First by eliminating it's hi-jacking. First time pasting here, but a previous comment on another question seems to fit, even though originally addressing Stockholm Syndrome as an expanded phenomenon functionally:

**The psychological definition of this human propensity demonstrated in circumstances of physical captivity is limiting. Nevertheless, but for specific identification, we might have missed recognition of broader, related behavioral phenomena altogether.

As social creatures we instinctively seek out our 'place of belonging' (similar to imprinting) after gestation; about half of which takes place after birth. If nourishment and affection are ample after birth, finding is automatic as is identifcation. Instinctual primary drives, however, are gradually deprived of this and other kinds of satisfaction as 'socialization' is imposed. Belongingness expands beyond family to community/tribe, society as a whole including nationality. Institutions require differing amounts of cognitive surrender as the price of membership. Because societies are defined and dominated by males following secondary, often pathological drives, institutional functions follow suit; themselves becoming pathogenic.

People deprived, either by damage, usurpation or both of healthy reasoning faculties are vulnerable to having their entire 'place of belonging' sensually subsituted; to being in psycholgical and emotional captivity. Walls and bars are absent and unnecessary, as also happens with Stockholm Syndrome once cult-type 'imprinting' occurs.

Under such circumstances, YES we are all vulnerable and blinded to our own complicity in our own enslavement. NO mystery why pollice dread answering domestic violence calls at all. Uncle Tom goes much deeper than mere deference to the dominant population.

NO other ethnic/racial grouping, shows more complicity in their own social oppression than Americans with African ancestry. I have a
French great grandmother. French is included as a minor portion when describinig my mostly Irish heritage and nobody bats an eye. Had she been from Leopoldville I'd be considered BLACK. Rest assured, describing heritage the same way in the latter case would cause a shower of criticism from others with African ancestry accusing me of being ashamed of being black! Anybody remember Tiger Woods? This attitude is pure Jim Crow, yet few Americans, regardless of race, notice the self-perpetuated oppression.

Fanaticism thrives because of this, artifically imposed maladaptive damage.**

This is one of Bill Gates favorite books.

The answer to your question is within your question... by joining together as ecoactivists to preserve biodiversity, forests, oceans, animals and pollution-free ecosystems, and by consciously and willingly limiting human overpopulation, because we're all human beings and human beings will still need a quality home in a hundred years.

Dr Wilson is an extraordinary genius. Belonging to a group is an important part of life for many living creatures. As primates we are not unlike the other apes that tend to live in groups. Probably the most glaring exception to that pattern are orangutans which tend to lead solitary lives. Humans are very much social and even those known as loners still often find company with other loners.So my answer to your question would be kinda like what we have here. Seek out others that share your basic ideals and needs and then look for a commonality to which a concerted effort may make a difference. many does make a task easier so a concerted effort may very well succeed and thereby become even more attractive to others who come to see what is happening and adopt the will. Dr wilson was in the forefront of the sociobiology theory. It never gained favor but that was mainly because others could not understand what he was saying. basically the same principle.

Some good points there, and a worthwhile topic.

Just as an aside, I thought I would clarify the statement you made "as when a Mormon, say, turns his back on his religion, and must then give up family and community as well"

As someone who has been through this experience, and spoken to many people who leave this religion, I can assure you that for the most part, this is a false assertion.

I do know other "franchises" of christianity that adopt this policy, but Mormons really can't be categorised with them. If anyone has experienced this, it may be a result of the natural human instinct to avoid argumentative and/or aggressive behaviour. I think you will find that Mormons in general are much more accepting and friendly.

Strangely enough, Mormons are actually very science accepting. You don't get these crazy preachers who insist the earth is flat with a dome over it, or that the world is only 7,000 years old.

That was a big part of the problem for me, that they still teach the standard scriptures, but they don't try to reconcile the obvious contradictions.

But anyway, they don't ostracize people who leave.

Well, this forum, and the many eco-groups I've been in, are contributing to that sense of community. That, as well as joining local groups of hobbyists; hikers, bikers, campers, bird watchers, etc.

Looks to me like we need a religion based on verifiable facts rather than on misinterpretable metaphors.

I also am a voracious reader. I just finished a book by Michel Tournier called "The Four Wise Men", which imagines the circumstances and stories that led the three wise men to the manger, as well as the apocryphal story of a fourth king who started from farther away and didn't arrive until the last supper. Now I am a complete atheist; but surprisingly, it doesn't hammer the religious side of the story. It turned out to be a beautiful parable about the nature of supreme sacrifice. The ending took my breath away. Definitely a worthwhile read if you get the chance.