Conspiracy theories as just another layer of the illusion

While it is imperative to nurture and enhance critical thinking skills, the tendencies of the human brain, as well as certain characteristics of information that are either presented to us as proven, well established facts or as new, recently proven, new facts are factors to contend with when striving to achieve a truth that more closely resembles the nature of our reality.

“It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.”  Aristotle

This shall be one guiding corner stone of this essay.
To consider, and accept, the reality of our ignorance, and even the fact that the extent of our ignorance is unknown is a starting point. We have to consider our ignorance up to the point where we would be able clearly map out what we believe to be true, and what we believe to know.

This exercise is valuable in showing us where, should our paradigms be challenged, resistance could arise, a simple emotional response from our brain deciding to make it harder to give up on established facts it deems useful for its routine. This routine it uses to get our body around in this world, make it function and prevent it from failing.

The result of the exercise would be in flow however, as our consciousness would  be permanently forming new experiences, inserting them into our subconscious memory. Even reading this article is in itself a change to the current map of our areas of perceived non-ignorance.
Secondly, and most importantly, as it can be brought to awareness, is the tendency of the human brain to draw conjectures from the information it has available, until it comes up with a conclusion that includes the information it stayed aware of to a reasonable degree. This solution then 'feels' right, the only exception being mathematical proofs, which, by increasing age, can be less and less understood even by those who wrote them.
Intuition, thereby formed, allows human brains to form conclusions, which form the basis for further action, even when relying on incomplete or partially wrong information.

This was certainly an evolutionary advantage, allowing us to make, perhaps imperfect, decisions in a timely fashion. In the face of incomplete information this is the key for decisive assertive action.

While this might lead to fantastic failure, human brains rely on instincts, a core function of the deeper embedded structures of the brain, to allow a higher chance of survival even if the idea conceived should go wrong, or the decisions and actions taken should, in face of new information, turn out to be less than perfect or even disastrous.

When the primary goal of human individuals was perpetuating of their genes, and meeting of primary needs, in an environment that valued short- and medium-term goals, this mode of operation was definitely the right path to choose for human brains.

Female brains, developing a tendency to do more long-term thinking, would be the counter-balance to enable an encouragement to point immediate and short-term actions on the long-term perpetuation of the genes of their kin.
But, and here mostly limited to that, perpetuation of offspring the humans felt responsible for.
Other parts of the biosphere, or the biosphere as a whole, there mostly served as a means to an end, resource to be utilized, or a threat to contained or dominated.

This approach has lead to the conundrum civilization currently finds itself it.

Springing from this, in the face of seemingly insolvable problems, as dire consequences could only be averted by a planetary cooperation of the whole of human population, which is not forthcoming.

Add to these problems, the increasing degradation of the biosphere, the individuals problems to struggle in the economic system of the civilization.
And perhaps tensions in his social relationships, exacerbated by lack in coping skills and knowledge about the functioning of human thinking and societal dynamics.
If to this a layer of an ever increasing complexity is added, not only in the world as a whole, but of change of an ever increasing magnitude and speed in the most cherished and valued areas of an individuals life, it is only normal that the brain becomes unable to cope with all of this change. Having to acknowledge loss of control knowingly is one of the most stressful changes a human brain undergoes.
It usually pushes against this, because the ability to do so is directly related to its ability to renounce ego.

Instead, the human brain will seek out new information, to draw new conclusions from, with which to orient its further actions.

Here the characteristics of narratives and the presentation of information come into play.

History is never structured like a clear narrative, with a beginning where the actors are introduced, the middle where the conflict plays out, with the heroes facing a challenge, dying, either literally or in a figurative sense, then coming back to face the challenge with a newfound skill, finally succeeding in the end, where the challenge is solved.

History is a constant flow, and the development in the nuclear arms race on this planet bear witness to that.
Stories, however, have, despite centuries of attempts to change storytelling, remained in their basic structure.
Perhaps that is the form information is best processed by the human brain.

At any rate is there a clear tendency to latch on information that have a familiar structure, that provide a narrative and a framework for the events in this ever more chaotic and changing world. It also provides a moral framework, allowing to make judgment calls on events whose cause and purpose might appear unclear, due to obscured or simply unknown facts, or due to lack of knowledge on the structures who are at work.

But therein lies the crux.

'The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves.' - Lenin 

 And considering the idea that this reality, as portrayed to us, is an illusion, there is no excluding the possibility that those theories, spread far and wide over the information networks of this planet, are not only another layer of the illusion.

"I say to you that scholarly fellows
Are like the cattle on an arid heath:
Some evil spirit leads them round in circles,
While sweet green meadows lie beneath." - Mephistopheles
in Goethe Faust

So in an nutshell, I propose that those conspiracy theories, regurgitated and repeated by countless witnesses, circulating around the information networks might be nothing but a vehicle to control eager minds trying to make sense.
By giving them a structure they are familiar with they latch onto it.
The structure of the narrative gives them a clear orientation as to where they stand. On the good side of course. Against those ignorant, either unknowingly or willfully. And against those who participate or control the overwhelming central control, which uses its authority to impose its agenda. Which usually is considered evil. As is the unification of humankind.

But those stories have an expiration date. The are then usually silently abandoned, with others stepping in their place.
Moral standards change with the technologies available.
Bill Gates advocating genetic engineering to handle food crisis is criticized as having reckless or more sinister connotations.

But without genetic technology, due to which we don't see genetic changes in our predominant food plants not over several generations, but within a few decades, these statement of his could not even be made. Likewise, the moral standard in regards to whats allowed and natural and what is considered amoral and unnatural wouldn't arise.

What also speaks against centralist, autocratic authorities that perpetuate their agenda unchanged over extended periods of time is the sheer fact that the real facts on the ground keep changing.
Those in the affected regions, currently disregarding any genetic engineering on their food crops, might have to change their moral standpoint, and their own goals. As change occurs, when circumstances change in their region to the point that due to climatic disruptions or new diseases or other factors, new goals might have be adopted. With the choice of unchanged course of action and a 50% increased chance of a 80% decrease in crop yield during every harvest, or mitigating that by embracing genetic engineered plants, those in charge might decide that its the morally right choice to avoid having catastrophic crop failure and ensuing food crisis.
Even if that means adapting goals, over time, that are detrimental to their initial ones.
Which in this case would be to enhance and improve genetic engineered plants.

To those facts the human brain that has subscribed to conspiracy theories can latch on at any time.
Either action can be interpreted as malicious. Every information about the situation as deceptive.
The conclusion would then be drawn that it fits into a overarching scheme of harm for their group, the good ones.

What needs to be considered here is that structures of civilization are relationship networks of humans.
Decisions made by individuals inside the hierarchy might sprout weird results at the end of the tree where the last detail is executed and responsibility deflected to the ranks higher up.
Mistakes at any segment of the chain of command might be hushed up. Not out of maliciousness of the general organisation.
But out of the drive of individual humans brains to resist change to their individual routine, which they deem stressful or even threatening.

To tear down the whole fabric of civilization, because the human condition obviously reflects in human build organizations and structures, just like a mirror does not lie, is a notion only those who have grown up free from existential suffering, or those having lived under systems that did not enable individuals to satisfy existential needs due to corruption could conjure up.

Inside reform of a working societal fabric might seem like arduous, and pointless.

If the alternative however is anarchy and chaos, everyone, except the most ruthless and cunning individuals suffer. The most vulnerable suffer the greatest.

That could not be the ultimate goal of those following the notions of their brains, to cry foul of genetic engineered plants.
Or those that see an overarching conspiracy in scandals previously hushed up and now exposed in civilizations organisations.

However given massive crop failure and mass starvation, even those that call foul of new technologies (and are disregarded, because change and innovation are a constant factor in the drive of civilization) would, if they considered rationally, perhaps consider using the best of worst options. And reluctantly accept the change.

Likewise, even with all branches of government and organization being as they are, unless humans have instilled in themselves a spiritual awareness for the needs of the local collective, a willingness to disengage from their ego, and a confidence that they can master yet unheard of challenges, they need not call for the dismantling of the structures in place.

Those prevent a large scale casualties of masses of individuals in the current given situation. Those who are unwilling to change and not ready to undertake the inner metamorphosis necessary to be more self-reliant yet interdependent.

Should the situation change, drastically, and fast, one might wish back for an organisation that has a reach as far as some of those organisations have currently.
At the same time, any large scale, complete breakdown of civilization would catalyse change in human individuals. Their instincts and their default thinking patterns would kick in. Provided with spiritual guidance they would sweep away any patterns inside their brain structure that hinders adaption and metamorphosis to the new normal.

Artifacts of the obsolete old age will remain, and it would be interesting to observe how these artifacts change and evolve, over the course of half a century or more.

But that is the topic for another essay.