The Eschatology of the Left
by Jason GodeskyIt’s rare that Michael Crichton gets something right. As a mediocre science fiction writer, his main claim to fame at this point is that one of his novels inspired a big blockbuster movie with great special effects–and two horrid sequels. While his now famous (or, more appropriately, infamous) speech, “Environmentalism as Religion,” counts as some of his worst fiction yet (oh, wait, you mean he meant that seriously?), there is something resembling a good point that he steers in the general direction of: namely, that environmentalism is “the eschatology of the left.”
Here are the parts where Crichton makes sense:
I studied anthropology in college, and one of the things I learned was that certain human social structures always reappear. They can’t be eliminated from society. One of those structures is religion. Today it is said we live in a secular society in which many people—the best people, the most enlightened people—do not believe in any religion. But I think that you cannot eliminate religion from the psyche of mankind. If you suppress it in one form, it merely re-emerges in another form. You can not believe in God, but you still have to believe in something that gives meaning to your life, and shapes your sense of the world. Such a belief is religious.
Today, one of the most powerful religions in the Western World is environmentalism. Environmentalism seems to be the religion of choice for urban atheists. Why do I say it’s a religion? Well, just look at the beliefs. If you look carefully, you see that environmentalism is in fact a perfect 21st century remapping of traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs and myths.
There’s an initial Eden, a paradise, a state of grace and unity with nature, there’s a fall from grace into a state of pollution as a result of eating from the tree of knowledge, and as a result of our actions there is a judgment day coming for us all. We are all energy sinners, doomed to die, unless we seek salvation, which is now called sustainability. Sustainability is salvation in the church of the environment. Just as organic food is its communion, that pesticide-free wafer that the right people with the right beliefs, imbibe.
Eden, the fall of man, the loss of grace, the coming doomsday—these are deeply held mythic structures. They are profoundly conservative beliefs. They may even be hard-wired in the brain, for all I know. I certainly don’t want to talk anybody out of them, as I don’t want to talk anybody out of a belief that Jesus Christ is the son of God who rose from the dead. But the reason I don’t want to talk anybody out of these beliefs is that I know that I can’t talk anybody out of them. These are not facts that can be argued. These are issues of faith.
He makes a good point here. And when it comes to primitivism, we can easily add another dimension of religious thought–apocalypticism.
Apocalyptic literature really got its start in the Second Temple period, in the first centuries CE and BCE, in Judea. The Jews were facing an oppressor they could not possibly defeat by force. Instead, they relied on their faith in ancient prophecies of the messiah. They hoped for an apocalypse, an eschaton in which G-d would rescue them from their plight. They were not able to face their enemies by force, but they could hope in the end of the world–when their enemies would be destroyed by still greater forces and they, the faithful, would inherit the earth.
Jesus came from this apocalyptic tradition–and because of that, it has become one of the fundamental tropes in Western culture. It gave comfort to the dispossessed that their oppression would not last forever. It is telling that once Christianity became established, the Revelation to St. John ceased to be a source of comfort, and instead became a thing of horror. The apocalypse is a comfort to persecuted minorities–but it is a specter of doom for an established power.
Compare this to the primitivist brand of environmentalism. 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).
Naturally, we could recast the same for “Peak Oil” as well. Apocalypticism is on a rise now the likes of which we haven’t seen since the Second Temple period itself (a period which ultimately did end in a kind of apocalypse–the Jewish Revolt, and the beginning of the Diaspora in 70 CE). MSNBC recently ran a story, “Apocalypse, Now?” which focused on the upsurge in apocalyptic rhetoric inspired by Katrina and other recent disasters.
Many evangelical Christians believe these events signal the End Times, as spelled out in the Book of Revelation, which go something like this: First there is the Rapture, in which God’s loyal followers suddenly disappear from Earth and enter his kingdom. Then comes the Tribulation, a seven-year period of rule by the Antichrist and severe hardship on Earth. During this time, nonbelievers who remain on Earth will have a chance to convert to Christianity but will be hounded by the Antichrist and his minions. Then comes Armageddon, when God comes back to defeat Satan in a devastating battle. Ultimately, there is Judgment Day, when those who are with God live on in Paradise, and others are eternally condemned to Hell.
…
Irwin Baxter, founder of End Times Ministries, is among those more focused on how Katrina and the other disasters, combined with key political indicators — including the Israeli withdrawal from the Gaza Strip — point to an imminent apocalypse. “With all these converging at the same time, it looks to me we are very close to or just entered the (End Times),” says Baxter.
…
He’s given up his regular job as pastor at a Pentecostal church in Richmond, Ind., to devote all his time and energy to End Times Ministries, which includes a magazine that has 30,000 subscribers, a Web site and a radio program broadcast on 30 stations and over the Internet.
…
Religious groups don’t have a monopoly on apocalyptic thinking. O’Leary says that even in secular circles, people also embrace apocalyptic thinking when it converges with worrisome scientific or technological developments.
“The prime case was the Y2K scare,” he says, referring to fears of a disaster on the eve of the new century. “For awhile it seemed to have a rational technical basis, which seemed to go overboard,” creating fears that lingered until the clock struck 12:01 a.m. on Jan. 1, 2000, “long after computer programmers said it was going to be OK,” he says.
Evidence of global warming fuels fears of impending disaster among those who don’t necessarily believe in divine intervention, O’Leary points out. And the emergence of nuclear weapons technology after World War II lent plausibility to belief in a secular version of Armageddon.
It’s enough to get Wolf Blitzer to ask Jerry Falwell about the “End Times” on CNN.
So far, we’re entirely on track. Peak Oil, primitivism and fundamentalist Christians all share the same trope of the apocalypse; it’s the same script, merely populated with different actors. We start to see where this all goes awry with a throw-away comment in the text above: “For awhile it seemed to have a rational technical basis…” (Note: Y2K was a non-event because there was so much alarm. It was the finest hour of my techie brethren, and because we succeeded so thoroughly, you now get to laugh at us for worrying over nothing.) The implication here is that apocalypticism is irrational.
There’s certainly a historical precedent to back up such a contention. Take as just one example, William Miller, who predicted that Jesus would return on 21 March 1844. When it didn’t happen, Miller changed his prediction to 22 October 1844. People quit their jobs, sold everything they owned, and waited for Jesus to return in glory. He didn’t. We’ll be marking the 161st anniversary of “the Great Disappointment” tomorrow–an event that ultimately led to the formation of the Seventh Day Adventist Church. Other examples abound.
That’s the conclusion Michael Crichton would like to draw, as well. The logic goes that Peak Oil and primitivism shares a common view of the world with fundamentalist Christians (which is true), and fundamentalist Christians have been wrong many times in the past (also true), so Peak Oil and primitivism must be wrong now. Did you spot the logical error in that argument? Error in the past does not indicate error in the future–the fundies might be finally right this time. But more to the point, it’s an entirely different set of evidence.
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.
The apocalyptic mindset is ingrained in our culture. To point out that believers in Peak Oil and primitivism share the same apocalyptic script with fundamentalist Christianity merely proves that those believers are humans, and think like humans. There are only a few basic, archetypal stories we have, into which we fit the evidence we find. The apocalypse is one of them.
Here’s another. Yes, we are mired in the toll of our sins. We have done great wrong, and the flaws of human nature have nearly overcome us. But take heart! For our salvation is near, which will save us from our sins and open a bright and glorious tomorrow!
Am I describing Second Temple expectations of the messiah? Islamic expectations of the Mahdi? Or am I describing the messianic role that technology plays in the progressivist mind, a la the Ergosphere or Peak Oil Optimist? Rob McMillin and “Engineer-Poet” are both brilliant, and know a great deal. But they fit those facts into a mythological framework as surely as any of us.
So, to point out the mythological frame is something worthwhile, to some extent, but ultimately says nothing about the argument itself. There have been just as many failed predictions of messiahs as apocalypses, after all. Crichton was right about one thing, religion is one thing none of us can get away from. Mythopoeic thought is wired into the human brain itself. We cannot escape it, we can only deny it–and in denying it, allow it far more power over us and the way we think. The issue is not whether or not a given argument shares a mythological frame with some other movement, but whether that argument gathered its facts and then framed it, or started with a frame and tried to fill it with “facts.”
very apt and true. apocalypse scenarios abound in the minds of humans. I personally subscribe to the Illuminati/New World Order apocalypse scenario as do alot of my friends(birds of a feather). I think it is half fact/purported fact reading and criton’s “hardwired apocalypse” theory. Humans fear the unknown, and the future will always be unknown. therefore, people have a reason (rightly or wrongly) to be afraid.
Comment by Rory — 21 October 2005 @ 12:47 PM
Civilization’s going to end in our lifetime, so place your bets, people … we’re about to see which apocalyptic prophesies come closest to accurate!
Comment by Jason Godesky — 21 October 2005 @ 1:13 PM
“his main claim to fame at this point is that one of his novels inspired a big blockbuster movie with great special effects”
Your ignorance shines through in your first 3 sentences. Coma, Westworld, Andromeda Strain, Rising Sun, Twister, ER, Runaway were all Chrichton’s works.
You = shitty ignorant blog writer.
Comment by Whatever — 21 October 2005 @ 1:39 PM
In response to Jason Godesky’s comment “Civilization’s going to end in our lifetime, so place your bets, people …” I would like to point out that all signs point more towards a change of civilization, not an end to it. While human dependence on “fossil” fuels is certainly going to be a thing of the past before too long, it is human nature to improvise, innovate and refine - these are the traits that have lead to our success as a species.
Far from taking an apocalyptic view, I feel that the benefits to humanity in discovering alternative sources of power will lead to a a cleaner planet and better standard of living for all of humanity.
Change is good. Isn’t there some ancient Chinese saying to the effect that a wise man builds a windmill when he perceives a windstorm is coming?
I think the most interesting end product of this line of thinking, and one that is certainly more easily examined, is which socio-political entity will benefit most from the coming changes. Sadly, my vote is not for the US or Western civilization in general, as things become more and more moribound from a technology standpoint. It could be a Chinese planet after all (5,000 years of xenophobia notwithstanding) as the “ChiComs” now seem to be more interested in making money than the Capilatist West.
Comment by Steve-o — 21 October 2005 @ 1:56 PM
Steve.
Did you know China owns a third of our National Debt?
Yeah, I feel this is a good thing.
And Jason,
If the resiliency of life isn’t a strong enough arguement for you, the you, too, are a victim of your own faith, and there would be no point for the novelist to argue with you, either…
I assume you’re playing both hands in this Euchre game of life, but sometimes I wonder about you….
Comment by Tonyz — 21 October 2005 @ 2:05 PM
Steve-o,
What do you mean by a “better standard of living”? I’m curious.
Also, if China intends to beat the West by becoming more like it, I bet they’ll go right down with the rest of ‘em.
Roxy
Comment by Raku — 21 October 2005 @ 2:09 PM
Yes, I’m familiar with all of them. Don’t tell me this is your offering to show Crichton isn’t mediocre?
Not so. To date, I’ve found all such statements to be based either in a lack of historical perspective, or a lack of understanding of precisely the problem we face. We have passed the point of diminishing returns on complexity (see Joseph Tainter, Collapse of Complex Societies, or at a minimum my review of it).
Civilization nearly ended during the Late Bronze Age Crisis. They’d burned down all the trees for charcoal to make their metals, and had to go further and further to find a decent forest–what you might call “Peak Timber.” There was still plenty of forest, but they were increasingly far away, and the ERoEI was plummeting. We had a deus ex machina that swept in to save the day, much as is the hope for renewable energy today. If it hadn’t, millions of people would have died, with extensive ecological damage to a region of the world.
Because of that deus ex machina, civilization’s positive feedback loop continued, and it continued to grow without limit like some kind of cancer. Now we’re back in the same boat–facing collapse. This time, billions face grisly die-off, and we’re already in the midst of the single worst mass extinction in the history of the planet.
If the deus ex machina sweeps in again (and that’s a huge if), then the positive feedback loop will continue. Every animal–including humans–rises to its carrying capacity almost immediately. If we can match our petroleum energy needs with just 1% of the U.S.’s land area covered with photovoltaic panels, why not 2% and double our energy? Population will rise to meet the new level of energy, so we’ll increase the amount of energy–it’s what Daniel Quinn called “the Food Race,” it’s what I call civilization’s positive feedback loop. This iteration will only last a century or so (exponential growth’s a bitch like that), when we’ll have a population in the trillions, and be facing the very real possibility of the extinction of all multi-cellular life on earth, since photovoltaic panels will be catching every available drop of sunlight, leaving nothing for green plants to grow.
Notice how with each iteration, the consequences are exponentially worse? Such is the nature of a positive feedback loop–the longer it’s allowed to continue, the harder it will crash when it eventually outstrips itself, because no positive feedback loop can continue forever in a finite universe.
The question of civilization’s collapse is not “if,” but “when.” Civilization is an inherently unstable structure; collapse is what they do. The sooner civilization collapses, the higher the probability for the survival of the human species, and the less damage will happen to everything else on the planet. In a perfect world, we never would have entered into this in the first place, but we did. It would have been better if civilization had collapsed during the Bronze Age, though it would have killed millions, but it didn’t. Today, the cost will be billions of lives. But if we do manage to find a way to escape it, then the trillions of our grandchildren who will die even more horrifically will damn us for not having the courage to countenance the terrors visited upon us by our ancestors, instead delaying and compounding the cost still more for them to bear.
But ultimately, the discussion is moot. The ability to replace our petroleum usage with renewable energy is a pipe dream, and what most Peak Oil theorists neglect is how thoroughly our industrial civilization has burned the bridges behind it. The resources we used to reach our current state were all destroyed in the process of reaching this state. We have created a state where only two possiiblities remain: the Industrial Age, and the Stone Age. When the Industrial Age is eliminated, only the Stone Age will remain.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 21 October 2005 @ 2:13 PM
My faith in the resiliency of life is nearly absolute. I’m talking about the best-case scenario the progressivists have put forward–a human population in the trillions, where solar panels have blotted out the sun, and every square inch of land is plunged into eternal night, and no green plant can grow upon the earth.
Then the microbes shall inherit the earth, and begin anew.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 21 October 2005 @ 2:15 PM
Raku,
Just that - better access to education, medicine, housing, etc. I’m assuming most readers of this site will just assume I don’t mean a bigger TV, SUV and McMansion. I’m speaking globally.
Companies will be started to meet the demands for alternative energy, and these companies will employ people. Probably lots of them, with a variety of skills. Alt. energy reserach is really a good thing, economically speaking.
China’s greatest challenge is an economic one (yeah, I know, duh). Fact is the growth of the US economy in the 20th century had a great deal to do with access to cheap oil - remember, we met our own needs until the 1960s - and current US and Western policy is to slow the Chinese pace by denying them access to cheap oil.
Comment by Steve-o — 21 October 2005 @ 2:16 PM
Humanity’s standard of living was very high in the Paleolithic and Mesolithic. The “original affluent society” enjoyed a better diet, more liesure time, longer life expectancy, and more direct access to art, music, philosophy, etc.
That plummeted in the Neolithic, and we’ve been slowly working our way back ever since. Today’s industrialized societies enjoy something close to, but still less than, the Paleolithic standard of living. “Affluent malnutrition” has given us life spans rivaling that of our foraging ancestors (though where they spent it hale and hardy, we spend ours obese and sickly), and though we have the tiniest fraction of their liesure time, we do have almost as much access to art, music, philosophy, etc.
Unfortunately, the key to that propserity is the suffering of a population nine times larger (see my recent post, “The Nature of Empire“). I assume your claim is that standards of living may improve with renewable energy sources? If they can be deployed on a sufficiently large scale, that may actually bear out. The fundamental, underlying cause of the imperialist effect we have known throughout history is centralized energy sources and their zero-sum nature. Some renewable energies are very decentralized; others are even more centralized. So it depends on which technology wins out–if any.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 21 October 2005 @ 2:27 PM
Steve-o,
By this, do you mean western-style education (institutional schooling), western medicine (institutional health care), and western-style housing (i.e. expensive, labor- and materials-intensive)? Because I don’t really see it doing good for the West, so I don’t know what it will do for anyone else.
Roxy
Comment by Raku — 21 October 2005 @ 2:43 PM
“You = shitty ignorant blog writer.”
This from a guy who can’t even spell Crichton.
Comment by Anonymous — 21 October 2005 @ 2:47 PM
Now, now, everyone, calm down. Anonymous, I appreciate your defense, but there’s no need to antagonize.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 21 October 2005 @ 2:50 PM
Jason, was it really necessary to denigrate Crichton in that way in your opening? I actually like his books, and whether the movies were good or not is a matter of opinion. I think it detracts from the rest of your article, which is spot-on, and unnecessarily pisses off people who might otherwise be agreeable to its thesis.
Roxy
Comment by Raku — 21 October 2005 @ 2:57 PM
Sorry; I was trying to open light and dig down into the serious stuff. I didn’t think people would be so touchy about it.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 21 October 2005 @ 3:01 PM
Well, I guess people can get touchy about anything. Must mean we’re fatally flawed and doomed to a life of misery.
Roxy
Comment by Raku — 21 October 2005 @ 3:18 PM
Must be Republicans. Whenever I mention the possibility that Peak Oil may force some changes in the way we live (even tiny ones), they go postal.
Comment by Peter — 21 October 2005 @ 3:25 PM
Not all Republicans, no. Peter, have you heard of Representative Roscoe Bartlett? You may want to read his presentation to the US Congress before you make sweeping generalizations like that…
Comment by Devin — 21 October 2005 @ 4:09 PM
Just 99.9% then.
BTW, I’m an Independent.
Comment by Peter — 21 October 2005 @ 4:17 PM
To be an anarchist is to be liberal under conservative governments, conservative under liberals, and always and forever the implacable enemy of the moderate centrist.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 21 October 2005 @ 4:20 PM
p.s. Jason — Crichton’s arguments are common, and he chooses the most hotly debated examples — such as the mass extinction occurring when humans migrated to this continent.
IMO, you would do well to refute his arguments rather than resorting to ad hominems. Or at least link to already written refutations. Just a thought.
Comment by Devin — 21 October 2005 @ 4:22 PM
This particular speech has been thoroughly debunked a few thousand times, on several thousand blogs. 99% of the people who’ve read, found it in the course of a debunking. I didn’t think I needed to add to the pile-on.
(Though, I have already written a rebuttal to that particular argument….)
Comment by Jason Godesky — 21 October 2005 @ 4:26 PM
Oh ok Jason I was wondering what you were saying over at Ishcon about life.
Don’t you think we’ll get off the Earth if we keep pushing our technological prowess?
I know personally, that the goal of civilization is to convert every calorie and living cell of the universe into a servant of humans.
I also know that the goodness of people have prevented this from already happening many times over the course of civ’s history.
What I see is a civilization that is beginning to incorporate care for the environment as matter of law and public opinion.
I feel confident the Black Forest in Germany would burn in nuclear holocaust before it is cut down.
I feel the same way about the many, many forests I’ve lived in in my days.
But personally speaking, without petroleum, we are a failry enlightened group of humans. We’re doing a bang up job of both fucking up the planet, and learning how not to fuck it up.
I guess we really won’t know until we are reading history books to our grandchildren (assuming books exist).
But as far as us ramping into this crazy 1984-esque world, well in many way, we are living in it today. But I dot’ feel particularly oppressed. And for many of the people i have encoutered in my life, their lives have actually gotten better since 1984, not worse. (not to ignore every life that has been more oppressed since then)
I think Nationalism is a curse, but I also think it’s been a great buffer from preventing human homogeony.
I dont’ humans will ever accept aesthetically your hypothetical worlds. I think they would just simply die of depression before any of that happens.
But then you get me thinking.
If someone invented a microbe that ate all the life on this planet and made the earth one big microbe ball of jelly, am I mad? No, because evolution won’t allow that much homgeony for long.
Besides, why get so crazy about hypotheticals?
We know from our gatherings that life can be fun, wonderful, and full of greatness just by simply gathering.
The best way to fight the future is to change the present.
Comment by TonyZ — 21 October 2005 @ 4:44 PM
No, but mainly because I don’t think we’ll keep pushing our technological prowess. Technology isn’t some independent, godlike force. It’s subject to diminishing returns just like everything else–and we’ve passed that point. Innovations now will continue to be more modest, and come at higher cost. In short, this is about as advanced as any human technology could ever be.
So, a suicidal civilization? One that predicates its own destruction. I don’t see this working out in the long run. See, if the only thing keeping you from abusing the commons is your “morality,” then the very first person who decides to be “immoral” will roll over everyone. That’s why memes aren’t sufficient; the infrastructure has to change. That’s why civilization is both a positive feedback loop, and a game of prisoner’s dilemna.
Sure; we finished raping the Black Forest centuries ago. What’s left is more economical as forest than timber, so we keep it around. Same with most of the forests in the eastern U.S.
Actually, I talk about that in thesis #11, which I put up earlier today. But basically, it comes down to this: Good for you, you lucky bastard–now what about the rest of us?
Most, yes. Those will be the ones who die in the collapse.
Why fight it? The system cannot be changed; the system changes you. Fighting is impossible. We should learn to survive it.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 21 October 2005 @ 4:54 PM
I feel confident the Black Forest in Germany would burn in nuclear holocaust before it is cut down.
Or until there’s no more oil and millions of Germans (or whoever’s conquered Germany)are starving and freezing and decide they need their homes heated and their cooking fires lit.
Roxy
Comment by Raku — 21 October 2005 @ 5:16 PM
Sorry for the double post, but I just wanted to say that I agree 100% with Tony when he said this:
We know from our gatherings that life can be fun, wonderful, and full of greatness just by simply gathering.
Atari!!!!!!!!
Roxy
Comment by Raku — 21 October 2005 @ 5:18 PM
What do video games have to do with anything, Roxy?
Comment by Jason Godesky — 21 October 2005 @ 5:22 PM
All shall be revealed in time, my half-breed alien son…
Comment by Raku — 21 October 2005 @ 5:33 PM
I can’t believe [I]Anonymous[/I] committed Ad hominem AND THEN felt personally betrayed by Jason’s lack of concern for spelling….
(Which is the approximate equivalent of clamping his nipples in rat-trap…)
And yet Jason barely flinched, played it off casual-like…. How twenty-something you’ve become!
-Jim
Comment by JCamasto — 21 October 2005 @ 7:32 PM
Jim — Anonymous #2 was replying to Anonymous #1. Anonymous #1 was the misspeller of Crichton, misspelling it “Chrichton”.
Comment by Devin — 22 October 2005 @ 12:03 AM
In 1970 technology philosopher Lewis Mumford made the comment that “The notion that mechanical and scientific progress guaranteed parallel human benefits was already dubious by 1851, the year of the Crystal Palace Exhibition, and now had become completely untenable.”
Comment by Curt — 23 October 2005 @ 10:36 AM
Indeed, such pronouncements were made in the past, but they were not based in any evidence except to say, “Wow, that’s a lot of invention, how much could be left?” My estimation is based in an understanding of why invention is subject to diminishing returns, and looking at the marginal returns over the past several centuries–and noticing that they’re now diminishing. Same as the difference between environmentalists and fundies: we have evidence to back up our claims.
Consider the difference between a photograph of an American city in 1900, and again in 1950. There is an enormous difference. Now, 1950 and 2000–it is primarily superficial. The advancements of the first half of the twentieth century were revolutionary; the second half was primarily refinement. Sure, the lunar landing was certainly an impressive feat, but which is the greater leap? From airplanes to lunar landings, or from nothing at all to airplanes? Which is the greater innovation: allowing men to fly, or making a craft that flies farther and faster?
Comment by Jason Godesky — 23 October 2005 @ 10:42 AM
i am wondering if anyone has extrapolated on this “Peak Technology” pattern that is identified in the above writing.
Comment by anarcho-feralist — 25 October 2005 @ 5:05 PM
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.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 25 October 2005 @ 5:30 PM
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
Comment by Anonymous — 27 October 2005 @ 7:09 PM
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.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 27 October 2005 @ 7:13 PM
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?
Comment by Anonymous — 27 October 2005 @ 8:33 PM
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.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 28 October 2005 @ 8:18 AM
Apparently, I was actually far too kind.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 14 December 2006 @ 3:21 PM