Comments on: The Eschatology of the Left http://anthropik.com/2005/10/the-eschatology-of-the-left/ se wo were fi na wosan kofa a yenki Fri, 21 Nov 2008 00:58:50 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.3 By: The Anthropik Network » Archdruid Watch: Cities in the Deindustrial Future http://anthropik.com/2005/10/the-eschatology-of-the-left/#comment-170182 The Anthropik Network » Archdruid Watch: Cities in the Deindustrial Future Thu, 09 Aug 2007 15:12:00 +0000 http://anthropik.com/2005/10/the-eschatology-of-the-left/#comment-170182 [...] logical fallacy months before Greer wrote the first post of the Archdruid Report, in “The Eschatology of the Left.” Along the way, Greer makes some startlingly wrong statements—like the suggestion that [...] […] logical fallacy months before Greer wrote the first post of the Archdruid Report, in “The Eschatology of the Left.” Along the way, Greer makes some startlingly wrong statements—like the suggestion that […]

]]> By: Archdruid Watch: Völkerwanderung (The Anthropik Network) http://anthropik.com/2005/10/the-eschatology-of-the-left/#comment-148726 Archdruid Watch: Völkerwanderung (The Anthropik Network) Thu, 28 Jun 2007 15:32:44 +0000 http://anthropik.com/2005/10/the-eschatology-of-the-left/#comment-148726 [...] Of course, Greer starts off by equating "apocalypse"—the idea that life would get better after the end of civilization—with the insanity of perpetual growth: "Both these narratives attempt to force history into the Procrustean bed of some form of secular theology; neither one of them, as I’ve argued repeatedly here, offers much in the way of useful guidance for the future taking shape in the circumstances, choices, and missed opportunities of the present." But what he labels "apocalyptic" is what an ecologist would simply recognize as a situation of overshoot. Greer can compare this to an apocalyptic cult all he wants, and it will never change the fact that ecological data is evidence qualitatively different from the tortured exegesis of Biblical prophecies. Greer says he's analyzing positions from the level of narrative, and yet he still has not caught up to the level of analytic sophistication I had already reached almost a year before the first post appeared on the Archdruid Report, taking a close look at the parallels between primitivism and apocalyptic thought, titled, "The Eschatology of the Left." But even so, I had reached by its conclusion an important point that Greer still has yet to account for: Peak Oil and primitivism are not surprised that fundamentalist Christianity has so often been wrong. Their apocalypse scenario has always been predicated on the interpretation of Bronze Age literature. Peak Oil and primitivism base their claims on actual, empirical evidence. There is the key difference. [...] […] Of course, Greer starts off by equating “apocalypse”—the idea that life would get better after the end of civilization—with the insanity of perpetual growth: “Both these narratives attempt to force history into the Procrustean bed of some form of secular theology; neither one of them, as I’ve argued repeatedly here, offers much in the way of useful guidance for the future taking shape in the circumstances, choices, and missed opportunities of the present.” But what he labels “apocalyptic” is what an ecologist would simply recognize as a situation of overshoot. Greer can compare this to an apocalyptic cult all he wants, and it will never change the fact that ecological data is evidence qualitatively different from the tortured exegesis of Biblical prophecies. Greer says he’s analyzing positions from the level of narrative, and yet he still has not caught up to the level of analytic sophistication I had already reached almost a year before the first post appeared on the Archdruid Report, taking a close look at the parallels between primitivism and apocalyptic thought, titled, “The Eschatology of the Left.” But even so, I had reached by its conclusion an important point that Greer still has yet to account for: Peak Oil and primitivism are not surprised that fundamentalist Christianity has so often been wrong. Their apocalypse scenario has always been predicated on the interpretation of Bronze Age literature. Peak Oil and primitivism base their claims on actual, empirical evidence. There is the key difference. […]

]]> By: Jason Godesky http://anthropik.com/2005/10/the-eschatology-of-the-left/#comment-35424 Jason Godesky Thu, 14 Dec 2006 19:21:52 +0000 http://anthropik.com/2005/10/the-eschatology-of-the-left/#comment-35424 <blockquote>Jason, was it really necessary to denigrate Crichton in that way in your opening?</blockquote> Apparently, <a href="http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002156.php" rel="nofollow">I was actually far too kind</a>.

Jason, was it really necessary to denigrate Crichton in that way in your opening?

Apparently, I was actually far too kind.

]]> By: Repent, for the End is Nigh » The Anthropik Network http://anthropik.com/2005/10/the-eschatology-of-the-left/#comment-6788 Repent, for the End is Nigh » The Anthropik Network Fri, 03 Mar 2006 04:30:27 +0000 http://anthropik.com/2005/10/the-eschatology-of-the-left/#comment-6788 [...] It's easy to mythologize collapse as eschatology: In the beginning, man enjoyed an Edenic state (whether Eden, or tribalism), which was disrupted by the Fall (Quinn very explicitly connects the Fall and the Agricultural Revolution in Ishmael). Now the world is ruled by evil powers (in the Book of Enoch, world governments are created by fallen angels; "the corporation" plays a similar diabolical role in the environmentalist mind), powers that cannot possibly be defeated by force (just like Rome). But take heart! For in the end, the divine (whether G-d, the gods, or Mother Nature) will wreak holy vengeance upon the wicked (whether in the form of plagues and horsemen, or just global warming), and the righteous shall inherit the earth (whether by means of "the Rapture," or the differential survival rates of primitivists who know how to survive without civilization). [...] […] It’s easy to mythologize collapse as eschatology: In the beginning, man enjoyed an Edenic state (whether Eden, or tribalism), which was disrupted by the Fall (Quinn very explicitly connects the Fall and the Agricultural Revolution in Ishmael). Now the world is ruled by evil powers (in the Book of Enoch, world governments are created by fallen angels; “the corporation” plays a similar diabolical role in the environmentalist mind), powers that cannot possibly be defeated by force (just like Rome). But take heart! For in the end, the divine (whether G-d, the gods, or Mother Nature) will wreak holy vengeance upon the wicked (whether in the form of plagues and horsemen, or just global warming), and the righteous shall inherit the earth (whether by means of “the Rapture,” or the differential survival rates of primitivists who know how to survive without civilization). […]

]]> By: Jason Godesky http://anthropik.com/2005/10/the-eschatology-of-the-left/#comment-2377 Jason Godesky Fri, 28 Oct 2005 12:18:31 +0000 http://anthropik.com/2005/10/the-eschatology-of-the-left/#comment-2377 Anonymous -- I'm noting that your reply, valid as it is, is punctuated with words like "opportunity," "potential," "may eventually allow," and other modifier that confess that, to date, the potentials of genetic engineering remain unrealized. <em>If</em> they were realized, they <em>might</em> be radical. They have yet to be realized, and it's uncertain whether it ever will be. The reason for that, is that we've passed the point of diminishing returns for technology. Getting genetic engineering to a level of maturity where it's practically applicable on the scale you're talking about will require a great deal of energy input, in terms of research and development. What will be the real yield of that? Though, I wouldn't consider domesticating bacteria to be such a radical move over domesticating plants or animals -- especially when you consider we've been creating very different domestic strains of bacteria for some time through the same kind of artificial selection we used to create very different domestic plants and animals. As to genetically engineering ourselves, that <em>would</em> be a radical advance--as radical as it is horrifying. What makes us so maladapted to modern society is the fact the we are adapted to living in egalitarian social structures, and we expect to be valued as individuals. So, to use genetic engineering to adapt us to our current way of life would have to make acquiescence to authority and acceptance of one's self as a cog part of human nature itself. Anonymous –

I’m noting that your reply, valid as it is, is punctuated with words like “opportunity,” “potential,” “may eventually allow,” and other modifier that confess that, to date, the potentials of genetic engineering remain unrealized.

If they were realized, they might be radical. They have yet to be realized, and it’s uncertain whether it ever will be. The reason for that, is that we’ve passed the point of diminishing returns for technology. Getting genetic engineering to a level of maturity where it’s practically applicable on the scale you’re talking about will require a great deal of energy input, in terms of research and development. What will be the real yield of that?

Though, I wouldn’t consider domesticating bacteria to be such a radical move over domesticating plants or animals — especially when you consider we’ve been creating very different domestic strains of bacteria for some time through the same kind of artificial selection we used to create very different domestic plants and animals.

As to genetically engineering ourselves, that would be a radical advance–as radical as it is horrifying. What makes us so maladapted to modern society is the fact the we are adapted to living in egalitarian social structures, and we expect to be valued as individuals. So, to use genetic engineering to adapt us to our current way of life would have to make acquiescence to authority and acceptance of one’s self as a cog part of human nature itself.

]]> By: Anonymous http://anthropik.com/2005/10/the-eschatology-of-the-left/#comment-2362 Anonymous Fri, 28 Oct 2005 00:33:41 +0000 http://anthropik.com/2005/10/the-eschatology-of-the-left/#comment-2362 Genetic engineering allows us an opportunity to domesticate bacteria and has the potential of growing proteins industrially without need for soil cultivation. Even now, the yeast cultures designed by biotechnology are very far removed from wild varieties. Genetic engineering may eventually allow redesign of human animal from its pleistocene template and allow it to be more adapted to the cultured life of today. If this achievement takes a hundred years instead of millions it took our ancestors to develop, I'd say that would be radical, right? Genetic engineering allows us an opportunity to domesticate bacteria and has the potential of growing proteins industrially without need for soil cultivation.
Even now, the yeast cultures designed by biotechnology are very far removed from wild varieties.
Genetic engineering may eventually allow redesign of human animal from its pleistocene template and allow it to be more adapted to the cultured life of today.
If this achievement takes a hundred years instead of millions it took our ancestors to develop, I’d say that would be radical, right?

]]> By: Jason Godesky http://anthropik.com/2005/10/the-eschatology-of-the-left/#comment-2355 Jason Godesky Thu, 27 Oct 2005 23:13:51 +0000 http://anthropik.com/2005/10/the-eschatology-of-the-left/#comment-2355 Not in the least. How is genetic engineering such a radical shift from domestication? Compare a domestic carrot and Queen Anne's lace--most of our domesticates are barely identifiable in the wild as such. Also, genetic engineering has yet to see really widespread, radical use. Chimeras tend not to be full-blown hybrids, so much as, say, rice with some human proteins. But still very much rice. So, yes, I think the difference is superficial. Thank you; the innovations in genetic engineering are actually a perfect example of my point. Not in the least. How is genetic engineering such a radical shift from domestication? Compare a domestic carrot and Queen Anne’s lace–most of our domesticates are barely identifiable in the wild as such.

Also, genetic engineering has yet to see really widespread, radical use. Chimeras tend not to be full-blown hybrids, so much as, say, rice with some human proteins. But still very much rice.

So, yes, I think the difference is superficial. Thank you; the innovations in genetic engineering are actually a perfect example of my point.

]]> By: Anonymous http://anthropik.com/2005/10/the-eschatology-of-the-left/#comment-2354 Anonymous Thu, 27 Oct 2005 23:09:01 +0000 http://anthropik.com/2005/10/the-eschatology-of-the-left/#comment-2354 What about genetic engineering of 1950 and today? Still think the difference is superficial? Injecting genes of one species into genes of another is much more radical than breeding the biggest bull What about genetic engineering of 1950 and today?
Still think the difference is superficial?

Injecting genes of one species into genes of another is much more radical than breeding the biggest bull

]]> By: Jason Godesky http://anthropik.com/2005/10/the-eschatology-of-the-left/#comment-2277 Jason Godesky Tue, 25 Oct 2005 21:30:54 +0000 http://anthropik.com/2005/10/the-eschatology-of-the-left/#comment-2277 You'll find its best treatment to date in Tainter's <em>Collapse of Complex Societies</em>. I will be writing a good deal on this in theses #23 - #26. You’ll find its best treatment to date in Tainter’s Collapse of Complex Societies. I will be writing a good deal on this in theses #23 - #26.

]]> By: anarcho-feralist http://anthropik.com/2005/10/the-eschatology-of-the-left/#comment-2275 anarcho-feralist Tue, 25 Oct 2005 21:05:31 +0000 http://anthropik.com/2005/10/the-eschatology-of-the-left/#comment-2275 i am wondering if anyone has extrapolated on this "Peak Technology" pattern that is identified in the above writing. i am wondering if anyone has extrapolated on this “Peak Technology” pattern that is identified in the above writing.

]]>