Combating the psychological inertia of the status quo

The naturalistic fallacy is a very common error in logic that was perhaps first articulated by Hume. It refers to the tendency for people to confuse what exists with what is good. In other words, the very fact that something is means that it is something that should be.

Psychologically, the naturalistic fallacy is supported by two closely related cognitive biases: existence bias, and status quo bias.

Existence bias is a ubiquitous judgment heuristic in which people assign goodness or value to a situation, event, or potential future outcome based on the belief that the situation, event, or outcome represents an existing state of affairs. All things being equal, if you tell someone that something is common or prevalent, the person will judge it more favorably than if you tell them that it is uncommon.

The status quo bias refers to our lopsided valuation of existing circumstances. We have a strong tendency to prefer maintaining the status quo even if there are clearly superior alternatives. People are willing to invest far more energy and expense in maintaining the status quo than they would have been willing to invest to bring those conditions about in the first place.

We have a natural distaste for change, as if our present situation—whatever that situation happens to be—carries a potent psychological inertia. It’s easier to keep doing the same thing than it is to try something different.

Even if what we are doing isn’t working out so well for us.

Even if our present circumstances are dreadful.

Even if something clearly better is right there in front of us.

So, we put up with a job that is not entirely satisfying, or a marriage that is not entirely fulfilling, or a political system that immiserates the majority while expanding the power of those already in power, or a technology-dependent lifestyle that is burning the planet down to its base granite.

The naturalistic fallacy and its heuristic underpinnings can help explain the passive, unquestioning acceptance of the civilized status quo. Existence bias can lead to a devaluation of past conditions simply because they are no longer present. The mere fact that civilization exists is seen as clear evidence of civilization’s superiority over the life-ways it has displaced. And status quo bias produces a strong reluctance to consider doing anything different.

So, are there ways to make anti-civ/green anarchy/anarcho-primitivist ideals and ideas more prevalent? Or even just appear to be more prevalent (when it comes to biases, belief has far more power than actual fact)? Are there ways to sneak the future primitive into the status quo?