of what Green could be, making them susceptible to anti-progressive propaganda.

The modernist idea of continuous material and cultural progress being an automatic guarantee practically baked into the structure of reality seems to be significantly challenged, if not refuted, by post-modern conditions.  I could still see in the long term the excesses of Stage Orange leading to such great material harm that a transition to Green becomes unavoidable, however I’m getting the sense that currently things might be moving in the opposite direction.

I think one of the keys to making it through these times is that progressives need to face the harsh reality that a significant portion of the population genuinely prefers ignorance and selfishness over goodness and truth, and that that these people will need to be brought along as part of whatever project for the future we might envision.

It is difficult for those who desire progress to contend with the possibility that broad scale material forces might be currently moving against that positive impulse.  There is a sense of helplessness and despair in that.

What I’m not so sure about is how to distinguish between short term versus long term trends.  I’d like to hear if others have knowledge or perspectives on that.

[Leo Gura]

Green cannot deliver on its values because most people are too undeveloped to be Green.

When Green really gets going most people freak out and regress to where they feel comfortable, which is some combination of Orange and Blue.

It's easy to virtue signal about Green, but when the rubber meets the road and it's time to pay taxes or surrender power or give up sex, people say, Hell no, and live at Orange or below.

People want the appearance of having Green values while actually surviving at Orange.

Edited 2 hours ago by Leo Gura

[Terell Kirby]

2 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Green cannot deliver on its values because most people are too undeveloped to be Green.

This assumes the growth and development of the lower stage is not contingent on the enforcement of Green values.

But how is it the case people get to Green then? I would think delivering on some of those values, even among the underdeveloped masses, plays some role.

Edited 2 hours ago by Terell Kirby

[Raze]

3 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Green cannot deliver on its values because most people are too undeveloped to be Green.

When Green really gets going most people freak out and regress to where they feel comfortable, which is some combination of Orange and Blue.

It's easy to virtue signal about Green, but when the rubber meets the road and it's time to pay taxes or surrender power or give up sex, people say, Hell no, and live at Orange or below.

What does green have to do with giving up sex? Wasn’t the free love movement and acceptance of casual relationships a stage green movement?

[Leo Gura]

2 minutes ago, Raze said:

What does green have to do with giving up sex? Wasn’t the free love movement and acceptance of casual relationships a stage green movement?

Look at pickup artists, the Tate phenomenon, Incels, Red Pill, or powerful people. They all have a problem with giving up misogyny to treat women as equals. Because doing so loses them power and means less sex. And so all these groups skew fascist, because facsism panders to them with hyper masculinity.

Edited 2 hours ago by Leo Gura

[Raze]

2 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Look at pickup artists, the Tate phenomenon, Incels, Red Pill, or powerful people. They all have a problem with giving up misogyny to treat women as equals. Because doing so loses them power and means less sex.

I think that the problem with green is it breaks down structures of prior stages which are necessary for people to develop into green causing the green transition to undo itself, paving the way for stage yellow as they will realize the necessity of prior stages and systems to combat it. 

Edited 2 hours ago by Raze

[Leo Gura]

7 minutes ago, Terell Kirby said:

But how is it the case people get to Green then?

You don't get to Green by being pandered to with goodies. You get to it through education and personal development.

People who demand to be pandered to with material rewards in order to develop will not develop far, because that is how a child behaves, not a serious mind.

Edited 2 hours ago by Leo Gura

[Leo Gura]

3 minutes ago, Raze said:

I think that the problem with green is it breaks down structures of prior stages which are necessary for people to develop into green causing the green transition to undo itself, paving the way for stage yellow as they will realize the necessity of prior stages and systems to combat it. 

No. I reject the idea that people are not going Green because Green doesn't cater to them enough. If you need Green to cater to you, then you aren't ready for Green.

It's like, "What are you gonna give me if I behave well?"

Nothing. I will give you nothing. And if you don't like that, that reveals who you really are.

Edited 2 hours ago by Leo Gura

[Terell Kirby]

9 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

You get to it through education and personal development.

Can't argue with that, but of course much of the world's education systems are corrupt and don't facilitate proper education and opportunities for personal development to happen on any deep level.

It's a systems issue that Green values bring some attention to (corruption of education/political systems by toxic Orange).

Edited 2 hours ago by Terell Kirby

[Lyubov]

You want pure green living, go live on a commune or in a hippy village and grow wheat grass and raise chickens. Our entire modern survival process is built on stage orange beliefs. Most of where the money flows today is towards stuff that was pushed heavily with stage orange values (investing, tech). It’s basically inescapable. How can we possibly live under green with the current system in place? It won’t be for a while until people move on from “hurr durr socialism bad.”

[Hardkill]

Most of these stage Orange monsters will kill themselves, die a gruesome death, or just lose it all in the end. They and everyone around them will all pay a price that's beyond what they can even imagine.

Edited 2 hours ago by Hardkill

[Raze]

13 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

No. I reject the idea that people are not going Green because Green doesn't cater to them enough. If you need Green to cater to you, then you aren't ready for Green.

It's like, "What are you gonna give me if I behave well?"

Nothing. I will give you nothing. And if you don't like that, that reveals who you really are.

They need proper structures designed around stage red, blue, and orange to develop the capacity to expand their awareness beyond themselves until it reaches stage green.

A self centered kid needs discipline, then a stimulus seeking teen needs social structure and limitation. Stage green would introduce permissive parenting and no limits hook up culture so the kid doesn’t mature and the teen remains in adolescence, then this generation of adults cannot sustain the stage green societal set up. 

Edited 2 hours ago by Raze

[Daniel Balan]

@Leo Gura One can only go green if he surrenders on purpose all the egoic benefits of orange for the sake of all the other beings. Much like I give up some of my comfort so that others can enjoy a peaceful life too. The problem is that Green is a colective stage, so as an orange individual you must make sacrifices for the community for the sake of the community without gaining anything in return. I think this shift from individualist to collectivist is the biggest obstacle in going beyond orange. And I think that the same problem is preventing Yellow into going into Turquoise.

Edited 2 hours ago by Daniel Balan

[bmcnicho]

18 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

No. I reject the idea that people are not going Green because Green doesn't cater to them enough. If you need Green to cater to you, then you aren't ready for Green.

It's like, "What are you gonna give me if I behave well?"

Nothing. I will give you nothing. And if you don't like that, that reveals who you really are.

I agree, this is an important point.  I think this was one of the problems with the Bernie Sanders movement, despite the fact that I think many of the policies would’ve been good.  He needed to market it as “this is what you’ll get for supporting me”, which is the the only way for a progressive movement to gain broad support in our current environment.  But this lead to the “free stuff” smear, and the objection of “but I don’t want to pay more taxes”.

Stage Green is really about giving up personal power for the greater good, but few are willing to accept that message.

[Davino]

41 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

It's like, "What are you gonna give me if I behave well?"

As a sage once said:

Being good is its own reward

[Scholar]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

No. I reject the idea that people are not going Green because Green doesn't cater to them enough. If you need Green to cater to you, then you aren't ready for Green.

It's like, "What are you gonna give me if I behave well?"

Nothing. I will give you nothing. And if you don't like that, that reveals who you really are.

Yes, it's how people get annoyed at vegans if they talk about the ethics of meat-eating. And if the vegans get frustrated, they will pretend that they would have been far more likely to be convinced if only the vegan wasn't so annoying. The reality is, they just don't want their value system to be challenged because they feel comfortable, and they want the vegan to behave in line with social norms because then they don't annoy them as much with their pesky morality.

Though of course stage green doesn't do itself any favor with the way it is enforcing it's value systems. Stage green should learn from stage orange and realize peer pressure is not a great way of convincing people of your cause.

[What Am I]

17 minutes ago, Scholar said:

Yes, it's how people get annoyed at vegans if they talk about the ethics of meat-eating. And if the vegans get frustrated, they will pretend that they would have been far more likely to be convinced if only the vegan wasn't so annoying. The reality is, they just don't want their value system to be challenged because they feel comfortable, and they want the vegan to behave in line with social norms because then they don't annoy them as much with their pesky morality.

Though of course stage green doesn't do itself any favor with the way it is enforcing it's value systems. Stage green should learn from stage orange and realize peer pressure is not a great way of convincing people of your cause.

This is kind of off topic, but what are your thoughts on whether there are compromises to human health when adopting a long-term vegan diet? I was previously a vegetarian for over 10 years, and even though I included dairy, I still felt like something vital was lacking. I'm asking from a place of curiosity rather than a gotcha.