Do not underestimate the will to conform.
Most people are terrified of standing up and standing out, of alienation, isolation, of obscurity, poverty, including scientists, perhaps especially scientists, who necessarily spend much-most of their lives conforming in one way or another, economically, educationally, socially.
Okay. So why aren't you such a person? What makes you so special that you've seen through this one lie to the truth? Are you one of those great visionaries you write about in the next section? A Tesla? A Jung? Is your IQ 150+ (By the way, I'm of the opinion that only true conformists rely on IQ as an indicator of anything. The test was invented only to gauge below average intelligence, not a measure of those with supposedly more, but that's a whole other discussion.)
The mavericks, the Nicola Teslas of the world, the Karl Jungs, the real movers and shakers, creative visionaries are few and far in between, and many-most of them may be on board with the agenda if there is one.
Lots of people have 150+ iQs, even if they only makeup 1% of the population, that's still millions of people, so why'ren't many-most of them innovating in big ways?
Because most people are dull, if not intellectually than personality wise.
That last sentence is really alarming, because that's the kind of thing a sociopath would say. Who are you to sit in judgement of 99% of the world? I may not find sports or cars particularly interesting, but I'm not going to turn around and pat myself on the back because I'm superior and evolved that I don't find such "dull" things to be a source of enjoyment.
One of the great intellectual "mavericks", Socrates, told us that true knowledge was in knowing that we knew nothing. I'm inclined to agree with him as the more I learn, the more I grow skeptical of certainty, particularly in the absence of evidence as in FET's case.
Many people rarely have or express their divergent thoughts and opinions, cause there's always a few spineless kiss asses around who never even dreamt of having or expressing any to shame them.
I actually can't parse that sentence. I get that you're saying people are afraid to express themselves, and that it has something to do with kiss-asses, but I'm not sure who the "who" you're referring to after that is. The people? The kiss asses? They never express themselves because they fear being shamed by someone? I'm just lost.
I would rather encourage people to think for themselves, and stand up for what they believe in, even if I disagree with them, even if I think they're, flat, out wrong, I mean how wrong could they be when our civilization is already so wrong, with all our supposed advanced science and technology, never have we been more out of sync and tune with nature than now.
So here's the problem with that. I respect free thought, but I don't believe any thought deserves to live totally unchallenged. Thoughts, like people, need to have their own strength and be able to stand on their own. If you can only support them out of a vague idea that they're exciting and could be true because of a vast and shadowy conspiracy, they aren't worth your support to begin with.
Did you know you can simultaneously be free-thinking, yet agree with a majority of people about an issue? Free thought is about coming to your own conclusions and not just trusting what a majority of the people have to say. I'd like to think I do that by coming here, reading arguments in favor of this unusual idea, and challenging them. Blindly trusting in FET because it's "innovative" or "different" is worse sheep-thinking than a manifesto of "baas" written on wool.
As for nature vs. civilization, that's a whole big discussion we can't hope to tackle here. I will say that we discard natural things that seem to make us suffer as a whole (murder or crapping on the ground) while embracing natural things that give us satisfaction (appreciating nature itself, eating, etc...) but I would never paint "natural" with the broad brush of "correct" to live my life.
It is better to stand up for what you believe and be wrong, than to shrink from controversy.
And cue Godwin's law in 5...4...3...2.....
I'll just shortcut it by saying that standing up for what you believe when it is objectively wrong isn't admirable in the slightest, it's foolish. Some beliefs have no definitive proof one way or the other of course, and knock yourself out with your beliefs there, sure.
But FET ain't one of 'em. It's just wrong, and demonstrably so.
Controversy is how a society evolves, and we cannot wait for the system to fix itself, real change always comes from outside the system from individuals or smaller, marginalized, competing systems.
Oh man, have I got a list for this.
1. No it isn't. VALID ideas create controversy. CONTROVERSY itself is not inherently valuable.
2. What system? The system where we know the earth is round and are able to plan GPS, airplane travel, and SPACE FLIGHT accordingly? What do we gain from suddenly embracing the seemingly unprovable precept that the earth is flat? Do any of those things work better? What the ever-loving hell actually changes on a systemic level?
3. Ah, but the system creates and molds those individuals who change things. Were it not for the systems that shaped them, they would not exist to attempt to exert change. It's gibberish nonsense to try and hold people up as somehow existing outside the societies they come from, even if they are great mavericks within their lives.
Why is it socially permissible to question everyone in society from bankers, to bureaucrats, from media, to clergy, but not scientists?
This is not a scientocracy, it's a democracy/republic, principally at least, no individual or institution ought to be beyond internal, and external scrutiny...which's not to say all criticism is equal or should be believed, of course, duh!
Question scientists all you want; scientists themselves encourage this because that's a valid part of the scientific method.
But don't question the science itself when you can't come up with reasonable challenges to it.
I could tell you that our shadows are made of cheese, and that you shouldn't listen to sheep, self-servicing scientists who insist that it's just the result of blocked photons.
Then you'd say, "Well what proof do you have?"
And I'd say, "It doesn't make sense that shadows are blocked light. How could you see something that was simply the absence of something else? That's silly. Cheese makes way more sense."
Then you'd say, "Why cheese? How do you know our shadows aren't tiny leftover dinosaurs?"
And I'd say, "Well, cheese is just an aproximation. I'm just saying the pervasive so-called science on the matter is far from settled, and I think it's really important that instead we find the truth."
Then you'd say, "This is getting very frustrating. There are so many good and reasonable reasons not to believe what you say, ranging from the fact that our shadows do not smell like cheese and cannot be eaten, and that we can't pick them up like cheese."
And I'd say, "That's just light refracting around the cheese so you can't actually gauge where it is to grab it. That doesn't mean our shadows aren't cheese though."
That's FET at the end of the day. You can make any theory sound plausible so long as you don't need to prove anything concrete, can refute all existing proof as mere optical phenomena, and are steadfast in your belief no matter what comes along.
If we formed all theories the way that FET was formed and questioned all science along the same lines then there would be no science, we'd just be making wild guesses at things all the time, with no clue how to put together new technology, adapt our thinking accurately, or otherwise even interpret the world around us at a basic level, because all things would be seen as equally suspect and unprovable.
But sure, tell me again about how all this free-thinking and non-conformity and controversy is helping things. I'd love to know.