Returning to the garden?
Been reading "Story of B", by Daniel Quinn, and interesting story, playing philosophy through fiction, pretended as in our world.
At one level I like his approach, acknowledging that our culture is on a collision course with disaster, trying to live outside of the bounds of nature, and as a result destroying, and through success growing and growing far beyond what the future can sustain.
He takes us back to "prehistory", the people we were before agriculture (and animal husbandry I guess), when we were hunters and gatherers. He tries to get us to wonder what motivated such people, genetically as capable as us over some 200,000 years of existence. His position is that our ag-revolution 10,000 years ago was an "accident" of circumstances and vision changing, something that might not have happened if things had been a little different. Perhaps there'd still be only 50 million people on earth now?
He suggests that "animism" (spirit in everything) as the universal "pre-religion" we had, and it as a religion that can "save the world", rather than merely our souls of "modern religions".
I accept his idea that we too quickly THINK they way WE do things as right, rather than trying to see them from the outside - as possibly insane!
I accept the "meme" of "domination of nature" may be fundamentally flawed. It may be equally unstoppable until we destroy ourselves? Quinn didn't say that, but I wonder.
I remember once watching a movie or something showing a primitive culture, and from the outside I thought "There's nothing for me there." I don't want to return to a world that I am not an individual, where the tribe can banish me for not conforming, where superstitions and fear lead us to suppress the human spirit to expand.
His idea that "increased food" leads to "increased population" seems hopeless as practical wisdom, however much true. As long as there's hungry people, and others who control the food, we'll have a willing slave population, even if it doesn't look like slavery. The only limitation is self-limitation, to turn down "easy street" of short term (100 year) guarantees for prosperity.
I just can't see how any other meme but the modern one CAN thrive. The life that is best at collecting the most food wins - end of story. Humans have stepped off the food chain into industrialized production. There's no stopping but industrial failure. The Amish or others can live their voluntary simplicity, but, well by Quinn I guess, they've still got the same meme as all of us - to dominate nature for their own needs. The main difference is they dominate in a more limited way.
I suppose an "Animist" view of the world would be more careful about changing the natural world for mere short term gain. They'd more likely take only what they need, and all that. I don't know. Quinn says animism is more compatible with science than religions, since it's based on observing the patterns of life and nature. Science observes to understand objectively. Animists observe to commune with the ways of life.
I don't know. I can't see how the world can change. AND I can see my primary bottleneck (energy) is not yet a lost cause. There may yet be an unlimited sustainable source of energy for humanity to exploit, onces that can subplant fossil fuels.
The modern view is that we ate from the tree of knowledge and now we're stuck here, and must take on our new powers best we can. Quinn's view honestly acknowledges our failings and likely outcome and says "We're fundamentally flawed, and hence doomed". Actually he says the reverse - says religions themselves say this. But he still goes after our culture as a lost cause.
Yes, all very philosphical, perhaps useless?
Overall I accept the conclusion: Things that can't last DON'T. Humans have NOT escaped the demands of nature. We're a young culture, blind, excessive, and foolhardy, and there's consequences to be paid, sooner or later.
I can't tell if I ought to be smarter, or what. I take easy street as much as anyone.
At one level I like his approach, acknowledging that our culture is on a collision course with disaster, trying to live outside of the bounds of nature, and as a result destroying, and through success growing and growing far beyond what the future can sustain.
He takes us back to "prehistory", the people we were before agriculture (and animal husbandry I guess), when we were hunters and gatherers. He tries to get us to wonder what motivated such people, genetically as capable as us over some 200,000 years of existence. His position is that our ag-revolution 10,000 years ago was an "accident" of circumstances and vision changing, something that might not have happened if things had been a little different. Perhaps there'd still be only 50 million people on earth now?
He suggests that "animism" (spirit in everything) as the universal "pre-religion" we had, and it as a religion that can "save the world", rather than merely our souls of "modern religions".
I accept his idea that we too quickly THINK they way WE do things as right, rather than trying to see them from the outside - as possibly insane!
I accept the "meme" of "domination of nature" may be fundamentally flawed. It may be equally unstoppable until we destroy ourselves? Quinn didn't say that, but I wonder.
I remember once watching a movie or something showing a primitive culture, and from the outside I thought "There's nothing for me there." I don't want to return to a world that I am not an individual, where the tribe can banish me for not conforming, where superstitions and fear lead us to suppress the human spirit to expand.
His idea that "increased food" leads to "increased population" seems hopeless as practical wisdom, however much true. As long as there's hungry people, and others who control the food, we'll have a willing slave population, even if it doesn't look like slavery. The only limitation is self-limitation, to turn down "easy street" of short term (100 year) guarantees for prosperity.
I just can't see how any other meme but the modern one CAN thrive. The life that is best at collecting the most food wins - end of story. Humans have stepped off the food chain into industrialized production. There's no stopping but industrial failure. The Amish or others can live their voluntary simplicity, but, well by Quinn I guess, they've still got the same meme as all of us - to dominate nature for their own needs. The main difference is they dominate in a more limited way.
I suppose an "Animist" view of the world would be more careful about changing the natural world for mere short term gain. They'd more likely take only what they need, and all that. I don't know. Quinn says animism is more compatible with science than religions, since it's based on observing the patterns of life and nature. Science observes to understand objectively. Animists observe to commune with the ways of life.
I don't know. I can't see how the world can change. AND I can see my primary bottleneck (energy) is not yet a lost cause. There may yet be an unlimited sustainable source of energy for humanity to exploit, onces that can subplant fossil fuels.
The modern view is that we ate from the tree of knowledge and now we're stuck here, and must take on our new powers best we can. Quinn's view honestly acknowledges our failings and likely outcome and says "We're fundamentally flawed, and hence doomed". Actually he says the reverse - says religions themselves say this. But he still goes after our culture as a lost cause.
Yes, all very philosphical, perhaps useless?
Overall I accept the conclusion: Things that can't last DON'T. Humans have NOT escaped the demands of nature. We're a young culture, blind, excessive, and foolhardy, and there's consequences to be paid, sooner or later.
I can't tell if I ought to be smarter, or what. I take easy street as much as anyone.
posted by Ares Olympus at 2:43 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home