On Group Formation, Empathy, and the New Anthropik
by Mike GodeskyI would like to begin this thread by apologizing to our readers. I am sorry you had to witness the unpleasantness that recently erupted here on Anthropik as a result of the outbursts of former contributors Benjamin Shender and Miranda Belcher. I could respond to their attacks on the members of this site as Shender chose to in his last post (deleted by myself, but reproduced on IshCon). I could share with you pieces of conversations we had in private that, I assure you, would be far more damaging to them than an e-mail by Jason “ordering” two people who were not even full members to repair the damage they had done to the group is to us. But I refuse to do that, as I have far too much respect for myself and for my readers to sink to such a level. Members of a group like ours do not sell each other out so easily, something that those leaving never seemed to quite understand. Rather, I would like to take this moment to explore the underlying issues at work here. What have we learned through all of this? What are the critical elements involved in forming a social group such as a tribe? And where did those things break down in this particular case?
A social group’s success or failure depends in large part on the dedication of each of its members to the group as a whole. That group is a concept based on its members’ belief that they are alike in some essential way. And through the group, individuals are able to achieve a certain synergy. The group becomes more than the sum of its parts. But if the members of the group do not have that belief, this synergy will never be obtained.
Tribal societies are able to achieve this goal because they actively take advantage of people’s own self-interests. Members contribute to the well-being of the group because in doing so, they are helping themselves. It would be exceedingly rare for a member to try to harm the group because in doing so, they are harming themselves. Thus, the group becomes a focal point for all concerned.
To gain the benefits of this structure, however, one must first find membership in such a group. And this process of new group formation is the primary difficulty for us today. Since we are typically not born into tribes, we must do the hard work of creating new social groups ourselves. But here again, the basic requirements are the same in that each would-be member must have a belief that there is some essential characteristic that makes them basically alike. And at this point, we find ourselves coming back to the issue of caring, empathy, and compassion that I believe are so important. Shender demonstrated the problem in the thread that precipitated this course of events when he said,
Let me take this: I don’t care about all those people. Niether do you. You care about six billion “people” not six billion “individuals.” My first duty is to me and mine. The rest of the human species be damned. I’m not wasting my energy protecting them. I spend mine protecting me and mine. We’ll see whose genes survive.
[…]
Do I care about them? No, how could I? I don’t know them.
This sort of attitude hinders group formation. If you care for no one but “your own,” what would ever make you want to enter into a group with someone outside “your own?” Before you can be a part of a group, before it becomes “your own,” you have to actually care about the group and the people in it. A certain amount of empathy is necessary for one to recognize, “This person is like me. We’d be better together than we would be apart.” And you have to have compassion for the group and its members to motivate you to protect them from harm. This is the first step that all later group development is built upon and eventually leads to a strong sense of loyalty among group members.
To take an extreme example, suppose we have a chess team, made up of all avid chess players. As such, all of these members are motivated to maintain the well-being of the group. Suppose then that this chess team receives a request for admission from a couple of bullies. These bullies hate chess, and they love to beat up people who play chess. Would these bullies make it very far in their attempt to enter the group? The answer is of course not. Not because of any inherent failing on the part of the group–in fact, their rejection would only show that the group’s approval process is working. These bullies would, rather, be rejected on the basis of their own incompatibility with the group. They don’t care about the group’s goals or its members. They don’t empathize with other group members. And they also lack compassion for the troubles of its members. Now, as these bullies walk out the door, they might say to each other in a dejected tone, “Why did they treat us like outsiders?” or “It was all that other guy’s fault,” or, “How come they wouldn’t let us post our message about everything that’s wrong with the chess team right there in the club?” But none of these would have anything to do with the real reason they failed to integrate into the group. It would merely be the bitterness that comes with rejection.
And this seems to be at the heart of the problem. Too often these days it seems like people want to reap the benefits of group membership without giving anything in return. This is something that will never happen. To be a part of a group means to be loyal to that group because you are alike in an essential way. This is the reason that many groups, especially those centered around making a living, are very careful about those they take in. Members must be absolutely sure that the applicants (A) will do no harm to the group, and (B) will in some way add to the group through their membership.
It is unfortunate that Shender and Belcher turned this process into such a painful one. However, I can assure readers that, in spite of Shender’s claims to the contrary, this will by no means be the end of Anthropik. We may find that, once the dust has settled, Anthropik will be even better for it.
I missed it. What happened?
Comment by Devin — 10 April 2006 @ 5:10 PM
Nevermind, I just caught up.
Wow.
Comment by Devin — 10 April 2006 @ 5:13 PM
For those who missed it, you can see the relevant threads here and here.
Comment by Mike Godesky — 10 April 2006 @ 6:36 PM
Looks like I won’t get a chance to find out from Benjamin what sort of job he was offered straight out of high school at $170,000.
Comment by Peter — 10 April 2006 @ 7:49 PM
I think we could all benefit from some team-building exercises right about now. Anyone know any?
Comment by Peter — 10 April 2006 @ 7:53 PM
It was in computer programming.
I know quite a few team building excercises. Maybe when I’m a real boy….
Comment by Benjamin Shender — 10 April 2006 @ 7:57 PM
If we have enough people we could form two teams and play Ultimate Frisbee™.
(Before anyone has a coniption, I’ll remind readers that teams in Ultimate™ cooperate rather than compete.)
Comment by Peter — 10 April 2006 @ 8:05 PM
What a great idea! I love frisbee, all kinds!
what a fantastic team building exercise.
Comment by Mira — 10 April 2006 @ 8:09 PM
Ultimate™ is all about mutually assured victory.
Comment by Peter — 10 April 2006 @ 8:20 PM
What would the rules be for this team building I wonder….
Comment by Mira — 10 April 2006 @ 8:24 PM
Team building excercises in the corporate seminars stink. I think youre better off doing a permaculture week or month project.
Anyway, as for the vitrolic earlier thread, I’ve seen worse on the Acura Tuner forums. Guys get flamed for exhaust pipes. My read on it, neither guys were getting their views across and then it got personal. Oh well. Still there is so much to take away from it - stuff you never would think of. Just today I got out with my wife in the flower garden (I usually stick to my ‘feed me’ vegatable garden). And I thought about compassion, to me it is the Bible Greek word Agape - a love based on principle that moves you to do what you can, when you can. Like the Good Samaritan in the illustration given by Jesus.
Anyway, this blog is on my reading list.
Comment by Rob — 10 April 2006 @ 8:41 PM
Sadly, all of my frisbees have been badly chewed up by a couple of retrievers.
Comment by Peter — 10 April 2006 @ 8:55 PM
That is sad, you should go to the dollar store and get some more.
Comment by Mira — 10 April 2006 @ 9:29 PM
This blog/message board is very unique and interesting, delving into ideas that would be deleted on just about any other forum (if not deleted, ridiculed). My wish would be that no flamers would be allowed protecting the discussion of these unique ideas.
Smart move.
Comment by Rick Larson — 10 April 2006 @ 9:50 PM
Interesting.
It reminds me of the Patriot Act in ways, huh.
Comment by Mira — 10 April 2006 @ 10:00 PM
What does?
Comment by Mike Godesky — 10 April 2006 @ 10:17 PM
Have to type; it is very interesting how people use the First Amendment and/or The Patriot Act when they are called out for dealing in a manner that is not ethical or in directly bashing another’s character (specially the owner of the site).
Sorry, but the First Amendment is to protect individuals free speech from government (not message board moderators), and The Patriot Act is governments answer to the First Amendment (again, nothing whatsoever to do about moderating a message board).
Comment by Rick Larson — 10 April 2006 @ 10:27 PM
In all fairness, Rick, we do arrest all trolls and send them to Guantanamo Bay where we strap electrodes to their genitals. That’s why the internet is such serious business.
Comment by Mike Godesky — 10 April 2006 @ 10:34 PM
Oh no, I wasn’t saying that the Patriot Act was being implemented here, I mearly said it reminded me of the Patriot Act.
But I personally believe that people have to the right to see what the post was, rather than just eluding to it.
Comment by Mira — 10 April 2006 @ 10:35 PM
I’m not denying anyone their “right” to see what the post was. Anyone who wants to read it can do so on IshCon.
Comment by Mike Godesky — 10 April 2006 @ 10:40 PM
Mike,
You are definately the odd man out here.
Comment by Peter — 10 April 2006 @ 10:41 PM
Since it’s a slow night at Anthropik, I’d like to point out the fact that our man Jeff Vail has posted a new one on rhizome networks. http://www.jeffvail.net/2006/04/rhizome-network-defense-strategies.html#comments
Comment by Peter — 10 April 2006 @ 10:46 PM
You are definately the odd man out here.
How do you mean?
Comment by Mike Godesky — 10 April 2006 @ 10:46 PM
I meant it in a good way.
On the PC/un-PC continuum you are very much at the un-PC end. You’re a straight shooter. A few regs are at the far opposite end.
Comment by Peter — 10 April 2006 @ 10:56 PM
I think I like that. Thanks, Peter.
Comment by Mike Godesky — 10 April 2006 @ 10:58 PM
You’re welcome.
Comment by Peter — 10 April 2006 @ 11:00 PM
And where did those things break down in this particular case?
In the faint hope that my two cents my buy a little peace, I’ll offer my thoughts.
I think the point has been missed by most of you. the words are getting in the way of inderstanding what’s being said. here’s Miranda feeling a little down about the crappy world she’s in and hoping for maybe a little support.
All is well until Al challenges a few assumptions. Looking for intelligent discourse I would suppose. But he hits a nerve. Taking a deep breath before responding IS good advice. Maybe a long walk too.
Not quite sensing what’s really afoot in the minds of all the players, I Jason hops into the fray to defend himself and Giuli. Perhaps I missed it, but I didn’t see him lending any support to Miranda. Kind of self-centered, if you look at it a certain way, since Miranda’s post was the subject of the initial debate.
Then Ben senses this slight perhaps. Perhaps he has his own issues. For whatever reason, he speaks up with a viewpoint supporting Miranda. Kudos dude, but it didn’t really calm the issue, sorta threw gas on the flames.
And then, eventually Mike comes in. And basically attacks Miranda for having a diiferent view about what one should feel guilty about. Um, guilt wasn’t really the emotion at play if my read is corect…more of the whole feeling alone in the world thing.
And it goes on and on and still hasn’t been resolved, which is why I feel compelled to babble. Which is kinda funny really. I’m one oif those guys who doesn’t think ot particularly healthy to dwell on things you can’t do anything about, like the potential suffering of billions. And here I am trying to patch things up between complete strangers (to me anyway).
Only psycopaths really don’t care, and I don’t think any of you fit the bill for that diagnosis. You just let yourself get embroiled in details and semantics and never really paid enough attention to the underlying emotions that motivate us all.
Geez, just kiss and make up already.
Comment by Lorne — 11 April 2006 @ 2:17 AM
bravo! a voice of reason.
Comment by kate — 11 April 2006 @ 8:58 AM
Ben and Miranda are very good sophists. They’re great at emotionally manipulating people, and they had the sense to wait until they knew Giuli and I were out of town, and Mike would be on his own, to stab us in the back. So, I don’t blame you for being suckered in by their obfuscation and outright lies. But there’s only one salient fact here: Ben and Miranda betrayed the Tribe of Anthropik. They stabbed us in the back. So no, we didn’t turn around still bleeding and ask if they were OK. Their treachery has NOT ended the Tribe of Anthropik–the Tribe of Anthropik is just fine–but it has shown that they are treacherous liars not to be trusted. Slippery, convincing liars, yes, but liars, nonetheless. Ben timed his attack well–without anyone else to counter him except Mike, he’s been free the past few days to rearrange history to his benefit, and you all ate it up with a spoon. But that’s not at all what happened.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 11 April 2006 @ 10:19 AM
I enjoy reading this blog.I think these were all important issues that came up.
This kind of reminds me of a church split. Obviously, the crash hasn’t started yet or it wouldn’t be so easy for this little tribe to split up. You would all need each other too much.
I happen to have both sentiments expressed in this argument battling in my head (and heart) I haven’t worked it out yet.
Comment by Ted Heistman — 11 April 2006 @ 10:33 AM
Lorne,
I appreciate your analysis of the situation, but contrary to what Ben and Miranda say, this goes far beyond a simple misunderstanding of meaning. Frankly, we all found Miranda’s line of, “Well, come on already, Collapse Already!!!” to be somewhat disturbing. I was going to let it go because it was only one line, and it wasn’t the main point of the article anyway. But then Al challenged her on it. I couldn’t really blame him, seeing as how I held a similar point of view.
Now, it could have ended right there if Miranda had merely recognized the problems with what she had said and admitted that it was a poor choice of words. She didn’t do that. Instead, she tried to defend the line in question, and in doing so, she only came off as even more unfeeling. Her defense that she never explicitly said she wanted people to die is, quite frankly, irrelevant, as it doesn’t change the self-centeredness of what she did say. The fact that she didn’t even think about those people was what we were talking about.
Now you, write:
Why should he? We’re disagreeing with Miranda. We don’t have any obligation to defend her from criticism. She’s a big girl now. So this attitude that we should support Ben and/or Miranda whether we agree with them or not is just bullshit.
But the real tipping point was when Ben decided he had to come ot Miranda’s rescue. In this post, he unapologetically touts his selfishness and his lack of compassion. And he actually invokes evolution and genetic survival as support. Now this is actually something that Jason and I have discussed in the past. And the conclusion we came to was that anyone who would use evolution as a basis for morality is a monster. Ben pretty much took the little bit of unease we had felt at reading what Miranda had written and multiplied it by a hundred.
So I was forced to publicly rebuke them. But it didn’t end there. That night, Ben and, to a somehwat lesser extent, Miranda decided that they were going to race to see how fast they could show Anthropik to be morally bankrupt. This includes Ben sending a threat to a guest on our site. This is something we have absolutely zero tolerance for.
Anthropik gets enough criticism for lacking compassion just for saying things that are true. So we all realized that, left unaddressed, this little fiasco would do irreparable damage to our reputation. Thus, Jason wrote an e-mail to Ben and Miranda telling them to do something to fix the situation. And this is apparently at the center of Ben’s angsts. He feels as though he shouldn’t have to take “orders.”
And this all fits into an attitude that we had taken note of even before this incident. During the time that they were on probation, they displayed an incredible level of presumption. They assumed themselves to be on par with full members, or even above full members. But they hadn’t earned that status. They were never full members of the group. And in any social group, would-be members are always subordinate to full members. There was no choice here. They had harmed the group. If they wished to continue any sort of working relationship with Anthropik, they had to do something to repair the damage they had done.
But they chose to ignore Jason’s e-mail. And this is another problem we had with them. They never demonstrated that they cared at all about the well-being of Anthropik or its members. As I write in the entry above, that’s a problem. You have to have some kind of loyalty to the group. But Ben and Miranda apparently felt that their pride was more important.
And it really all exploded Sunday night when the two of them went into a separate thread that wasn’t even about them looking for a fight. They hijacked that thread, taking it so far off-topic and filling it with so many personal attacks, that I was forced to close it. And at that time I told them that if they want to continue their personal mudslinging to take it off the site because a public blog is not the appropriate forum for that kind of discussion. They ignored me and chose instead to abuse their editor privileges to post an attack on the very website that had taken them in as guests and given them those privileges in the first place. A post that included quotes taken out of context, quotes from private conversations, the singling out of one of Anthropik’s guests for attack, and pure misinformation about the internal state of Anthropik. So I had no choice but to lock their accounts to prevent them from vandalizing the site any further.
As far as I’m concerned, the situation is resolved. It’s unfortunate that Ben and Miranda decided to make this process as painful as possible. We were perfectly open to maintaining a relationship with them in spite of their request for membership being denied. But their attempts in the last few days to burn any bridges they had left with Anthropik seem to have made that all but impossible.
Comment by Mike Godesky — 11 April 2006 @ 10:48 AM
Just a note, Both of the named folks are still listed on the Contributor tab.
I’m glad that you all managed this (mostly internal) drama, and hopefully everyone will be the better for having gone through the process that is innately part of humanity, conflict, which sometimes has a positive resolution for all parties, in this case perhaps it didn’t–but regardless I look forward to some interesting & some practical Postings in the future.
“The future belongs to those who prepare for it.” Emerson
Comment by Bubba — 11 April 2006 @ 11:25 AM
For the record, I have read both threads multiple times trying to sort out my thoughts on the matter.
Now, I’m generally an outsider here. I lurk a lot. I pop in with a comment now and then. I say what I have to say, but I don’t respond for the sake of getting the last word. This probably makes the other person feel as if they won, but it’s not a contest.
The most disturbing thing about watching this train wreck was the near-complete lack of support given by the tribe to the potential members. Jason, you did support Ben’s view in the first thread and did so admirably. However, you very publically reprimanded Miranda for a callousness that I didn’t feel she had expressed. It seems to me that that sort of reprimand should very much occur in the privacy of the tribe: It is not for public consumption. Sort of the same way that I can tease my sister, but you can’t.
It feels to me that this powder keg exploded because of things behind the scenes.
Really, It seemed to me that the problem throughout was that they were quite bad at responding to criticisms in a constructive way. Miranda took what she viewed as a personal attack and defended herself (poorly in my opinion) instead of supporting her thoughts. Ben, tried to support Miranda (again poorly), taking all of the criticism upon himself, by
saying that which others were accusing Miranda of implying. It would have been better if, lacking a constructive addition to the discussion, they had both stayed silent. However, that is difficult to do.
At what point do you feel they stabbed the tribe in the back? Is it Miranda’s article, Ben’s defense of Miranda, Ben’s jumping into the second thread, or Ben’s Ishcon post? This is not an idle question, I seriously don’t see where they attacked the tribe in any way in these two threads.
Calm Down, Man! Take a few hundred deep breaths. Give your fellow humans a little bit of credit for being able to interpret events for themselves.
You seem to think that the comments of Ben and Miranda in the first thread did some sort of drastic damage to the tribe. I don’t see that. What I do see is that this post of Mike’s along with his follow-up at Ishcon, as well as your response here are damaging.
JimFive
Comment by JimFive — 11 April 2006 @ 11:28 AM
How old are you people?
Just speak the truth. We are at an inflection point, and it matters not one whit in the overall fact of the matter how you emotionally feel about it or how you feel about how others feel about it.
As buddhists say, “You are here; why cloud your thinking?
Act locally, think globally.
Comment by Cherenkov — 11 April 2006 @ 11:57 AM
Anything less would have been implicit support. That would have vindicated what she had said. And that would have jeopardized the tribe. Miranda betrayed the tribe; supporting her in any capacity at that point meant joining her in an attack on the tribe and everything we’ve worked for.
Each of those was a betrayal; each one was a worse betrayal than the last. It was an escalation, wherein they betrayed us, we demanded they repair the damage, and they responded with an even more egregious betrayal.
You probably haven’t seen the fights with Rob McMillin, or the Ergosphere, or our review on Wood Connection, or any of a thousand other clashes we’ve had to fight over the years. You haven’t seen the sleepless nights, the anguish, the exhaustion, the stress that’s come from responding to these attacks every single day.
But Ben and Miranda have.
Their comments undid in a few hours what I had worked for, sacrificied for, pained for and suffered for, for two long years. Without that background, maybe you missed the depth of their betrayal. You don’t know that history–but they do. They knew exactly what they were doing.
In what way? Trying to dig the knife out of our back? Pointing out all the lies that are told about us?
Comment by Jason Godesky — 11 April 2006 @ 12:05 PM
“Act Locally, think globally”
Can you explain what the “think globally” part means, are you referencing being mindful of the biosphere, or national conflicts, drama’s?
The buddha also said, “What we think we become”..
There is a book called The Drama of Everyday life,an interesting read that sheds some light on the recent personal attacks, conflicts.
Smile, your still alive & able to read.
Comment by Bubba — 11 April 2006 @ 12:08 PM
I’ll admit that I probably said more than I should have on IshCon. I went in with the original intent of balancing the thread with some dose of truth. But I got sucked in by broadcastpdx, who apparently feels that we did something that was inappropriate. Not trying to be an asshole–I really was trying to figure out where he was coming from. But I should have known better, and that’s my fault.
Jason, I don’t think is wrong, but he’s reacting more emotionally than I would like. But I can’t really blame him for that. I had time to process all of this as it was happening. He got hit with it all at once.
I don’t think there’s any point in going through all the facts again. I’ve pretty much said everything there is to say. If you want to know what Ben and Miranda did wrong, you’re free to go back through my post above.
Of course, I can understand that, as outsiders, it’s difficult to grasp what really happened because you weren’t there. You didn’t see all the things that went on behind the scenes. You didn’t see the disregard that Ben and Miranda had for Anthropik. And while Ben may think it’s acceptable to make public our private interactions (something which, by itself, should be enough for anyone to never trust either of them again), I refuse to sink to that level.
Either way, it’s all been said. So there’s no reason for me to say it again. Believe whatever you will.
Comment by Mike Godesky — 11 April 2006 @ 12:16 PM
Hey –
Thanks for that last comment Mike.
I have to admit I was a bit uncomfortable with a couple of your early posts… I know all about your infamous sarcastic wit but sometimes I just can’t quite believe it…
By contrast, your more recent comments have made me understand your (IE ‘the tribe’s’) emotional responses and the depth of emotion this whole ordeal has evoked.
Janene
Comment by Janene — 11 April 2006 @ 12:40 PM
I disagree, if dissent is allowed among the tribe then distancing yourself or the tribe from those comments would have sufficed.
I think we also disagree about what she said, not the words, but the meaning. If someone is on the Titanic and knows that it is sinking and has made their peace with it, saying ‘Come on, sink already’ is not wishing for the deaths of all those aboard.
You’re right, I haven’t. I understand that it is important to you that people understand that you are not ‘Cheering on the apocolypse’. However, your opponents are always going to demonize you.
It doesn’t seem that your are digging the knife out of your back, it seems as if you are trying to bury it in their’s. Demonizing them by chasing down the posts to denigrate them gives them credence, it puts Miranda and Ben in a sympathetic light. Which makes Mike’s attacks on them appear even more egregious.
Comment by JimFive — 11 April 2006 @ 12:40 PM
Who? Me?
Well, I certainly am glad I was able to clear that up then.
The people trying to get to a lifeboat might not see it that way.
Comment by Mike Godesky — 11 April 2006 @ 12:58 PM
jimfive, you put into words what i have been unable to. i’m greatful for that. this whole thing weighs heavily on my heart.
but ultimately, the threads speak for themselves, in the end.
you’ve embarrassed yourselves here.
kate
Comment by kate — 11 April 2006 @ 1:09 PM
and where is al? the one who started all this? the whole thread went along just fine, support being offered to miranda in recognition of the distress she was feeling, then BOOM the 25th post from al, and all of a sudden everything changes.
if you so disagreed with miranda’s comment and were SO concerned with it’s reflection on anthropik, you could have mentioned it sooner, gone on record. instead you wait to jump on the bandwagon after the fact. that is what disturbed me.
this al is a piece of work. he posts on his website, and then blocks questions or comments. how spiritual of him. HE scares me. i couldn’t believe his comparison of ben and miranda to “natural born killers”.
but hey, you can cart us all off to guantanamo bay and attach electrodes to our genitals. now THAT’S a mature statement. i was more offended by that than miranda’s comment. torture is a real, day-to-day horror in this world (as opposed to a collapse, which is projected) and you make light of it? and no one calls mike to task?
kate
Comment by kate — 11 April 2006 @ 1:34 PM
I have to say, I’ve seen this phrase (i’m going to paraphrase it): “she undid with one sentence what I’ve been building for two years”
I have several issues with that.
One, If one sentence can undo that, then it wasn’t done great in the first place.
Two, if my understanding of a tribe is correct, then it wasn’t “you” building it up, it was the tribe.
Frankly Im disturbed by the possesiveness of that statement.
Comment by cindy — 11 April 2006 @ 2:12 PM
I guess you just didn’t get that I said that ironically.
You mean as opposed to comparing a deleted post on a blog to the Patriot Act?
No, I don’t. Note that I’m not saying, “Come on, be tortured already!” Acknowledging that torture exists is not the same as making light of it.
Comment by Mike Godesky — 11 April 2006 @ 2:28 PM
From where I am standing, this was an important debate that ended up in a tiff. I’m not sure anyone learned anything from it. There were many important questions raised by the discussion. I think that AI dude was the main instigator of it. I found him very self righteous.
So how do you have compassion for 8 billion people? Apparently all you have to do is say you do and have self righteous indignation for those who don’t profess the same.
But seriously though the question hasn’t been answered about how to approach the fact that if you don’t have compassion on your fellow man you are perhaps a monster, but these same fellow humans are self destructive and killing the planet.
It seems like this tiff is just sweeping that all under the rug without adressing it.
Comment by Ted Heistman — 11 April 2006 @ 2:53 PM
“Acknowledging that torture exists”
oh, is THAT what that was?!?! silly me.
Comment by kate — 11 April 2006 @ 2:56 PM
Ego-selves = generally bad results in interpersonal interactions/relationships. (and apparently blog interactions)
Productive posts = good “)
Comment by Bubba — 11 April 2006 @ 3:04 PM
If 8 billion people are suffering, why would you not have compassion for them?
First, it’s unfair for you to assume that somebody else is lying when they say what they feel. Since you don’t know what’s going on inside his head, you can’t say he didn’t really feel that. Now assuming that because you don’t feel something that it’s impossible for anyone else to feel it–that’s self-righteous.
Second, why shouldn’t people have indignation for people who profess and take pride in the fact that they do not feel for others?
First of all, nothing is “killing the planet.” The planet is fine. It was around long before us, and it will be around long after we’re gone. The people, on the other hand, are an entirely different story.
But they’re not being harmed by “fellow humans” either. They’re being harmed by a system. And those “self destructive humans” you speak of are just as much victims of that system as you are. So if you really can’t feel compassion for them, maybe it’s time for you to get off your high horse.
Yes, I’m glad we’re in agreement.
Comment by Mike Godesky — 11 April 2006 @ 3:19 PM
and of course, you know we’re not.
Comment by kate — 11 April 2006 @ 3:34 PM
Kate! Does this mean you’re learning about irony? Good for you! Everyone doubted, but I always said you could do it!
Comment by Mike Godesky — 11 April 2006 @ 3:36 PM
yay! yay for me! and everyone thought i was so stupid!
and yay for mike! you can put me down with your caustic wit!
good for you.
Comment by kate — 11 April 2006 @ 3:42 PM
Now, now. No need to applaud me. I honestly couldn’t have done it without you.
Comment by Mike Godesky — 11 April 2006 @ 3:49 PM
Wow, this just shows how much of a bloody joke all of this is.
Comment by cindy — 11 April 2006 @ 3:51 PM
Damn, girls, what’s with all the bitchy one-liners? You know what I think it’s time for? That’s right. Time to break out the kittens.
Comment by Mike Godesky — 11 April 2006 @ 3:55 PM
NOOOOO!!!
Not the kitties!!
Comment by cindy — 11 April 2006 @ 3:57 PM
Mike,
I’m not aware that I am on a high horse. Sorry if I come across that way.My point is that this subject of collapse is a complex issue, and that people have complex conflicting thoughts about it. I think this tiff (very public tiff I might add) is just sweeping this under the rug.
It seems to me that you have broken it down into a black and white issue. If you say you have compassion for the eight billion people so are a good person, if you say you don’t you are a baddy.
How would you classify Derek Jenkins? He would like to see civilization collapse. Is he a monster too?
For me it depends on the day. I feel conflicted about it personally.
Also because at this stage, Green anarchy seems to be mostly talk and little action, words take the utmost importance.
To me, I think its hard to have compassion for eight billion people, in terms of actions. Take any two green anarchist bloggers that spend their time writing about issues. and I challenge you to show which displays the most compassion for the eight billion people of the planet, by their actions.
Not that I don’t believe you. I just think that actions speak louder than words.
Also yes the “planet” in terms of its rocks and so forth will survive, but human beings are killing all the biodiversity.
It would be a lot better for the biodiversity of the planet if humans were to be far less populous.
At the same time, I care about people, one of the things that made me research these issues is all the human suffering civilization causes.
I think perhaps you have these conflicting thoughts/emotions as well.
But I enjoy the blog, I’m not attacking you just trying to make you think.
Comment by Ted Heistman — 11 April 2006 @ 4:13 PM
One thing I have learned from this discussion though, is that if ones goal is to save the biodiversity of the planet plus all the people too, all eight billion to create a better system, that allows this, is a whole other mission, than just learning primitive skills in order to survive the crash.
Those are two very different missions.
I see the focus of alot of green anarchism to be drifting towards the latter.
I think there is a part of all of us into this stuff that likes to fantasize about the crash and imagine all of us living wild and free in the woods eating berries as a result.
I admit it within myself.
But if the goal is to save mankind from itself, that is a much different mission. It may not even involve getting to be a wild native again at all.
maybe it will involve intensive permaculture, maybe it will invlove more civilization, but civilization that is less destructive.
Comment by Ted Heistman — 11 April 2006 @ 4:25 PM
Well, I don’t know too many people who would consider someone who is incapable of feeling compassion for others to be a “good person.” It’s one of those fundamental human experiences that makes it possible to build stable societies. When you look at our societies, our ethics, our codes of conduct–they’re all based on this sort of implicit social contract that says, “I’ll treat you right if you treat me right.” And that’s something that requires you to empathize with the other person. If you just don’t care about other people, then you’re in violation of that contract.
I don’t see how you can be a functioning member of society without compassion.
Yeah, he’s a little bit on the crazy side.
That doesn’t really make sense to me. Because you’re right that actions speak louder than words. But compassion is a feeling. It can compel us to act, but it is not itself dependent on action. So it is possible to have compassion without action.
As you say, it’s a very complex issue. You know you can’t save all 8 billion people. But at the same time, that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t try.
If we could come up with a sustainable system that would allow all those 8 billion people to go on living their lives just fine, I’d be all for it. Unfortunately, I don’t think that’s realistic.
Comment by Mike Godesky — 11 April 2006 @ 5:07 PM
Sure, what type of non-destructive global civilization do you have in mind?
Why do nation states buy into this ‘civilization’?
Also, you can do perma-culture to high heaven and still not feed 8 Billion people without the energy & distribution ability of oil.
I think feeding 1 Billion people without Oil, would probably be a difficult task–but perhaps doable?
Saving mankind from itself, thats what saviors are for–but unfortunatelyt he saviors tend to die, go away & leave myths behind for people to fill their psychological needs with, and of course the always favorite, religious rationalization of murdering the non-believers etc etc.
Nice idea, but its hard enough to get 10 people to aspire to & actually live by the notions you just presented Ted.
But the world needs dreamers, since so many of us see Dark clouds ahead…
Comment by Bubba — 11 April 2006 @ 5:10 PM
haha. My first post here. I told you guys, no press is bad press.
I think I’m starting to get some idea of what happened. Was this a tipping point? Tension had been building you say… this was the explosion?
So. It seems that the tension stemmed from difference of opinion. In order to become part of the “tribe of anthropik,” must you all share the same views?
If this is so, why?
I had a non-profit tribal business and this same thing happened (with me in Jason and Mike shoes).
These days my ventures have absolutely nothing to do with ethics. Ethics and views will always cause problems. That is why communes don’t work. I don’t know if this is the first time you guys have had this problem, but don’t be suprised if it happens again and again.
My non-profit still exists, although in a much different form. A site or business is not open source if you banish people who don’t agree with you. That is a religion. That is fear of losing control of your vision for a project, which is understandable. Just know that is why you’ll always have this problem. When it was me, I’ve been both banished and banisher, I did the same thing you guys did, and the same thing they did…
Comment by Urban Scout — 11 April 2006 @ 7:28 PM
Yeah, what’s up with that?
Moreover, I’d like to know how those differences of opinion caused such egregious and irreparable harm to the tribe, as was charged. Does the well-being of Anthropik depend on the approval of outsiders, or is it just individual egos that do?
Comment by Regis — 11 April 2006 @ 8:24 PM
I don’t want to dwell on this, but since these questions refer specifically to the practices of Anthropik, I’ll take them.
To a certain extent, yes. This is something that is true of all groups because, without something in common to bring you together, it’s really not a group. For the members of Anthropik, we all share a common worldview regarding civilization and primitive society. We’re probably not going to be admitting any diehard authoritarians any time soon.
However, that still allows for a wide range of differing views. If you look around at some of the threads on this site, you’ll often find two or more of us disagreeing with each other, often quite passionately. However, we believe that this dissent makes us stronger, not weaker. So in that sense, I think we at least try to allow for more differences of opinion than many other groups do.
The dispute in question, though, I think has less to do with differences in point of view as it does with the level to which the would-be members were committed to the group.
Comment by Mike Godesky — 11 April 2006 @ 8:43 PM
I doubt that these two writers that left anthropik are stone cold sociopaths void of compassion for people in their daily activities. The debate seems to be what is the proper emotion is to have toward the abstraction of billions of people that compose civilization.
Comment by Ted Heistman — 11 April 2006 @ 8:54 PM
Mike, you said, “To a certain extent, yes. This is something that is true of all groups because, without something in common to bring you together, it’s really not a group.”
This is true. But the commonality in a tribe is not a belief system, it’s a utilitarian system.
For example, I don’t have to believe in the same god as my other tribal members, as long as we still get our bellies full. Shit, some of the members in my tribe are CHRISTIAN! Ah!
A tribe is a group of people working together to get food and resources.
I personally do not understand how Anthropik makes a living for the four members. I read the wiki definition and still don’t quite get it… Do you guys do web design or do you practice hunting and gathering?
Is “Anthropik Network” a separate function of the Anthropik web design?
Why do members need to believe in collapse in order to design websites?
Why do members need to believe in collapse to live a primitive lifestyle?
I work with a bunch of primitive skills folks who think I’m nuts, but what do I care? We work well together, they get their needs met, I get mine.
Is the term “tribe” the best way to describe your organization?
Sorry if this doesn’t belong in this thread… I’m just confused as to what Ben and Miranda were trying to join that’s all.
Comment by Urban Scout — 11 April 2006 @ 10:12 PM
Fundamentally, yes. But most tribes also have a certain level of commonality in their members’ beliefs as well. I mentioned in my last post that we probably won’t be taking in many diehard authoritarians. Such a person would likely have a hard time finding acceptance in an egalitarian society. Not because he has nothing to contribute to the tribe. But because his beliefs are not compatable with the nature of the tribe.
Beliefs are probably even more important when you’re first forming a group, as we are. If you’re born into a tribe that you’re pretty much stuck with, it’s a lot easier to find ways to get along with each other as long as you can work well together. But when the group is first starting out, how can you ever attract people with fundamentally different beliefs? And how can someone with fundamentally different beliefs ever really get along with the rest of the group?
As I said, there’s a lot of room for disagreement here. And religion is one of them. I’m a Christian. Others aren’t. It’s not really important. Religion isn’t fundamental to what our group is about. It’s about a certain philosophy that you don’t necessarily have to be in total agreement with, but I think you would at least have to share some kind of common ground with the other members.
Well, the term “tribe” can mean a lot of different things. But I would think that technically, Anthropik isn’t a full, functioning “tribe” as much as it is a group hoping to build the foundations for what may later become a tribe.
Comment by Mike Godesky — 12 April 2006 @ 12:15 AM
“But most tribes also have a certain level of commonality in their members’ beliefs as well.”
Yes, but beliefs don’t make a tribe, survival does. The commonality of beliefs is a plus, not a nessecity…
My organizations, and all of their venutres deal with preemptive postapocalypticism. Yet the people who are working for us don’t nessecarily practice this same belief. What’s important to me is that they are getting paid and realize we have hired them because they are skilled at something we cannot do. Our programs, events, films, etc. all have the same context; preparing for collapse or “Preemptive Postapocalypticism.” The context is what creates the change, not the individual beliefs. Similar to Taker Culture. It’s the context, the way we are living, not the individual beliefs of the culture. For example, I am an “animist” who does not believe that man was meant to conquer the earth, and yet I am a captive to that story. In the same way, we craft our ventures to work towards preparations without having to change anyones mind in the process, but contributing and changing minds along the way.
“Beliefs are probably even more important when you’re first forming a group, as we are.”
I agree with this… I don’t think my ventures would be the same today if I hadn’t had a group of friends (4 of us) that founded our first “tribe.”
“And how can someone with fundamentally different beliefs ever really get along with the rest of the group?”
That is a fear I had for a long time. It’s just a non-issue. People build bonds working together, not discussing politics. I mean, they could bond over that, but it isn’t nessecary. My dad was sent with his worst enemy in his platoon in viet nam to an island where they had to live, just the two of them for two weeks. They became like brothers. Beliefs have little to do with love, and we are all capable of bonding during a crisis situation. In this case, the venture is based from the need to eat. The need to pay rent, etc. Once you can work with someone to do that… you’ll be suprised at how open they are and how over time they realize they’ve been duped by civilization. I’ve seen it a couple times now.
“Well, the term “tribe” can mean a lot of different things. But I would think that technically, Anthropik isn’t a full, functioning “tribe” as much as it is a group hoping to build the foundations for what may later become a tribe.”
As an outsider looking in, you might want to make this more clear on your site. I find it hard to swallow when people are having members join a “tribe” that isn’t really a “tribe” but “hoping to build the foundations for what may later become a tribe,” when they are not even able to feed the new members or themselves in the most basic way: providing food/shelter/water.
I’ve also noticed Ben And Miranda mentioned as Lazy or maybe it was uninterested in becoming fully invested in the tribe? Maybe that’s an acusation, maybe it’s true. I don’t know. I know that I’ve also had this problem… with soooo many people. But it’s usually when they aren’t getting paid for their efforts… in the same way I haven’t been into another’s venture if I’m not getting paid. Creating and operating a tribe should not require Martydom. For example, “we’ll have money, if only you would work for it. It’ll come… someday…” Instead, “I have money and will pay you.” This is hard to pull off and I’m still struggling with it. It’s that whole thing, “you’ve got to have money to make money.”
Most of the stuff we do now though, requires little investment of money and time, and a lot of return. We still all have side jobs. And it’s not like there is some money pool that we all share… we just take care of each other the way a family does.
Okay. Now I’m rambling. What are your thoughts?
Comment by Urban Scout — 12 April 2006 @ 3:25 PM
I think in naturally occurring tribes, what you have is a group of people who have a common bond in how they make a living. And from that commonality comes a set of beliefs that they then also share. So that’s why I say that you’re right at a fundamental level. But you can’t discount the importance of shared beliefs completely. A group with members who have mutually exclusive beliefs is a problem waiting to happen.
If I might suggest, it seems to me as though you may be defining “belief” a bit too narrowly. It’s not just what people think about religion or politics. It could be their views on a whole range of issues, from the abstract to the day-to-day.
So take your organization. Everyone gets along fine. But what if you had a person who is uncomfortable working in a “tribal” enivronment? What if his belief system is such that he requires a more “traditional” work setting? Do you think he would still be able to integrate into the group just because he does a good job? I doubt it. Not because of anything having to do with his skills. Just because of his beliefs.
Well, I wasn’t trying to make an accusation as much as I was just stating what I observed. I never saw any sign that they cared one way or the other about the well-being of the group. That’s not necessarily a bad thing. I’m sure there are a lot of people who don’t care about our group. But they’re not our problem because they’re not trying to join. It’s only when a member or would-be member decides to harm the group that it becomes our problem.
And I’m pretty sure Ben and Miranda knew what they were getting involved in when they requested membership, in spite of the ambiguity of the term “tribe.” You may have a point about compensation, though. We’re still sort of getting off the ground, so we’re not exactly rolling in cash just yet. Although, I think there are still some benefits of membership. And Ben and Miranda themselves enjoyed some these. They were provided with food, shelter, transportation, etc. But I think your point is still one that’s worth considering.
Comment by Mike Godesky — 12 April 2006 @ 4:47 PM
I guess what you could say is that if different beliefs threaten the way in which you make a living, that would not work. I have only experienced this when I was intentionally trying to control the minds of people in the tribe. I myself, as an executive director, censored two potential members of my “tribe” because they showed films at my screening that I felt were not representative of my organization. Very much like what has gone on here (from what I understand of it). They were not integrated members yet, and I kicked them out. This was after I had been kicked out of another tribe, and abandoned another one. I just kept the cycle going with my own.
But it wasn’t the two guys whose videos were grossly offensive that was the cause of collapse. It was my assertion of control. I even put them through a rite of passage into the organization.
The problem was that we weren’t really a tribe. A tribe is a group of people who have individual talents and make money together.
I had a club, where I wanted everyone involved to really care about the environment and I wanted this to reflect in their films. If we had been making money, this might have been very different. But the idea wasn’t about making money for me, it was about “changing minds” as some people say.
The, dare i say, “tribes” I work in now operate much differently. For example, we sometimes run summer camp programs that teach wilderness survival to teens. This is the context; get kids into the woods, get them to have a good time, send them home wanting more. This gets them more ready for the collapse of civilization, and it gives me and my friends time to enjoy the wilderness and practice our skills. Some of the staff are there because they like working with kids, some are there because they are simply skilled in wilderness arts, while some, like me, are working on skills to prepare ourselves for the collapse. Now, wether or not the people I work with or my students believe that the collapse is coming doesn’t matter, because it’s beneficial to me in the sense that when it does, I’ll have all these skilled friends. It’s beneficial to the staff because they are having fun and getting paid. It’s beneficial to the kids because they are having fun and learning.
A tribe is more like a sports team. The teams goal is to win the game. Their personal identities don’t matter ultimately. It might help them get along better sure, but it doesn’t matter ultimately. Because what matters is that they care more about winning the game then they do about winning an arguement over politics.
A tribe is the same thing only their goal is to get food.
That’s why teams don’t have players begging them to join.
Teams SEEK out who they want. Not the other way around.
Nowadays, when I come up with an idea for a camp or film or event, I seek out the people I know will be right for the job and tap them.
I think that is another important link here besides offering physical/emotional food. You must seek out people you only feel are qualified to join your tribe, and you must convince them why they should. (ie MONEY)
Otherwise, you end up looking like I did, which was an elitest asshole.
Comment by Urban Scout — 12 April 2006 @ 6:04 PM
I just want to state for the record, I know it has no bearing, but I’m tired of hearing it.
Miranda never “requested” entry into Anthropik. It was assumed that I wanted in Anthropik simply because Ben had an interest in possibly one day joining Anthropik.
An authorship was given, I never asked for that either. Notice the “huge” amount that I wrote.
Yes, I did entertain ideas o