The Meaning of Civilization
by Jason GodeskyI left off my last post with a contentious claim: that Childe’s primary criteria for civilization constituted a single cultural package, wherein all five criteria were symptomatic of a single, underlying factor. To review, those criteria are:
- Settlement of cities of 5,000 or more people.
- Full-time labor specialization.
- Concentration of surplus.
- Class structure.
- State-level political organization.
Elman Service’s work is fundamental to cultural materialism, the predominant paradigm in modern anthropology. Of particular note here is Service’s break-down of various subsistence strategies. Service noted the strong correlation between these subsistence strategies and other elements of culture, such as political development. Most anthropologists today recognize five such strategies:
| Subsistence Strategy | First Appearance | Location | Organization |
|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Industrial Revolution | Modern cities | State & Super-state |
| Agriculture | Neolithic Revolution | Cities & villages | State |
| Pastoralism | Neolithic Revolution | Nomadic | Chiefdom |
| Horticulture | Neolithic Revolution | Villages | Chiefdom & tribes |
| Foraging | Beginning of life on earth | Nomadic | Bands & tribes |
There are, of course, exceptions. The Kwakwaka’wakw (commonly known as the Kwakiutl) were foragers, but maintained a chiefdom. However, the correlations are strong, and for good reason. To a great extent, subsistence strategies cause the rest of a culture. And why not? The primary purpose of a culture is to provide food and a sexual context for an animal. Any culture will provide a sexual context, but the acquisition of food is by no means guaranteed. Also, unlike reproduction, the acquisition of food is a daily activity. Nothing defines the day-to-day needs of any culture more than simple metabolism.
However, it is also my contention that anthropologists’ own cultural background has biased their assessment, by teasing out more categories from our own cultural type. The differences between industry and agriculture are differences of scale, not kind. The Industrial Revolution did not fundamentally change the nature of agricultural society, it merely accelerated it along previously defined lines. Also, pastoralism is an extremely unusual option, confined almost entirely to the Middle East and Africa. Moreover, such societies cannot exist independently of an agricultural society. I tend to think of them more as an unusual case of symbiosis with agricultural societies: a remora to agriculture’s shark, if you will.
That leaves us with a simplified model of just three subsistence strategies: agriculture, horticulture and foraging. This can be simply explained by two, irrefutable bits. Either you grow plants to eat, or you do not. If you do not, you are a forager. If you do, you either work above or below the point of diminishing returns. If above, you are an agriculturalist; if below, you are a horticulturalist. Consider the graph below, where “utility” is the ratio of calories obtained versus calories spent, and “production” is simply the number of calories obtained:
The concept of diminishing returns was first developed in the context of agriculture. After a certain point, simply applying more labor yielded less and less benefit. In fact, from a caloric viewpoint, all agriculture is beyond the point of diminishing returns. Even in agrarian societies, it takes more calories of work to farm a field, than is returned in calories of product. Among simpler agrarian societies, this shortfall is made up with the use of tools and animals. The plow uses the fundamental physics of a lever to lessen the workload. Animals can leverage energy sources humans cannot–by grazing in lands too rocky or infertile to be cultivated. In modern petroculture, fossil fuels make up the shortfall. Petroleum doesn’t just power tractors, it also forms the basic ingredients for everything from fertilizer to packaging, and the fuel for transportation. We now burn between 4 and 10 calories–mostly in fossil fuels–for every 1 calorie of agricultural product we produce.
The slope becomes sharper as more labor is applied–the process becomes increasingly inefficient–but the absolute number of calories yielded always goes up by some amount per unit of labor. So, production can still be increased even past the point of diminishing returns by applying more labor. It just becomes increasingly inefficient to do so.
Forager populations are very dispersed, because their food is very dispersed. Foragers gather food from the wild, whether by hunting, fishing, gathering, or simple scavenging. These resources are not collected in any one space, so every forager band requires a significant range of territory. This makes forager society very sparsely populated.
By comparison, cultivation converts a specific area of biomass into human food, raising the edible ratio of that area to 100%. In swidden (a.k.a., “slash-and-burn”) horticulture, for example, an area of rain forest is cut down and burned, and a garden is planted in the ashes. This is the only way to practice cultivation in the rain forest, as the ground is about as fertile as cement–all of the nutrients are locked in the trees. This very clearly illustrates the conversion from biomass into human food, as the biodiversity of some area of rain forest becomes fertilizer to grow a horticultural garden. This is the essence of all cultivation.
With a denser food supply, cultures that depend on cultivation for their food can support much denser populations. Horticultural societies typically live in villages, even complex networks of villages. Agricultural societies practice even more intense cultivation, producing even more calories–and thus, producing an even larger population.1 These populations are even larger, and even denser–leading to cities, the first of Childe’s five primary criteria.
Foragers enjoy a naturalistic social arrangement. Their life is sufficiently comfortable and easy to simply handle things naturally. Decisions are made by concensus. Infractions of social norms can be handled on a case-by-case basis, by the community as a whole. Circumstances and personalities can be fully considered, and rather than focusing on “punishment,” such societies can instead address the harm done directly. Where most civilized societies simply ritualize a sanctioned form of vengeance and mob rule, these “primitives” enjoy true justice.
The number of infractions of social norms–”crimes”–is always some fraction of the total number of interactions between individuals. In a pairing of two individuals, there is only one interaction. Add a third individual, and there are three possible interactions. A fourth raises the number to six; five, to ten; six, to fifteen, and so on. As the number of individuals increases, the number of interactions increases exponentially, and as that number increases, so, too, do the number of infractions. Before long, the community is so large that individuals are no longer universally known, circumstances are not appreciated by all members of the community, and the number of such incidents is too great to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. The essence of “law” is the abridgement of justice–to resolve cases more quickly, by compromising fairness. Most legal systems attempt to abrogate this essential fact, but it remains the basic truth of law. Justice is a luxury only the sparsely populated can afford.
Thus, large populations require a legal body, and judges to execute that law. The nature of agricultural production also demands defense. While ideas of property and ownership are essential to an agricultural society, they are alien to the rest of the world. The gross inefficiency of agricultural life puts the agricultural society in a very tenuous position. This is why only agricultural societies suffer famine. When Richard Lee made his famous study of the !Kung and calculated the famous figure of an average of three hours of work per day, the Kalahari was suffering one of the worst draughts in living memory. The !Kung’s Bantu neighbors–pastoralists–were dying of starvation, while the !Kung complained of having to work so hard–three whole hours–to gather their food. Humans are omnivores, and it would take nothing less than a mass extinction to threaten our survival as foragers. We risk starvation only when we culturally redefine “food” to a small number of closely related, domesticated species.
Any agricultural society that does not protect its fields from animal predators–both human and otherwise–will not last very long. Even worse, the inefficiencies of agriculture require constant expansion in order to continue. By controlling their own food supply, agricultural societies are able to constantly increase the amount of food available to provide for the poor, the hungry, and the expansion of such a richly-fed society. This fuels a constant rise in population, which agricultural production rises to match, creating what Daniel Quinn called a “Food Race.”
Faced with the need to expand, agricultural societies have two options. Either the caloric output of their current fields can be increased, or new arable land can be procured. Occasional technological advances make the first option possible, but this happens rarely and cannot be counted on. The second option–procuring more land–is usually the more attractive option. This can be done be clearing wilderness, reclaiming overgrown fields, or fertilizing previously unarable land. However, each of these options also have their limits, forcing the agricultural society to eventually turn to conquest. Here, the standing armies needed for defense become pivotal again, this time to ensure the society’s continued survival by providing new lands to farm.
The need of agricultural societies to defend, expand, and enforce law requires the formation of state-level political organization. So far, we have seen two of Childe’s primary criteria–1 and 5–as unavoidable consequences of agricultural production.
Of course, standing armies and state-level political organization already demand the second criterion: full-time labor specialization. Soldiers in a standing army are, after all, specialists in combat. Politicians and rulers are specialists in administration; judges specialists in law, etc. Such complexity in labor division can easily be extended. Such specialists produce no food of their own, and so are dependent on others for their subsistence. This builds an innate inequality to all agricultural exchange, as one party posesses something needed, while the other merely posesses something desired. That inequality can be shifted through threats and coercion–either of physical violence on the part of a military-backed secular force, or of spiritual retribution on the part of a religious organization. This brings us Childe’s third criterion–concentration of surplus–and its consequence, class structure, Childe’s fourth criterion.
Now we have a workable definition of what civilization truly is. It has nothing to do with philosophy, art, music, religion, math, science, or technology–all of which are many times older than civilization. Rather, it is a complex of coercion, domination and terror that is the natural consequence of a marginal agricultural existence locked in an eternal “food race” against itself. Civilization is not about art; it is about control. It is not about philosophy; it is about obedience. It is not about science; it is about terror. It is not about technology; it is about coercion. It is inimical to human nature, and it is doomed from the start.
1 Russell Hopfenberg & David Pimentel, “Human Population Numbers as a Function of Food Supply,” Environment, Development & Sustainability 3:1-15, 2001. [PDF] [Back]
Interesting. For the moment, I’ll just toss out a few immediate observations, and look at your ideas in more depth after some sleep…
A good example of the intimate link between agriculture and pastoralism was seen in the American Plains c. 1500-1900. Before the arrival of Spanish horses via Mexico, most of that area was vacant, with the population largely concentrated in the river bottoms as farmers like the Hidatsa and Arikara. there were also some foot-bound nomadic hunters, but not too many. As horses went wild and multiplied, they attracted elements of numerous tribes from as far away as Quebec who, for whatever reason, wanted a different lifestyle, and the horse-riding culture that became the stereotypical “Indian” came into being.
According to Colin Renfrew’s Archaeology & Language, a similar dynamic may have fueled the spread of IndoEuropean tongues on to the vast steppes of Eurasia long before the historical civilizations flourished. He argues that this wasn’t due to conquest, but simply the gradual spread of population sparked by agriculture.
I think it’s especially interesting to be talking about this in the light of the publicity that surviving Andamanese hunter-gatherers got after the tsunami. Check out these sites:
In the Land of the Naked People
In The Land of Naked People, Madhusree Mukerjee explores the debilitating effects of modernization and colonization on a group of isolated natives â?? perhaps the most secluded humans on the planet â?? living in a prehistoric “time capsule” on the Andaman Islands, located in the Bay of Bengal, off the coast of India. What the author observed firsthand brings to mind the exploitation and cultural loss that has characterized the development of nearly all nations, but for the Adamanese it is happening in the present.
In rare meeting, tribesmen tell officials of survival
Comment by Gus — 12 March 2005 @ 2:01 AM
Brilliant post. Simply brilliant.
Comment by Steve Thomas — 12 March 2005 @ 2:03 AM
The spread of horses occurred as the Europeans advanced. 99% of the population was wiped out by smallpox continent-wide, the Spanish were wreaking havoc across Mesoamerica and South America, and the trauma of first contact with the Europeans was causing massive changes all around. Refugees and survivors from all across North America found a new life, and a new culture, around European horses and European guns on the Plains. The stereotypical Indian–the Plains Indian–was the direct result of the trauma of European contact on many simultaneous levels.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 12 March 2005 @ 10:55 AM
Hi,
I agree with Steve; overall, a very strong, thought-provoking post, especially Justice is a luxury only the sparsely populated can afford.
You wrote:
pastoralism is an extremely unusual option, confined almost entirely to the Middle East and Africa.
That’s not quite true. If you mean pure pastoralism — horse- or camel-based herding — you’re right, although the Navajo also do it now. Many peoples have practiced pastoralism in the form of transhumance — seasonally-migratory herding, usually between mountains and lowlands/river valleys or seashore and inland and often without riding animals. Numerous Siberian & circum-polar tribes do this with reindeer, and I’d imagine the various Andean peoples who domesticated llamas and alpacas were essentially transhumant.
In swidden (a.k.a., “slash-and-burn”) horticulture, for example, an area of rain forest is cut down and burned, and a garden is planted in the ashes. This is the only way to practice cultivation in the rain forest, as the ground is about as fertile as cement–all of the nutrients are locked in the trees.
What’s interesting about swidden agriculture is that it’s slowly nomadic; they can only farm an area for a short period before having to clear new field elsewhere — clearly a stepping stone between truly nomadic foragers and settled agriculture. Just like most foragers, swidden-users rove around their territory, they just do it over the course of several years rather than annually.
There are, however, some cases of foraging tribes that have more or less permanent settlements — they’re often on/near fish-rich rivers or seacoasts. Several of the Pacific NW chiefdoms and NE Algonquian tribes like the Abenaki were like that, as are most Inuit groups.
Comment by Gus — 12 March 2005 @ 1:30 PM
Hi Jason,
Great post, very educational.
Your explanation of a “naturalistic social arrangement” makes a lot of sense, yet I find myself a little bit sceptical. What ultimately prevents infractions from getting out of hand and a central authority becoming “necessary”? I.e., a power vacuum forming and someone trying to fill its place?
In support of the question I submit that a part of human nature wants to dominate, also over other humans. Many animal species in the wild contest who the strongest in the group is to have a clear leader (crucial to their survival), so the simple idea of dominance is not too strange. It further seems fairly easy to prove that with sophisticated technology and a large population where (as you indicate) abstract tools such as law come into play, will favour the emergence of power relations. How are foragers immune though?
Comment by marts — 14 March 2005 @ 2:15 PM
In a forager society, there is little incentive for antisocial behavior. Killing someone in your tribe threatens your own survival. Why steal when you can just ask for it and nearly be guaranteed use of the item in question? In most such societies, their greatest trial is the occasional case of adultery.
By comparison, a large culture like ours encourages antisocial behavior. Murder and theft are excellent ways to get ahead; their only downside is a probabilistic chance of being caught and subjected to arbitrary punishment. There is nothing in and of the acts themselves that makes them unattractive. Even worse, we are forced into antisocial behavior much of the time. Richard Stallman writes about how intellectual property laws forbid us from sharing, for example.
So, where we systemically encourage infractions of social norms, these cultures systemically discourage them. That’s what keeps them from getting out of hand and making a central authority necessary.
In fact, in every known case, the necessity of central authority from such a rise in socially unacceptable incidents was preceded by a rise in population, which was itself precipitated by rising production levels, which were almost certainly fueled by the emergence of a central authority in the form of a Melanesian-style Big Man.
While it is true that many other animals are hierarchical, the lack of such tendencies in the human primate is remarkable. We have one of the lowest levels of sexual dimorphism in the animal kingdom, for example. All indications of hierarchy can be traced directly to the Neolithic Revolution, and no farther. I would go so far as to say that the adoption of this cooperative strategy is the single most defining characteristic of our species: that hierarchy and domination are inimical to human nature.
So, I disagree fully with your premise. While natural to other animals, it is the opposite of human in my mind. Large populations not only favor, but require such hierarchy–but foragers cannot bear such populations. Furthermore, everyone in a forager society must contribute to the gathering of food equally, so the development of any kind of full-time specialist–like a leader–is not possible. Many foragers have means of circumscribing and limiting the influence an individual can gather. The practice of “cursing the meat” noted by Richard Lee, for example, effectively eliminates the possibility of a !Kung Big Man ever arising.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 14 March 2005 @ 8:03 PM
Thanks. I had a look at some information regarding sexual dimophism (http://ndnd.essortment.com/sexualdimorphis_rcgt.htm) and it’s like you say, very little in humans. It explains as follows:
Less sexual dimorphism often indicates a species with mutual care of the young and monogamy, such as birds, whereas greater sexual dimorphism is often demonstrated by species which practice polygamy and have sharply defined gender roles regarding the rearing of offspring.
The biggest differences are in height and weight. Some male-male competition is mentioned although I am not sure in what domain and to what end this would be manifested.
I would agree that the rise in numbers (because as people become removed from one another and therefore impersonal, it is easier to slip between the cracks) facilitates the necessity of central authority. It would be interesting to see a graph of known societies, population numbers on the x axis, and the density and strength of power structures in operation on the y axis. From what I gather power would start at 0 (as would population) and then around a few hundred people “power” would suddenly increase, rising steadily as population increases. Of course, measuring “power” is a somewhat relative matter.
Comment by marts — 14 March 2005 @ 10:06 PM
By comparison, a large culture like ours encourages antisocial behavior. Murder and theft are excellent ways to get ahead; their only downside is a probabilistic chance of being caught and subjected to arbitrary punishment.
Several psychologists have argued that what we now define as antisocial behavior is in fact a distorted expression of behavior that was adaptive in pre-civilized times. Instead of stalking food animals, for example, people stalk each other, and the tendency for people not to see things in cities (even horrible things like the notorious Kitty Genovese case) is a natural adaptation to overwhelming stimuli, which, I’d guess, would be partly rooted in the need for close-quarters H&G people to actively ignore sexual and other private acts of their clanmates.
Kalman Glantz & John K. Pearce write, in Exiles from Eden, “…we convey to our clients that their problems are due in part to the fact that they’re living in a changed environment, an environment that’s difficult for human beings.” This short-circuits innate systems of reciprocity best expressed in interpersonal relationships, which encourage various forms of cheating and make it hard for people to understand what they have a right to expect from life, what they owe to others and what others owe them. A good summary of this concept is Dr. Glabach’s “Evolutionary Psychology and ‘Natural Morality.’”
By their understanding, achieving dominance is a good thing… but they don’t mean it in the sense our society uses it, as equal to tyranny or controlling others. They write, “The dominant man can make concessions, achieve compromise, and allow others to have their say and their opinions. In the hunter-gatherer system, most if not all men managed to achieve dominance. We shall argue that in our society, most men don’t, and thus may suffer psychological distress.” (p. 150)
On hierarchy: “Hierarchal societies are a reversion to a pre-human type of social organization.” Such societies require the same cooperation as egalitarian societies without “the equality, mutual respect and support.” Most people can do it, but many suffer to varying degrees b/c of it and express that suffering in various psychological and behavioral ways, taking it out on themselves and others. (154-5)
Comment by Gus — 20 March 2005 @ 6:45 PM
I certainly agree with the evolutionary framework of morality, but to my mind the term “dominance” implies dominance over someone else. One cannot be dominant unless at least one other person is recessive or subordinate. It seems Glantz and Pearce may be unnecessarily complicating the issue with an unintuitive or at least novel use of the word.
There may well be something to hierarchy as a reversion to pre-human types of social organization. Most of our primate relatives are hierarchical; the egalitarian nature of our species, while well-supported, is also an unusual thing in the Order Primates. One of my primary contentions has been that hierarchy is at odds with human nature, and that much of the stress of our society can be traced back to so many people being forced into a situation fundamentally at odds with their innate evolutionary disposition.
Incidentally, you linked to SystemsThinker.com. Do we perhaps have a mutual friend in Howard?
Comment by Jason Godesky — 20 March 2005 @ 9:43 PM
Jason–
I’ve been reading Rousseau’s The Social Contract lately and in it he starts off - somewhat contrary to, I understand, his other works, and anyway what one usually associates with him - that society is, or at least could be, preferable to the state of nature:
And although in civil society man surrenders some of the advantages that belong to the state of nature, he gains in return far greater ones … if the abuse of his new condition did not in many cases lower him to something worse than he had left he should constantly bless the happy hour that
lifted him for ever from the state of nature
I am still trying to suss this out, but I am thinking he may have argued like this to gain more credibility for the rest of his argument, in which he tries to solve a problem that moving into society has left us with, that is how a modern society can best operate politically. His answer, democracy.
What I find interesting is that in the preconditions for his democracy everyone should know each other, much like your description of foragers’ naturalistic social arrangement.
a very small state, where the people may be readily assembled and where each citizen may easily know all the others
What makes his effort different, is that conceivably he means it should apply to the democracy itself, that is to larger numbers of people (not too large - he makes this clear; for him monarchies are more appropriate in very large states). Other criteria include a people of simple manners and morality, not much social inequality, and no luxury.
He finds Rome exemplary and uses it as his model. There were frequent assemblies (notably for voting) and these often succeeded to produce outcomes - the amount of people who assembled were only the men, but must have counted in the tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands.
On the one hand he lets slip later that he actually still thinks the natural state is better:
What? Is freedom to be maintained only with the support of slavery? Perhaps. The two extremes meet. Everything outside nature has its disadvantages, civil society more than all the rest.
On the other hand his model is giving some support to an idea I’m thinking about, namely that the route to a future society of equality and sharing may well be through the current instruments of repression and power (in which, following Zerzan’s thinking, I’m not excluding technology entirely). I am familiar with Richard Stallman and the Free Software Foundation, also his major contribution via the GPL. I imagine that such a shared ownership of all instruments of power and repression may change the status quo. Then again, so did Marx …
In lieu of Rousseau’s observation that outside the state of nature freedom (to some) may only be possible through some form of slavery (of others), I am wondering whether basic subsistence for everyone on earth couldn’t eventually become a 99% automated process. The down side of this idea, however … is that this is precisely the vague ideal that is keeping the current system in place. And so the domination of nature continues.
Any thoughts on how a completely sharing society (losing coercion, domination, control) can come into being (a) without a global catastrophe that cuts population numbers to a fraction and (b) without giving up ongoing innovation of technology, and commerce? I’ve seen the comments on horticulture and permaculture, but these seem to presuppose a vast reduction of numbers in global population.
Comment by marts — 21 March 2005 @ 2:41 PM
Hi, Jason & marts,
Jason — Yeah, I noticed that twist on “dominance.” I think, being psychologists, they use it that way but subtly alter its meaning with their clients b/c those clients are often used to a situation in which dominance is expressed the more conventional way.
No, I don’t know Howard. I came across the site while seeking a decent summary of the concept itself.
marts — I haven’t read Rousseau, but what you quote is interesting and a little confusing. He seems to be saying, in oversimplification, “civilization is great if it doesn’t kill you first.” I don’t call that a ringing endorsement.
You wrote: “the route to a future society of equality and sharing may well be through the current instruments of repression and power.” I’ve thought that, too, to some degree. One great example is the Internet — originally built by the DOD, it has become a crucial communication network for people who oppose what the DOD represents. We need to keep some such form of interactive global communication & expand on it for any “Leaver” civilization to develop and survive b/c repression breeds under circumstances where information is unequally available.
Rousseau’s comment that monarchies are best for big groups shows that we need to break up the big groups/nations into smaller independent entities, but we still need to maintain the cultural ties between them for the sake of peace. Doing so ensures greater actual representation of people’s wishes; personally, I think the ideal size is one small enough to be served by a town meeting style government as most towns have here in New England.
Have you read Marge Piercy’s Woman on the Edge of Time? That gives a great fictional image of what a technological yet Leaver society could look like. I thumbed through several reviews online such as this one, but didn’t find one that adequately discusses the technology-plus-ecology element of her tale.
Comment by Gus — 21 March 2005 @ 3:41 PM
I think the problems we face are intrinsic to the very nature of agriculture. Simply producing the number of calories required for such a population locks us into a Quinnian “food race” that can only end in catastrophe. Whatever solution we stumble upon must belong to one of two camps: either it will decrease our caloric output, or it won’t. If it doesn’t, then it has no effect on our escalating consumption and does nothing to steer us away from a total collapse. If it does, then it imposes a new barrier to growth and causes a collapse to begin immediately. Either way, the collapse seems increasingly inevitable.
I wish you luck in trying to find a way out of this Catch 22, but I don’t think one exists. There are many insoluble problems in the world, and this has all the hallmarks of one of them.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 21 March 2005 @ 6:38 PM
Gus–
Not a ringing endorsement, I agree - but he does spend an entire work on politics in society so it would seem he has resigned himself to the fact that the best must be made of a sad situation, and there are signs that he isn’t totally cynical about society either. For instance he rather praises the Roman model (and sometimes the Spartan one) of society, and also mentions that he finds something to be proud of in the French government (or actually more likely he means Switzerland, because he says “my own country”). But yes, I’m pretty sure it’s not a resounding Two Thumbs Up
I had a look at the description of Woman On The Edge Of Time - looks very interesting, very human. The idea of people getting born only when others die may be more symbolic than practical, but it reminds me of a short story I once read and whose writer I can’t remember - I just know he was an anthropologist. Two space travellers represent a planet bent on conquering the universe (say, Earth) - one is a veteran the other young. Their usual strategy is to lure natives of new planets with the Earth’s technology, make them dependent and eventuallty “buy” the planet. But these people are different from all others - nothing interests them ever, yet they are the most peaceful, happy bunch you can imagine. They also have an occasional ritual in which someone sacrifices him or herself, and soon a new person is born - the same soul but in a younger body. It turns out these folk are supremely advanced - they’ve already been through technology and all that, learned its harm, and simplified their lives to - yes - a future primitive. A tribe of Lamas.
Jason–
The catch-22 you mention is interesting. From a view regarding the total movement of human efforts on the globe, i.e. energy, in economics understood as surplus, I’ve once tried to argue that a catastrophe is likely at some future point in time, but not necessarily inevitable, because the increase in consumption needs an outlet (eg. wars), and if the entire globe continues to raise its potential one could speculate that beyond the point where most humans (including those in the 3rd world) finally have basic subsistence the excess suddenly exponentially increases and causes the grid of energy movement to frantically wreak havoc on its entire self, all at the same time - not because the energy wasn’t there before, but because it is for the first time a global excess without a productive outlet. I don’t know if expanding to the moon or elsewhere might solve this (hypothetical) problem - perhaps, if we can ever work out how to sustain ourselves on a barren planet without an atmosphere.
Comment by marts — 22 March 2005 @ 5:26 PM
I’m really split on this: Part of me strongly wants to make sure we solve the problems here first (if that’s possible); another part equally strongly believes we need an outlet in space exploration for us to survive. (Ultimately, I think the latter is necessary either way; even if we solve the former, a big asteroid can finish us off if we’re all still living on Earth.) I don’t want our exploration to be modeled on the rapacious ways European society forced upon the Americas and elsewhere, esp. if there’s other life out there.
marts — I think we’ve had the “global excess” you speak of for a long time, in terms of population, food & destructive technology. Until recently, those three were semi-separate, with tech & food concentrated in the West/North and pop. concentrated in the East/South, but now they’re blending. What that will produce, we don’t yet know, but we’ve already seen some indicators, good & bad: the world wars, but also the Internet, for example. I’m inclined to think the results will be nasty if we do not spread out political/economic power at the same time these elements blend globally, but I’m not sure if that’s possible without a global government that has a lot more authority than the UN.
Such a gov’t doesn’t need to be authoritarian and could possibly become a kind of global council of lots of independent tribes over time, but that would require a consciously engineered, peaceful collapse of society as we know it. Unfortunately, I’m pretty sure the powers-that-be won’t go without a lot of kicking and screaming.
BTW, if you read Piercy, you migth also want to read Paul Theroux’s O-Zone: If Piercy is the view from a “Leaver” society, Theroux could be seen as a similar future seen from the “Taker” society (where the non-city folks are seen as backwards, scary & dirty).
Comment by Gus — 23 March 2005 @ 1:16 AM
On space exploration: Agriculture lets slip the natural barrier of carrying capacity, and we see the implications of that. What would be the implications if we escaped our cosmic fate by colonizing other worlds? Every species must eventually die out, and eventually our time will come. We’re still a young species, and we should try to escape this doom of our own creation we set in motion a mere 10,000 years ago, but to try to escape our destiny–extinction, the ultimate destiny of all species–forever seems … misguided.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 23 March 2005 @ 8:06 AM
Jason — Extinction isn’t necessarily the “ultimate destiny” of every species, except maybe when the Earth finally gets swallowed by the Sun or even when the universe finally runs out of energy. A great example is the horseshoe crab; it’s been here virtually unchanged for 100s of millions of years. For many others, an actual extinction can’t really be pinpointed because they simply evolved into something else. The archeological definition of “species” is somewhat arbitrary since we’ll never know if two ancient lifeforms we classify separately could interbreed when they lived.
By colonizing other worlds, we aren’t evading any predestined fate, we’re giving evolution more opportunity to act on our gene pool & those of fellow Earth lifeforms. By star-hopping, we’re enabling Earth collectively to survive & reproduce. I’d say it’s equally possible that 1) we’d be in competition with other kinds of life developing on other worlds, and 2)Earth life and other life would be sufficiently different as to be not be much competition, allowing life side-by-side. (I seriously doubt the rest of the galaxy is entirely uninhabited, but it is plausible we won’t find any other technological life nearby. Still a LOT of worlds are probably lifeless — even considering the probability of life existing in forms we don’t even approximate on Earth except in scifi — and all lifeforms expand into unoccupied space if they can.)
Maybe that’s not possible, but we’ll never know without trying. Trying, however, doesn’t mean we have to do it in a disrespectful, Taker manner.
Comment by Gus — 24 March 2005 @ 1:18 AM
Inside of time, everything has a beginning and an end, both individuals, and groups. No number of species which have not yet gone extinct can prove that one day there will be no mroe horseshoe crabs, no more cockroaches, and no more humans. When no more individuals of a species exist, it is extinct–even if their descendants live on as something else. Yes, the definition of a species is ambiguous, but all good things must come to an end.
My fear of space exploration is a fear of exporting our civilization–that we may let slip the bonds of gravity, and instead of simply ending all life on earth, we may over the next 10,000 years wipe out all life in the universe.
I don’t know if a tribal space program is possible, but I wouldn’t write it off. I don’t see time as a bad thing, or even our ultimate, unavoidable demise. I want to avoid the suicide we’re currently in the midst of, but if space travel isn’t possible, it won’t bother me. And if you do find some way to explore space without destroying all life, then that won’t bother me either. I guess I just don’t see it as much of a concern.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 25 March 2005 @ 10:35 AM
One thing I’ve been thinking a lot about, recently — Jason, you seem to “blame” a lot of the problems on agriculture. I think this is quite valid, given what it facilitates. But I think therein lies a misplacement of where the problem truly lies. Agriculture simply facilitated the population growth and centralization required for the consumption of ever more resources. Perhaps agriculture is not so inherently destructive as the centralization and population growth that it facilitates? I know that as a determinist, perhaps you do not see these things as separate, but then I think that memes contribute to the development as well.
I guess what I’m saying is that perhaps agriculture is not the root of the problem, it just contributed to the expansion of the root of the problem — centralization and hierarchy (both positive feedback loops, just like agriculture). I’m not sure that without the latter two, one would see the intensification being taken to this level.
In my thesis, I will be defining civilization primarily as a reinforcing feedback loop of multiple other closely-linked reinforcing feedback loops — primarily hierarchy, centralization, and division of labor. Childe’s criteria for civilization are either directly one of these three self-perpetuating and intensifying loops or are a subset of them. Division of labor accounts for two of them (standing armies and full-time specialization), centralization accounts for most if not all of them, and hierarchy accounts for centralization and the exceptionally insidious class structure.
One of my postulates is that agriculture is not necessarily the only means of food production that can be centralized. As we have seen with the Kwakiutl, they maintained a chiefdom without having “agriculture”, per se — and I would posit that this was due to the plentiful and easily centralized source of fish nearby. A while ago, Engineer-Poet spoke of a means of food production that was supposedly scalable to feed large numbers of people… after which you said that the problem was not feeding these large numbers of people. This set me off thinking.
I’ve read the (excellent) article The Oil We Eat, which seems to be a significant source for a lot of what you write. I won’t disagree that agriculture as described in this essay is not the easiest way to facilitate centralization or constant expansion, but I do think that perhaps there might be a few other ways to do this that we’ve not seen. Hydroponics, Seed balls (used destructively), organic methods of farming, and other potential sources for food production can also be centralized.
Now, what I suggest is this: that either agriculture be redefined as any method of food production that is easily centralizable, or that agriculture as framed in anthropology and in traditional usage is just one of the many possible means of centralized food production, one that was used for this particular brand of civilization. I don’t think that all of the above methods of food production are all past the point of diminishing returns, either — particularly seed balls, which is an innovation that could be incredibly dangerous if it fell into the wrong hands. No plowing, no irrigation, no fertilization (when employed with Fukuoka’s natural farming techniques) and huge yields (equivalent to or greater than industrial agriculture).
I think this is an important point to make about agriculture, and for a number of reasons. One, I think it might shed light on a couple of the deeper problems with civilization, that of centralization and hierarchy. Jeff Vail talks about these in his book A Theory of Power — and makes a strong case that these are the “true evils”. Centralization (including a centralized form of food production) allows and facilitates huge resource consumption, as does hierarchy. As we discussed in Jeff Vail’s thread over at IshCon, agriculture is ONE of those huge resource consumptions, and ONE of the means that hierarchy/centralization uses, but is far from the entire picture. Leading to my second point: The earth’s ecosystems would not be nearly as degraded if it were not for the OTHER resources we’ve consumed, in order to furnish the greed of the elite in the hierarchy (pharaohs, kings, the merchant class — whomever it is, throughout history). Computers, cars, pyramids, skyscrapers, large stadiums, and all of the items mass produced for consumption that fill our huge waste dumps — these are not due to agriculture, they are due to centralization and hierarchy-enforced mass production.
Third, and perhaps the most crucial point, is a word on the practical side (which is seemingly where many primitivists, anarchists, and Marxists get completely lost and ineffective). In the transition to another system of living, we’re not going to be able to go back to a hunter-gatherer like world. The Earth is too depleted and too overpopulated for this to be a practical solution for anyone other than the elite — those who can purchase vast tracts of land in undeveloped areas, who have the time and money to study primitive skills, and a number of other criteria that put this option far out of the reach of the majority of humans on this planet. Now, it’s just common sense that in order to solve the hierarchy-agriculture loop, we have to counter the loop. If we cannot get rid of horticulture/agriculture due to the current geographic/monetary/ecological restrictions, we must get rid of hierarchy. We must effectively make sure that our food production does not lead to a gradual re-development of hierarchy. Conversely, if we want to get rid of hierarchy, an effective way to do it would be to get rid of centralized food production of any form — which, in this case, means decentralizing agriculture.
The bottom-line answer to civilization is that we must stop the centralization, the constant expansion, and the hierarchy. Jeff Vail talks about a network of several small, independent nodes in what he calls rhizome.
What these nodes look like to me are small, egalitarian communities — ecovillages. To someone else, they might look like a hunter-gatherer tribe; to another, a Temporary or a Permanent Autonomous Zone. An important thing about rhizomal nodes is that they can all be different, providing a strong and long-lasting network of diversity. I really feel like this vision reconciles most, if not all, of the supposedly divided ideologies critiquing civilization.
The theories and the practicalities are edging ever closer, in my mind. As civilization as we know it enters its final hour, it remains to be seen what the human race will be capable of. I have hope and faith that we will be able to transform our present dark realities for a bright future.
Peace,
Devin
Comment by Devin — 14 July 2005 @ 4:51 AM
Devin, you’re a writer after my own heart! I’m familiar with Fukuoka & eco-villages & trying to establish one in Los Angeles. My goal is to build a rhizome network within L.A. & hopefully link up with similar communities up the coast. Which means I’d better read the Jeff Vail thread. Hmmm. Too much to do.
Comment by Bill Maxwell — 14 July 2005 @ 4:37 PM
Hey all,
I surfed in some time a few weeks from Wikipedia (I had to know who this “Jason Godesky” was). I read several dozen articles here and was greatly impressed. It’s good to be among kindred spirits. Now, down to business.
In the above post (which is extremely well written), agriculture seems to me to be married unalienably to the idea of expansion. I cannot for the life of me figure out why living in an agricultural society would absolutely require expansion and conquest. As far as I can tell, any society - no matter what its method of putting food in its mouth - that believes that the world belongs to them will by nature overrun the earth. As a corollary, any society - no matter what its method of putting food in its mouth - that believes that they are only a small part of the world and have no more claim to it thatn any other plant or creature will naturally remain in a balance with the world.
The !Kung complained of the long working hours during the drought… yet, even during the worst desert drought in human memory, nothing was stopping the !Kung from overrunning their pastoral neighbors and slaughtering each and every one of them. Nothing was stopping them from working 8 and 10 hours a day and exploding their population so as to ravage the tribes around them and expand. What precluded this action was not that they were hunter/foragers, but the knowledge that the world does not belong to them. It seems to me that if a society that was agricultural had a deep understanding that they were not kings or gods, they could regulate themselves perfectly, much like the !Kung (or indeed any hunter/forager group), who regulate themselves by only obtaining the food that they require.
As far as I can see in my admittedly narrow world-view, it is not horticulture or pastoralism or hunter/foraging or even agriculture that is killing the world. Rather, what is killing the world is the idea that the world belongs to US, us being whatever group is raping our Home with no regard for the sanctity of life.
I see no reason why a hunter/gatherer society could not decide that the world belonged to them and “go on the rampage” by slaughtering their neighbors. They could just as easily reproduce with the increased food intake from their dead neighbors’ land. They could just as easily form armies and have class divisions and labor divisions. (You’re all hunters, you’re all weapons makers, you’re all conquering warriors, the women will all be gatherers and breeding machines, we’re all priests, and he’s the king etc.) What precludes them from following that course of madness is that they do not have the peculiar and dangerous belief that the world belongs to them.
I am proud to be one who loves the agricultural farm life, but I am also one who would be happiest being in balance with the Universe. Diminishing returns be damned, I’ll be in my fields, growing the 3 sisters: pole beans, corn and squash. My other nine fields will lie fallow and burgeon with life, the soil having a full decade to replenish itself after my plow has passed through. My table will be graced with venison and fish and mushrooms gathered in the forest as well as cornbread and beans. There is no one right way to live, but the ways that survive are those that are in balance with the world. I seek nothing but peace and balance.
- Chuck
Comment by Chuck — 17 July 2005 @ 7:19 AM
Thanks, Chuck. My biggest problem has always been, at how basic a level do I start? And I’m constantly forgetting to flesh out parts that, to me after all these years, seem obvious–but, obviously, aren’t. This is one of them, and as I look around I see it’s a fundamental premise in a lot of my writing that deserves a full treatment in and of itself. So that’s what I’m going to do. This week, you’ll all be treated to an article on why constant growth is a necessary implication of farming, as directly as things getting wet is a necessary implication of rain.
I would disagree, and I’ll elaborate on why in that promised article, but the gist of it comes down to this. How you put food in your mouth determines a range of things you can believe. Very few are such psychological supermen as to hold the kind of cognitive dissonance in their brains as to live as an agriculturalists, and simultaneously believe that they are part of the rest of the world. Perhaps enough to lead some kind of small innovation, but not enough to build an entire society on.
That’s certainly Daniel Quinn’s belief, but it turns out the !Kung do believe the world belongs to them. We can debate how much of this story is aboriginal, and how much it is influenced by Muslim and Christian missionaries, but from actually studying the beliefs of these various “Leaver” cultures, I can’t say I’ve found much ideological difference to back Quinn’s assertion up. Ethnocentrism is universal; every group believes itself superior to all others. All believe they have a unique destiny in the world. So if it’s not ideology that divides us, what is it? I think it’s opportunity. I don’t think any group–of any species–would hesitate to conquer the world if it could. Natural selection itself seems to me to be a delicate balance of each species’ will to conquer against the others; evolution seems driven by everyone constantly trying to take over the world, and always failing. The past ten thousand years are an object lesson in the horrors that unfold when one actually succeeds in that. The will is important; the actual attainment of that will is catastrophic.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 18 July 2005 @ 9:32 AM
Very well; I will hold my objections and points until you have more thoroughly formulated your own thoughts. I look forward to your essay on the implications of agriculture in the same way that I always look forward to your other posts.
- Chuck
Comment by Chuck — 18 July 2005 @ 11:09 AM
i need to know what “CILIZATION”means
Comment by Anonymous — 20 March 2007 @ 4:48 PM