Efficiency, centralization, and lack of agency v. resilience
POSTED BY: SIGNYM
UPDATED: Friday, March 28, 2025 15:44
VIEWED: 4079
PAGE 2 of 5
My short answer would be: "Humans are short-sighted". Much as I'd like to agree with Cav, that theory is, as Sig explained, also irrelevant unless some way could be found to get people to AGREE to live within sustainable limits, and at the same time plan for contingencies and...well, already you're past the point of conceivability once you pass the word "agree", so I'll stop there.
Unless we were to evolve PAST our short-sightedness, which we've not done as a species since we evolved this far, I don't see any way to change things, especially at this late date with the population we already have. If I were religious I would go with the "failed experiment" theory where our species is concerned; as it is, I've kind of sadly accepted my role as flea.
It's awfully easy to see all the aspects of human nature that make us open to the systems that have created the world we live in; I'm not smart enough to ferret out the aspects of human nature that might be used to change things. I certainly agree with everything thus postulated, but have no answers with which to offer hope.
It's a fascinating discussion and perhaps THE most relevant one in the world, but...
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
HK, I hate to burst your bubble, but natives of all kinds (Maoris, north Americans, Easter Islanders) managed to wipe themselves out by knife-edge existance, or wasted critical resources profligately. There are stories of north American native buffalo hunts where whole herds were killed for tongues, humps, fetuses, and marrow, leaving nearly-whole rotting carcasses. THe Anasazi practiced cannibalism and strip-mined their local area of trees and water. And as far as I know, while the NE natives were matriarchal, the Plains natives treated their women like shit.
The only peoples that I know of who have TRULY learned to live within limits were some Polynesian islanders who could quite often literally see the limits of their world, and who would at times send young men off in canoes whenever the population got too high. Mythologizing ancient peoples isn't going to point us in the direction of a solution.
Yup.
I found Jarrod Diamond to be one of the most useful writers and thinkers on this subject, in both
Guns, Germs, Steel
http://www.amazon.com/Guns-Germs-Steel-Fates-Societies/dp/0393317552
and
Collapse
http://www.amazon.com/Collapse-Societies-Succeed-Revised-Edition/dp/01
43117009/ref=pd_bxgy_b_text_y
Thank you for bringing this up, as I feel the need to read Collapse again.
He makes the distinction between hunter/gatherer societies and those with agriculture.
Hunter/gatherers did not depend on surplus, they were able to survive on seasonal fare, tended to be generalists rather than specialists, and their societies were small and fairly egalitarian.
The jump to agriculture (according to Diamond) was not a result of ingenuity but necessity. The environment could not support people based on seasonal fare, so provision for times of scarcity needed to be made inorder to survive. That and access to plants that could be harvested and stored ie grains.
Argriculture led to sedentry civilisations, and surpluses led to trade, trade led to specialisation. It is not true to say that art died in such civilisations, but that it became specialised, along with other skills. Specialisation meant that skills could become crafts, and therefore technology began to develop.
A rough precis of the theory.
In Collapse, Diamond details what happens to civilisations when resources are depleted by agrarian societies, and usually there gets to a critical point where you see increase in hostilities through to descent into total war and then total breakdown of society. Diamond's point is that this happens, but it is not inevitable if we take steps to curtail overuse of resources.
The problem therefore lies in signy's original point, or what I took it to be. How can we curtail resource use in a system that depends upon consumption of resources?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
MAGONS- ETA- Hmmm... interesting take on Collapse and Guns, Germs, and Steel. I had slightly different take-way messages. AFA Guns, Germs, and Steel, it seems to me that many of the features that Diamond pointed to as being accidental but necessary to the development of a world-spanning imperium: the development of agriculture, the presence of a high-protein grain, the domestication of animals, and the resistance to a wide variety of pathogens leading the invaders to being their own best biological weapons... were reproduced in South America, because of the availability of quinoa, amaranth and corn and the domestication of alpaca and llama. The one factor that couldn't be reproduced, and the one that I think was a necessary ingredient, is the ease of traveling in the east-west direction. As Diamond pointed out, if you can travel within a latitude, you can take your whole way of life with you because climate remains the same. But in Africa and the Americas, the only available travel was north-south, which meant (for example) that only two technological developments could be translated- corn and irrigation. Everything else... the amaranth, quinoa, alpacas and llamas... had to be left behind.
AFA Collapse is concerned, the message I got was that people are hostage to crazy ideas. The most chilling example was the Easter Islanders (Rapa Nui), and their suicidal downfall was cutting down trees to erect the moai. What was that man thinking as he cut down the last tree? Once the trees were cut down, the island was swept bare by the wind and both escape and deep-sea fish became out of reach because the islanders could no longer make canoes. Altho some blame the introduction of rats, which ate the palm seeds, the end-point is the same: If the Rapa Nui had looked at their island realistically, they would have taken every effort to keep their tree population healthy. Instead, they wound up in a cannabalistic free-for-all, in which a prime insult was "Your mother's flesh is stuck between my teeth".
But now I want to re-read both books!
------------
To answer your question, I think the only way that we can curtail resource-use and create a more durable structure is by changing the purpose of the system itself.
Right now, the pupose of the system is to "make money". Production is geared towards what can be paid for instead of what is needed. So, for example, we have pharma focused with laser-intensity on diseases of excess and pleasure (statins, viagra) rather than anti-malarial drugs because the northern middle class can afford to buy drugs but the infected southern poor cannot. ("Market", in modern terms, is never determined by need but always geared towards money. That is why we have so many unemployed, even while people need housing, education, and medical care; and the earth needs to be seriously remediated... there is no "demand" for housing for the poor, nor can the earth pay for its own rehabilitation. So this is a prime example of the failure of "markets" to guide our economy and society. But I digress.)
But in order to see this, people have to look at all of this in an entirely new way. Because, I believe, people... even poor people... have bought into many of the myths that underlie the way we do things. (Of course, these myths are pumped at people every day, because the wealthy also control the media. And that is one of the inherent failings of human beings: We believe what we are taught, more than the evidence of our senses. So we can transmit the ideas of electrons and atoms... very useful concepts, but try showing THOSE to someone! At the same time, we can also transmit the ideas of "god", or that men are superior to women, or that "free markets" will create a constantly-improving economy and society.) One of those myths is the myth of efficiency, and another one of those myths is that technology will save us.
The concept that cracked the paradigm-barrier for
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Wonderfully eloquent, Sig, and I tend to agree with everything you wrote. Most especially Quote:
I realized then, after probing my feelings like I would probe a broken tooth with my tongue, that there were a LOT of ideas I had in my head that were tightly interlinked but deeply flawed. It was like running into a wall in the dark... there it was, suddenly, when it had never been there before, and when I felt around to see how far it extended, I realized it was really, really big.
That's what happened to me; unfortunately, when I realized how really, really big it was, I pretty much stopped trying to understand and gave up hope. I still find understanding (or trying to) individual humans fascinating, but when it comes to the species, and any hope of us changing in any way which will salvage things, I just gave up. Now I just do what I can in my own small way, bitch and moan, and try to bring things to people's attention, and nothing more. Obviously that's not the answer, either...
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
HK, I hate to burst your bubble, but natives of all kinds (Maoris, north Americans, Easter Islanders) managed to wipe themselves out by knife-edge existance, or wasted critical resources profligately. There are stories of north American native buffalo hunts where whole herds were killed for tongues, humps, fetuses, and marrow, leaving nearly-whole rotting carcasses. THe Anasazi practiced cannibalism and strip-mined their local area of trees and water. And as far as I know, while the NE natives were matriarchal, the Plains natives treated their women like shit.
The only peoples that I know of who have TRULY learned to live within limits were some Polynesian islanders who could quite often literally see the limits of their world, and who would at times send young men off in canoes whenever the population got too high. Mythologizing ancient peoples isn't going to point us in the direction of a solution.
Hey Signy,
I think you may have been talking to assholes on the internet too long. My first comment in this thread you meet with dismissal, ridicule and the arrogance that a couple cherry-picked negative examples are going to "burst" my "bubble." Which, of course, puts me on the defensive, doesnt' it? sending me rushing to back up my claims to find examples you will simply label cherry-picked and insignificant.
You site "stories" of wasteful buffalo hunts as if such instances sum up the entire history of buffalo hunting on this continent, when the kind of hunting you're talking about could only have happened, and did only happen, after the introduction of the horse critically altered the paradigm of the Nations of the great plains. The horse represented a violent shift in available technology and changed plains cultures just as violently. It made the most aggressive actions of the population vastly more efficient. The treating women like shit thing came with.
And the Anasazi were no more representative of the hundreds of Nations on this continent before the white man than Nazi Germany was representative of the whole of western culture (and before anyone calls Godwin, I'd like to say that the Anasazi are the Godwin of internet conversations about Native American culture). I'm surprised you didn't bring up Ester Island as well.
And in true gladiatorial style, Signy, you base your dismissal entirely on the first paragraph of my post. The grave irony of all this is that you're exemplifying the destructive and wasteful paradigm you despair of. You've trained your mind to destroy and to do it efficiently. I was just trying to give you a different perspective and possible way out.
HKCavalier
Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Cav, I went back and re-read your post after that, and I need to apologize, insofar as I agreed with a lot of what you said, but I, too, dismissed it, for my own reasons. In my case, I extrapolated the examples you gave to "what would have happened as they continued to populate?", and I do believe those you described would have followed the same path as humanity did on all the other continents. Yes, there still exist aboriginal peoples here and there, but as they expand--and can you show any society which has NOT expanded eventually, as their ability to do so became possible?--I think they'd play out the same story as the rest of us.
So while I don't dismiss your examples, can you show any instance of such a society which has not eventually abandoned whatever appreciation of they have of Mother Earth and gone the way of the rest of us? And have you any suggestion as to how to instill that appreciation in such a way as to change things from the path they are now on? I'd really like to know. I'd adore to be wrong.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
HK - your first paragraph:
Quote:I could point to many primtive cultures that destroyed some vital part of their environment, or behaved like assholes. The Maori, for example, hunted all nine species of moa to extinction. The Easter Islanders cut down all of their palm trees. The Mayans and the Aztecs believed in human sacrifice. Most jungle-dwelling natives, once they've learned the trick of fire, burn down trees to create clearings for agriculture. It's not just a few cherry-picked examples. Even within a single culture, there was an extremely wide variety of behaviors ... some that we should emulate, others not so much.
I think you may be kinda blinded by the current paradigm. Some (a lot of) humans have learned the lesson, did learn it and applied it for centuries--on this continent, for instance. It's primarily white Europeans who have taken over the entire world with their knife-edge lunacy. Even where white Europeans do not hold sway, their paradigms have choked out the indigenous cultures like kudzu choking the native grasses.
Also, if you're telling me that the introduction of new technology caused more destruction ... well, that was kind of my point. Cultures seem to do the most damage when they come into a new area, or they develop (or are introduced to) a new technology, and they haven't figured out the limits. In this current situation we are developing more and more technologies, and the constant change is exceeding our capacity to understand the ramifications of what we're doing.
Sorry if I didn't direct my response to your other points.
Quote:Did they practice birth control? Without birth control, it is difficult to understand how one COULD practice "stewardship" over the long-run, because without it- over the long-run- you will overrun your resources.
What's needed, what's always been needed, is gratitude to the planet itself for our existence. Cultures which have held gratitude to the Earth at the center of their spiritualities flourished for millennia before the knife-edge paradigm told them to over-hunt, over-fish and deplete the soil. Many Native American cultures understood and practiced stewardship of the natural world for centuries before the Europeans mucked things up.
But, yes, I believe that we should feel gratitude for our existance, and for the web of life that sustains us. I do a thing, it's a stupid thing, but it's mine: whenver I have leftover water, I take it outside and pour it on a plant, and send out thanks to whomever for rain. But that's not going to get us anywhere. We have the power to be far more destructive than ancient peoples, and so OUR approach has to be different.. perhaps more deliberate and self-aware, because now the problem with our survival is us and our technologies.
Again, apologies for stating things so aggressively.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Signy, I tried to precis two very complex books into a paragraph, so I did cherry pick a few of his ideas. Or I may have even taken his ideas and, you know, kind of extrapolated. Your description appears to be accurate as far as I remember.
I don't know how easy it is to get societies to change dramatically. Not everyone takes to time to rub the broken tooth (love that analogy) and even if they did, they may not come up with the same solutions as you.
Historically, it appears that dramatic change has taken place post catastrophic events, made made or natural. Plague, war, famine, natural disaster tend to sweep away old power structures and herald new societal structures.
eg the Black Death brought about the end of feudalism
WW1 ended rigid class structures in Europe.
The other way is through revolution.
I guess revolution and more subtle changes are all preceded by ideas and discourse, rather like we are having now. When people are able to articulate what they think will work better and truly believe it.
One of the things I regret about the fall of Eastern Europe is that there is now no currently viable alternative to capitalism, unless you count failed states, not very encouraging. Communism wasn't terribly successful either, but at least there were some countries where you weren't assaulted with the sight of a MacDonalds.
Re appreaciating the earth, Cav truly you don't have to believe in god with that one.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Really, Magons? Ya think I'm advocating for a belief in god??? Jesus...
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Re appreaciating the earth, Cav truly you don't have to believe in god with that one.
HKCavalier
Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Jesus Cav, you're an angry man lately. Want to reign it in a bit.
I was responding to your post -
"This is my single gripe with atheism: where's the gratitude? The Earth, our mother, feeds and clothes us and every spring lavishes us with unbelievable beauty. Gratitude would turn this whole world around, because gratitude makes us humble. It makes us want to give back. Gratitude makes us appreciate something larger than our idiot appetites. "
If you want to clarify, please do, but if you snarl at me once more, I won't respond to you again.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME