Revolution & Evolution
by Jason GodeskyMatt Savinar wants to know “When is the Revolution Coming?” Peak Oil theorists have long considered the fossil fuel crisis to be the catalyst necessary to motivate people to live in a less energy-intensive, ecologically friendly way. Richard Heinberg’s notion of “Powerdown” is probably the brightest possibility open to such an overshot population as modern civilization. Peak Oil theorists have been championing these ideas for many years now, and the fatigue is starting to show, they are “losing faith in Peak Oil’s transformative power.”
The power of peak oil as an external force, a geologically driven catalyst, to act as a wedge to force sustainability and conservation on a world hell bent on exponential growth and energy consumption is what caught my imagination and gave me a sense of hope several years ago when I first investigated this issue. Seeing how the ideologically driven environmental movement of the 70’s and 80’s fell to the wayside to be replaced by conspicuous consumption I even had illusions that peak oil was the beginning of what could break the status quo and eventually lead to a radical transformation of our cultural values and reign in an era of ecological sustainability imposed by the geologic reality of resource depletion.
The author uses the term “conspicuous consumption,” a much-abused term first coined by Thorstein Veblen in his Theory of the Leisure Class in 1899. It is often used as if it meant “excessive consumption,” but Veblen’s usage was much more specific than that. He wrote:
Conspicuous consumption of valuable goods is a means of reputability to the gentleman of leisure. As wealth accumulates on his hands, his own unaided effort will not avail to sufficiently put his opulence in evidence by this method. The aid of friends and competitors is therefore brought in by resorting to the giving of valuable presents and expensive feasts and entertainments. Presents and feasts had probably another origin than that of naive ostentation, but they required their utility for this purpose very early, and they have retained that character to the present; so that their utility in this respect has now long been the substantial ground on which these usages rest. Costly entertainments, such as the potlatch or the ball, are peculiarly adapted to serve this end. The competitor with whom the entertainer wishes to institute a comparison is, by this method, made to serve as a means to the end. He consumes vicariously for his host at the same time that he is witness to the consumption of that excess of good things which his host is unable to dispose of single-handed, and he is also made to witness his host’s facility in etiquette.
Conspicuous consumption is not simply consumption, or even simply excessive consumption. It is consumption for a specifc purpose. The item itself is not important. Conspicuous consumption is consumption to prove social status. It proves that one is so wealthy/capable/strong/etc. that one can afford utterly frivolous consumption; thus, it is consumption aimed at gaining social favor.
It is by no means a purely human strategy. Peacock feathers serve very much the same purpose. They are showy, heavy, and in every practical sense a burden to the male peacock. However, they proudly show how strong the peacock is, that it is able to survive with such a burden. This attracts mates, and thus the peacock’s feathers endure despite lacking any adaptive benefit.
The potlatches of the Pacific Northwest or the moka of New Guinea are, likewise, examples of conspicuous consumption. Competitive feasting is the primary outlet for would-be big men to compete against one another, currying for prestige and influence in their communities with a vicious campaign of one-upmanship in the form of increasingly lavish parties.
This is the point that Savinar makes in his article.
The point is asking people to consume less energy is not likely to succeed on any large scale because it goes against tendencies that go back tens of thousands of years or longer. … It’s no coincidence that your stomach does not notify your brain it is full until about 20 minutes after the fact. This mechanism evolved because people who failed to overconsume during the times of plenty did not pack away a little extra for the days of famine.
Yet, he also misses the point entirely. He uses as an example the prestige given to hunters bringing back meat, as the evolutionary basis of our basic, hard-wired drive to overconsume. This is an example sure to make any anthropologist smile, since it makes it clear that Savinar has never eaten Christmas in the Kalahari.
“It is our way,” [/gaugo, a !Kung Bushman] said smiling. “We always like to fool people about that. Say there is a Bushman who has been hunting. He must not come home and announce like a braggard, ‘I have killed a big one in the bush!’ He must first sit down in silence until I or someone else comes up to his fire and asks, ‘What did you see today?’ He replies quietly, ‘Ah, I’m no good for hunting. I saw nothing at all [pause] just a little tiny one.’ Then I smile to myself,” /gaugo continued, “because I know he has killed something big.”
“In the morning we make up a party of four or five people to cut up and carry the meat back to the camp. When we arrive at the kill we examine it and cry out, ‘You mean to say you have dragged us all the way out here in order to make us cart home your pile of bones? Oh, if I had known it was this thin I wouldn’t have come.’ Another one pipes up, ‘People, to think I gave up a nice day in the shade for this. At home we may be hungry but at least we have nice cool water to drink.’ If the horns are big, someone says, ‘Did you think that somehow you were going to boil down the horns for soup?’
“To all this you must respond in kind. ‘I agree,’ you say, ‘this one is not worth the effort; let’s just cook the liver for strength and leave the rest for the hyenas. It is not too late to hunt today and even a duiker or a steenbok would be better than this mess.’
“Then you set to work nevertheless; butcher the animal, carry the meat back
to the camp and everyone eats,” /gaugo concluded.Things were beginning to make sense. Next, I went to Tomazo. He corroborated /gaugo’s story of the obligatory insults over a kill and added a few details of his own.
“But,” I asked, “why insult a man after he has gone to all that trouble to track and kill an animal and when he is going to share the meat with you so that your children will have something to eat?”
“Arrogance,” was his cryptic answer.
“Arrogance?”
“Yes, when a young man kills much meat he comes to think of himself as a chief or a big man, and he thinks of the rest of us as his servants or inferiors. We can’t accept this. We refuse one who boasts, for someday his pride will make him kill somebody. So we always speak of his meat as worthless. This way we cool his heart and make him gentle.”
Among the !Kung, the “cursing of the meat” makes it impossible for a hunter to accumulate prestige by bringing in meat; more meat merely opens the hunter to greater attack. Savinar’s example makes a certain logical sense as a pure thought experiment, but the ethnographic record points out that foragers have found ways of controlling that influence.
That is the most essential catch that defuses the pessimism of Savinar’s case. Yes, it is true that humans are programmed to overconsume when they can, but as Savinar himself points out, that is because it was adaptive to do so in our original evolutionary context. Once again, the problem is less our behavior itself, than the changing context that makes a formerly adaptive behavior, maladaptive. Outside of food producing societies, overconsumption exists within limits that society cannot change. Conspicuous consumption, like potlatching, forms a network of social reciprocity that mediates uncertainty. The problem arises when a society gains the means to increase its own limits, primarily food supply, i.e., when it begins to produce its own food. Then, the adaptive drive to overconsume becomes a maladaptive drive to grow exponentially and turn society unsustainable.
Savinar writes:
There is never going to be a “revolution” because the tendencies that got us into this mess are, to a large degree, hard wired into our biology. I think it was Reg Morrison who said something along the lines of “the degree to which we detest an aspect of human nature is the degree to which we are ignorant of its role in our evolution.” As I pointed out up top, overconsumption of resources is a good example of this: doing so back in the environment in which we evolved actually helped us survive. The tendency has been with us ever since and thus is not likely to go away anytime soon.
This is true, and anyone who was expecting a revolution of consciousness to sweep the world and make us all better and wiser, compelling us to embrace environmentally friendly principles and return to our place as part of the living world has embraced a brighter vision than I could ever realistically espouse. Most people would rather die than change, regardless of what change might mean. It is not revolution, but evolution we face.
Most people would rather die than change, but not all. There are some people who do want something better, who are not satisfied with products to stand as symbols for our deep longings for community, safety, or freedom, but instead demand community, safety, and freedom themselves. There are some people who have the imagination to consider the possibility of what might lie beyond civilization.
Evolution is a cruel and monstrous process. There is variation in a population, and some pressure acts on the population—some of those variants are better able to deal with it, and others are not. Variations that arise as bizarre and solitary may become defining traits of the species, simply because those variants are the only ones to survive. The end of civilization will not impact all humans equally. Those who are totally dependent on civilization and incapable of considering any other way of life will be the most affected. Those with the imagination and the willingness to change will be the least affected, the ones able to let it go as it crashes, the ones with the vision to see something new, and the passion to create it.
If we are expecting 6.5 billion people to become primitivists in a grand revolution, we are setting ourselves up for failure. That will never happen. But the future belongs to the primitive. Our task is not to convert the world, but to begin building a new world here and now, to forge the relationships to make our tribes—our wandering free families, our functional cultures—now, while it is still a luxury, and not yet a necessity. Our task is to learn the skills of a new world: hunting, gathering, permaculture, and most importantly, how to relate to the other people in our human community, and how to relate to the non-human communities that surround us. We can wait until these things are necessary, and many people will slide into the new world without any conscious direction whatsoever, but that will be a much more difficult, and much riskier, prospect. But we shouldn’t expect to ever be anything but a fringe of a fringe. We should never expect widespread acceptance. We must do all that we can to make sure as many people hear as are possible, but we must also accept that most people will simply choose not to hear. The future will be primitive, but it will not become so by revolution; it will be evolution. As Daniel Quinn said:
If there are still people here in 200 years, they won’t be living the way we do. I can make that prediction with confidence, because if people go on living the way we do, there won’t be any people here in 200 years.
Humans are very adaptable, and along the fringes, there are already those who are well-positoned to survive without civilization. Many of them will survive—the human race will endure. Revolution may be hopeless, but evolution is a force that can never be stopped.
Oh, damn. How did I forget to make mention of Jeff Vail’s “Vernacular Zen,” and our potential to change the parameters of the game (even if we can’t end the game), so that it’s not conspicuous consumption that gains us prestige, but conspicuous simplicity. This isn’t just pie-in-the-sky dreaming, either; this was the foundation of human society for the vast majority of our evolution, in the “original affluent society.”
Comment by Jason Godesky — 6 October 2006 @ 2:58 PM
I like the “Vernacular Zen” post, but I think that Conspicuous Simplicity and Magazine Simplicity might be worth mentioning as well. I was on quite a simplicity kick in October ‘04… maybe it’s time to go back there?
Comment by Jeff Vail — 6 October 2006 @ 5:32 PM
Oh, absolutely. I usually point people to “Vernacular Zen” because I feel it’s the most “complete,” while the other posts seem to be more about fleshing out the concept.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 6 October 2006 @ 5:34 PM
I couldn’t agree more Jason.
I am not interested in a violent revolution to turn civilization into rubble, now do I see a massive consciousness shift coming. I think its as you say I especially like this paragraph:
“But the future belongs to the primitive. Our task is not to convert the world, but to begin building a new world here and now, to forge the relationships to make our tribes—our wandering free families, our functional cultures—now, while it is still a luxury, and not yet a necessity. Our task is to learn the skills of a new world: hunting, gathering, permaculture, and most importantly, how to relate to the other people in our human community, and how to relate to the non-human communities that surround us. We can wait until these things are necessary, and many people will slide into the new world without any conscious direction whatsoever, but that will be a much more difficult, and much riskier, prospect. But we shouldn’t expect to ever be anything but a fringe of a fringe. We should never expect widespread acceptance. We must do all that we can to make sure as many people hear as are possible, but we must also accept that most people will simply choose not to hear. “
Comment by Ted Heistman — 6 October 2006 @ 6:21 PM
I think by the time civilization totally winds down though, I will be long dead.
I am thinking the militaries and governments will be using oil to maintain power for quite some time. It just won’t be regular consumers using it. It will probably be rationed.
I think possibly Civilization will greatly contract in my lifetime and that autonomous communities on the edge of civilization will be able to grow.
But I think the happy times of everyone living of the land like
!Kung bushmen might be a century in the future.
Its amazing how fast land can heal though. The national forest up here in Wisconsin was all stumpfeilds less than a hundred years ago. It was a wasteland.
Comment by Ted Heistman — 6 October 2006 @ 6:46 PM
Anyone who hasn’t read the full “eating christmas in the Kalahari” really should! Its such an amazing ethnographic account!
Its the first piece we read in my anth 101 course. Interestingly, today, we discussed affluent socieites, and came to theconclusion that hunter-gatherers are where its at. Unfortunatly, no one took me seriously when I said I was going to be one when I grow up (nor did it really sink in, methinks).
Comment by MatthewJ — 7 October 2006 @ 1:57 AM
Thanks again, Jason, you always give me food for thought
As far as “conspicuous simplicity” I haven’t read the Vernacular Zen (so I may be repeating things) but it’s worth noting that the austere and simple Japanese aesthetic, which so took hold from Tokugawa times on, was founded in a culture of scarcity. The samurai were the ruling class but they were too numerous to have real wealth. Their solution was to raise the minimal and acetic to a highly refined level, in contrast to the opulence. This is certainly possible but it’s hard to imagine within the current consumption based economic system.
Comment by Martin — 7 October 2006 @ 6:20 AM
So the idea is to make simplicity cool then everyone will be doing It?
I’ll have to read it. I think I kind of prefer being “the fringe of the fringe” though.
Comment by Ted Heistman — 7 October 2006 @ 1:48 PM
Well, I really liked the Vernacular Zen article. I’ve come to the same conclusion about the finer things in life. Only the very rich and the very poor can enjoy them. everyone else just works too damn much.
I don’t see the connection with making this idea prestiegous, though.
Comment by Ted Heistman — 8 October 2006 @ 1:04 AM
Ok, I read the other two articles. Certian People seem to be able to figure these things out. There have been many people that have decided to live like this. Thoreau comes to mind.
Actually this elderly artist Guy I know comes to mind too. Both seem to be “life long virgins” Hmmm ….connection? Of course artists and romantic types can get laid. Don’t seem to be the marrying type tho…Maybe I will go back and read Malcom Gladwells “Tipping Point” and see if there are any insights of how this could spread.
Seems like the types of people deeply affected by advertising or being “in” are the types of people ….I imagine perishing in these die off scenarios.
Comment by Ted Heistman — 8 October 2006 @ 3:25 AM
The thing is I was kind of hoping is that the types of people all about competitively outdoing each other by embodying the latest fad, would go the way of the SUV after the oil crash. This is kind of a nerd revenge fantasy, I admit.
On the other hand manipulating people into being more responsible by making voluntary simplicity cool seems…well, manipulative.
Ran Prieur posted some links about advertisers recently, deliberately appealing to the reptilian brain.
Comment by Ted Heistman — 8 October 2006 @ 3:41 AM
I read Ran’s stuff on the “reptilian brain,” and I was somewhat shocked to see him espousing so civilized a concept as the myth of the “reptilian brain.” There is no such thing. The whole notion is rooted in the idea that humanity is the pinnacle of evolution. Now, there are older, more primitive parts of the brain, and there are newer, more complex parts of the brain. Some of the older parts we have in common with reptiles, but it’s also part of what we are. We have to “transcend” our humanity? That’s civilized talk, right there.
But this isn’t a matter of manipulation—or at least, it needn’t be. We decide what it is that’s worthy of honor, and in so doing, we set the parameters of the game. We’re relatively powerless to stop the game itself, but we have considerable control over what it’s a competition for. Today, there is fierce competition for money, not because money has any intrinsic value, but because we all agree that it’s valuable. People buy fancy cars, fur coats, or diamonds, even though these things are, in and of themselves, fairly worthless. Their worth is attached to them. Their worth is almost entirely in the social construction that we build up around them through our mutual agreement. It is not the thing, but what the thing represents that we’re after.
So, why not simplicity? There’s a certain intuitive appeal to it already, that we should place the greatest honor on the simplest solutions. In some corners, that’s already the case, such as science or technology. You’re absolutely right that one of the best examples of conspicuous simplicity, feudal Japan, was hardly an ideal example of much of anything, and was forced into that situation through economic isolation. But separating this kind of life from artists or indulged, fringe experimenters like Thoreau is precisely the point: to take this out of their hands, and to hold it up as something worth honoring. It’s not a matter of manipulating anyone, but rather, of what you place value in.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 8 October 2006 @ 6:47 PM
I guess the word “presteige” is what gets me.
The whole idea of status seeking is what bugs me. I mean in the case of the !Kung is it the case that the biggest bigshot is the guy that acts the most humble or his he truly humble and therefore is respected for it?
Seems like contests by strutting peacoks of who can live the simplest, kind of ruins the whole point.
But this is just an afterthought on your post, which I liked. The gist of the post seems more like you are saying all the bigshots with their conspicuous consumption could possibly be going the way of the dinosaur leaving room for a different breed of human.
Comment by Ted Heistman — 8 October 2006 @ 8:11 PM
I think we’ll always have bigshots. The question is, what makes a bigshot? Is it killing the biggest animal? Not necessarily. We can determine what those parameters are. In our society, the bigshot is the one that consumes the most and contributes the most to our exponential growth, but it doesn’t have to be that way. In traditional societies, the bigshot was the one who was the most generous, who looked out for others the most, etc. Same basic drive, but in one context you rob somebody’s grandma, and in the other you nurse a sick child back to health. It’s all about context, and creating a culture in which the basic human desire for esteem and honor is satisfied by helping the community, rather than driving forward a violent and unsustainable way of life. In a tribe, Ken Lay would be the guy throwing the biggest parties and giving everyone the most lavish gifts.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 8 October 2006 @ 8:22 PM
OK, let me toy with this idea a bit. What would this take? To create this movement of “simple chic”
Some clothing designers? Architects? Celebrities and movie stars becoming spokesperson’s for it? This is somthing that would take some serious marketing savvy right?
I think I might be tracking more to where you and Jeff are coming from with this.
So this would be somthing that really catches on and then becomes a force for people simplifying their lives. It will be chic to shop at good will, eat locally, have organic gardens, ride a bike then this will transform consumer demand to sustainable levels.
So who would be the driving force behind this? Wouldn’t it take some people interested in making lots of money? How could this movement avoid just becoming a new market segment and become reliant on growth and more and more “simplicity” priducts being sold?
Comment by Ted Heistman — 8 October 2006 @ 8:29 PM
Nope. More than anything, it takes you, me, and anyone else that wants to join in to stop caring about the bling-bling, to be unaffected by it, and to heap the praise normally reserved for sports cars on well-designed elegance.
You can measure your success by how much advertisers pick it up as a means to move product. Don’t even bother trying to avoid that. You just keep going with it. People who buy their simplicity are poseurs, right? That’s a great place to apply the shame and scorn.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 8 October 2006 @ 8:53 PM
Yeah,
But Jason, We are talking about creating an epidemic right? Have you read “Tipping Point” by Malcom
Gladwell? I bet Jeff has. He links to his blog.
I already live simply. I barely own anything. I don’t buy things.I read library books, buy used clothes, drive a 10 year old neon thats all paid for. I don’t need convincing.
But You are not simply talking about a small segment of the population making a lifestyle choice, right? You are talking about transforming culture.
I am going to read Malcom Gladwells book again and see if I can come up with any ideas. Lets keep brainstorming on this. Hopefully you will revisit this topic again.
There are these different types of people that needs to be reached with ideas like this “mavens” and so forth.
Comment by Ted Heistman — 8 October 2006 @ 9:05 PM
I wish Gladwell had done more research into epidemiology before writing it, or he would’ve realized the importance of ecology. It may be that without collapse going on, there is no way to provide the selective pressure for such a memetic variety, but it seems worth trying all the same.
You may live simply, but that’s less the question that whether that’s what you esteem. The question is less whether you drive a 10 year old Dodge Neon, than whether you say, “Woa, check out that ride! That’s a Dodge Neon, must be 10 years old!” It’s less about wearing used clothes yourself, than mocking someone for having a new, designer shirt.
Will it spread? I don’t know. But it’s worth a shot.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 8 October 2006 @ 9:21 PM
Well, I have no desire to buy a fancy new car. When I drive by dealerships all I can think of is debt. Actually, I hope this can be my last car. As far as trying to be the embodiment of cool, such that I have the ability to subject others to intensive peer pressure to conform to my standards….I don’t know.
I would be curious to hear Jeff’s take on how this relates to his concept of “anthropological awareness”. Its seems to me this idea of making simplicity trendy and cool, is attaempting to get people to act in ways that are ultimately more responsible, without them acheiving the degree of self awareness that would cause them to adopt this lifestyle on their own.
I mean that is what it took for me, it seems to be the same with you. Personally, I could give a shit what some “cool” person thinks of my ride.
But I am sure some really charismatic person that embodies the values of simplicity could have a big effect on influencing others. The abbie Hoffman of simplicity or somthing. I don’t discount that.
Comment by Ted Heistman — 8 October 2006 @ 9:47 PM
Next time you’re at the library, or Barnes & Noble, or whatever, take a look at “Real Simple” magazine. Full of ads for things you can buy that make your life simple. That, to me, isn’t elegant simplicity. I think that real elegant simplicity and anthropological self-awareness go hand-in-hand. Understanding our own status complexes allows us to move beyond them in the same way that Buddhist philosophy holds that understanding our attachment to ego allows us to move beyond that–they’re both something that we may never truly achieve, but the process itself is perhaps what really counts.
I think that the best way to start off this simplicity trend is through personal example. While it is tempting to hope that something like “elegant simplicity” catches on as a reaction to the downslope of global energy production or something, but that might not actually be a good thing. A top-down, hierarchal movement driven by a few people in positions of influence seems to me to be a sure way to bastardize anything, and before we know it people will be convinced that if only they could have a X or a Y, then they would be simple-cool, too. Better, at least in my estimation, would be a very bottom-up method of spreading this message. Personal example is, at the end of the day, where this should probably start. One person can realistically kick something like this off, at least in a locality. Whatever you do, if you do it simply and are happy, people will want in. They won’t know how they can “get there from here,” but if they are shown a path–no matter how simplistic or limited–that will be a start. But I think that this process has to be consciously articulated–this comes back to the anthropological self-awareness: the role of spreading this message to your friends and neighbors is not to pump up your own status (in fact, it is not about status at all, though this side-effect may emerge), but it is to enhance your own stability by surrounding yourself with a network of other simple actors, other local innovators, other non-participants in the hierarchal economy.
Look at Ran Prieur: I think that he is doing a great job at creating elegant simplicity in his own life. I think he is doing a great job communicating this to others. But my main critique (and this is due to my lack of knowledge, not necessarily his failure to actually do this) is that he is not consciously articulating this process in the terms of creating a localized network of similar actors around him.
Similarly, I think about how the “Tuscan Hill-Towns” example that I often talk about could come about in America. I am fortunate, in that rather than finding my ideas scorned by my parents, I am actually inspired by their own action in this area. They bought a small home in the hills of the Willamette Valley, Oregon. They have a large organic garden, are working to build self-sufficiency, have made choices to reduce their energy consumption and increase their participation in the localization of their regional economy. I gave a talk to their local Rotary Club on peak oil and localization–bottom line is that this place is fertile ground for exactly this kind of elegant simplicity movement. But things are moving slowly.
I ramble, but my point here is that these things are emerging. Maybe the best metaphor–better than rhizome or tipping points, etc.–is Mycellium. Mycellium thoroughly infests its growth medium, builds connections, sets up resilient networks, for quite some time before ever bothering to sprout a mushroom. We’re doing essentially that here–we’re building connections, discussing theories, creating–slowly–a coherent body of ideas (not just in elegant simplicity, but in all the areas dicussed here and elsewhere that pertain to possible POSITIVE solutions to our problems). We’re not going to save civilization with any of this. But we might just build the anthropological foundation for something that will survive beyond civilization. Sure, more of us (myself included) need to work on donig more (but that doesn’t require talking less), but in time the “mushrooms” will start emerging from this growing mycellium. If mushrooms emerge prematurely, there is insufficient network to support them and they wilt away–that’s my concern for the viability of a project like Ran’s in the (perceived?) absence of a broader network…
Comment by Jeff Vail — 9 October 2006 @ 11:27 AM
I thought this was a great article, however, I do not agree with Savinar’s assertion, “There is never going to be a ‘revolution’ because the tendencies that got us into this mess are, to a large degree, hard wired into our biology.”
Nothing is hardwired about biology, otherwise, the systems would have crumbled in their rigidity long ago.
Jeff, it’s interesting to me to see you use the mycelial model to improve on the rhizomal metaphor. I had made that comment awhile back on this site. Upon reading the works of Paul Stamets, specifically “Mycelium Running”, I too noticed that mycelial networks deepened the understanding of natural systems.
What readings or meditations have influenced your ‘emergence’? I’m eager to learn more…
Comment by TonyZ — 9 October 2006 @ 1:47 PM
Tony: I think the Mycelium metaphor is great–and “Mycelium Running” was very insightful, even though Stamets doesn’t exactly hit you over the head with how that metaphor can be applied elsewhere. Metaphors are powerful tools, we just need to be careful about working too hard to conform to a metaphor (I should note that I am NOT accusing you of this…just the opposite, in fact) and focus instead on their communicative or suggestive power. I get a lot of criticism that, when I use “rhizome” as a metaphor, it doesn’t conform to the correct “rhizome” in nature, or to Deleuze & Guattari’s exact formulation. Any metaphor as dogma is dangerous…so I like your use of mycleium as a modifier/alternative to rhizome, or whatever else people find useful.
As for emergence–I think that this is a huge and disconcerting mystery to science. I’ve read every book that I can find on emergence (and many on consciousness, one of its most obvious examples), and science just can’t explain how this process works. How do a billion single-celled neurons communicating with simple electric pulses create consciousness? Imagination? The easy answer is “emergence,” but we just don’t know how it works. If science can’t explain this, then how can it (and I’m generalizing) be so certain that mystical effects of group-consciousness don’t exist? It seems to follow logically to me that they would be a similar product of massive human interaction.
One of my personal theories is that rhizome (or lattice or whatever name you want to give to a decentralized, distributed human society) will work because it will create emergent information processing and coordination. I don’t know how this will happen–it just seems to me to follow reasonably from the structure of other networks that create emergence. Too much centralization or hierarchal command & control and you don’t get emergence. As far as where to go to learn more–I wish I knew. One of my personal goals is to pursue emergence, because my intuition tells me that if we can understand its mechanics–or short of that, if we can at least better understand what conditions do and do not foster it–then we will have one of the most powerful tools to create a human-compatible future, a tool to unite a more localized, primitive future without creating hierarchy. But right now I’ve lost that trail. If you find it, let me know!
Comment by Jeff Vail — 9 October 2006 @ 2:58 PM
Jeff,
I see different strains of thought within this genre of green anarchy/anti-civ whatever you want to call it. One strain I see is the ishcon strain. More above board. Working with community organizations, corporations, creating “green industries” things like that. This is the most mainstream strain of thought.
I think its valuable to have all these different strains and the cross polinization of ideas. The problem I have with the more mainstream ideas is that they tend more toward the “bringing everyone on board” mindset.
One thing I see coming from this coming financial collapse you seem to be tracking so well, is that probably a lot of industries will be nationalized. A lot of these above board community gardens and networks , food co-ops , organic farms will be co-opted by the government. All these masses of unemployed people will become government workers working for food.
I see a lot of these efforts being taken control of by hierarchy. I think the best long term approach is more under the radar, oriented more toward squatting in undesirable areas, building little groups of incognito outlaws, living off the grid in temporary autonomous zones.
I don’t see community activism , consciousness changing, type things paying off long term. That’s just how I see it.
Comment by Ted Heistman — 9 October 2006 @ 3:28 PM
Hey Jeff –
Science will never be able to explain emergence: it is simply the wrong tool for the purpose.
I’ve been working a lot lately on trying to develop what I am calling ‘intuitive thinking’. As a species we are quite able to understand things that we can’t explain with the scientific method. Think of a fractal pattern. Watch it long enough and you start to know what will come next. (Not in the fine details, but your ’sense of it’ will get more detailed as time goes on) Or think of jam-music. If you have ever really listened to any music based on improv — after a while, you know what comes next. No other choice will do. (Assuming the artists are good and you have a musical knack)
I think if we could begin to recapture ‘intuitive thinking’ as a tool, and then as a valid way to explore and explain the world around us, it could be a hugely valuable asset — perhaps for ’spreading the word’ but certainly for developing and building our new communities/tribes/ecovillages, whatever.
Janene
Comment by janene — 9 October 2006 @ 4:24 PM
Janene–I agree that “science” as it is commonly understood is the wrong tool to approach emergence. Is emergence constrained by a linear conception of time? Do you know what comes next because it actually has been perceived? We just don’t know. But if science is the wrong tool, that begs the question–what is the right one? Mysticism is fascinating, but…
Ted–I think that community activism and consciousness raising will pay off long term, provided that you don’t define community or the audience for that consciousness in the way that “hierarchy” does. In that sense, we’re in complete agreement that below-the-radar, TAZ-type structures are the place for such activism (probably in creating such space in the first place). We need to move oblique to the perception of hierarchy, to act outside its frame of reference such that we don’t even exist. Lots of wordy mumbo jumbo, but take a look at:
http://www.jeffvail.net/2005/04/closing-of-map.html
I’ve begun re-reading Hakim Bey lately–I finally got my hands on a hard-copy of T.A.Z., which has much beyond that available online. I don’t claim to know how things will unfold, but as cracks begin to develop in empire, they will be accompanied by an opening of the map. Perhaps not in a purely Cartesian sense, but certainly in a conceptual sense. We just need to learn how to shift out of phase. Take taxes, for example: if you claim you’re a new-age pagan church and you want to write off anything…hello IRS. But if you call yourself a Christian church, you’re home free. They won’t even look twice.
Comment by Jeff Vail — 9 October 2006 @ 5:15 PM
Jeff –
but…. what?
Do you discount mysticism (which I am referring to as ‘intuitive thinking’ because I don’t want to invoke the assumption of ’spirituality’) because that’s what we have always been taught to do, or because you have dismissed our cultural assumptions and yet found other reasons that leave you wary?
Janene
Comment by janene — 9 October 2006 @ 5:31 PM
Jeff, I just posted some stuff about speculating how things might take shape in the next few years.
Comment by Ted Heistman — 9 October 2006 @ 5:49 PM
No, I don’t discount it at all. I don’t consider myself personally knowledgable enough to lay out a framework for using mysticism to learn about emergence and then apply those lessons. Also, as science has its structural limitations, so too does mysticism–specifically the same failings that science has strength: the ability to create broadly transferable “rules” that can be easily picked up an applied by others. I guess my But meant: But… I hope to one day understand mysticism well enough to at least be able to use it as a personal tool in this search…
Comment by Jeff Vail — 9 October 2006 @ 6:01 PM
Janeane,
I think I grasp a lot of Jeff’s financial posts intuitively. Sort of in a pattern recognition way. I can see the relationship to fractals or listening to improve music.
I would have to do a lot more reading about derrivatives markets to be able to verbally explain it. But having kind of an intuitive sense of markets and the growth economy I can kind of see it take shape.
There are all kinds of extremely knowledgeable people that can’t grasp the big picture of collapse, can’t see the forest for the trees. It could be emotionally related also.
Comment by Ted Heistman — 9 October 2006 @ 6:18 PM
Hey –
Now that I understand
Absolutely mysticism has limitations — although I think I see them differently than you. Mysticism is absolutely worthless when seeking the boiling point of water, the effect on that boiling point of different atmosphereic pressures… and so on. Mysticism does not provide quantifyable data.
However, I think it absolutely CN provide broadly transferable rules. I might even go so far as to say that in time, it might do this better tahn science does. Because mysticism is all about discovering and understanding the relationships between things and how those relationships create new phenomenon.
But, I’m still working on the whole… “understanding it well enough to use it” …thang.
Janene
Comment by janene — 9 October 2006 @ 6:22 PM
There was a study I ran across about lions calculating mathematical odds in relationship to payoffs they would recieve in various hunting strategies.
They seemed to be calculating these things in hunts in deciding what size groups to form, in hunting forays.
Lionesses would hunt certian prey alone or in pairs or in large groups.
They obviously couldn’t articulate what they were doing. Fish do this too in calculating what size prey they will chase after in terms of calories burned chasing it vs. calories they will gain from it.
Comment by Ted Heistman — 9 October 2006 @ 6:29 PM
Hey –
Ted - on understanding Jeff’s economics — that’s exactly what I am talking about, and I am right there (or trying to get there!) with you
On the lions and others ‘calculating’ — I don’t know the study you are refering to, but I would bet money that what they were trying to express was that natural selection does all of that over time. Lions tend to form certain group sizes under certain environmental situations based on the genes that have passed down to them. What those genes say is based on the subtle nuances of what has worked before(for thier ancestors)…
Janene
Comment by janene — 9 October 2006 @ 6:45 PM
You should check out the theory of “morphic fields” There is a link to it on Ran prieur’s site.
I think it is more likely that there is some type of an uplink these lions have to a “lion collective consciousness” That enables them to make these decisions. It think to them it would feel like intuition.
It just feels right to get together with just one other lion to go after a zebra. Six or seven for a buffalo etc.
I think the same type of thing happens with humans. There are all these data points being taken in by individuals forming pictures of patterns through intuition and uploading this to a collective consciousness. Then through intuition people can access this.
Thats my theory anyway. I don’t think genetics alone can explain it.
Comment by Ted Heistman — 9 October 2006 @ 7:03 PM
Hey –
I’m afraid morphic fields haven’t impressed me much.
But give me an afternoon and a few thousand words and I’ll give you the ‘complete evolution education’
Janene
Comment by janene — 9 October 2006 @ 7:08 PM
Well, I think evolution explains a lot but only of you look at it backwards through time.
I think in explaining animal behavior it gets into lots of tautologies and “just so stories.”
If someone can trace various mechanisms of animal behavior through genetics more closely it would be different. But as things stands now it seems like a non-explanation.
I also might have a tendency to anthropomorphize too much because of my spiritual experiences.
Comment by Ted Heistman — 9 October 2006 @ 7:26 PM
I would guess that the young lionesses are taught which prey to hunt singly, in pairs, or in groups, or at least, learn by example.
Comment by William Carrington — 9 October 2006 @ 7:54 PM
Hey Ted –
No. Evolution explains everything quite neatly, without tautology, once you understand it. Unfortunately (and this is a my personal ‘campaign’ if you will), most biologists are not very good about explaining it, and even when they are, they tend to slip into anthropomorphic metaphors that confuse and confound
The whole core can be summed up: genes mutate and they get passed down. Natural selection is nothing more than “those animals that are better at survival(procreation, child raising etc) are more likely to have surviving offspring — thus, genes that provide better adabtability are more likely to survive and thrive in the gene pool.
William — there certainly is some teaching and learning involved as well.
Janene
Comment by janene — 10 October 2006 @ 8:24 AM
In the interest of adding another perspective on the ability of lions (or anything else) to count as well as the value of “intuitive thinking”. And possibly, just possibly, expanding how we understand human consciousness, I present to you this snippet from a study done on the Piraha, a tribe in Brazil that appears to lack the ability to count.
[quote]They know all the traders by name and consider some more honest than others (their judgments in this regard always agreeing with judgments I formed later on my on the basis of the quantity of items they receive for the nuts they trade.[/quote]
For more information on the Piraha:
[url]http://www.stanford.edu/class/symbsys100/everett.pdf[/url]
Comment by jhereg — 10 October 2006 @ 9:26 AM
Jhereg,
I understand it probably better than you think and that is why you might not understand what I am saying. But I am just some random poster on a blog, so that’s nothing against you.
Just because these various genomes are being mapped doesn’t mean that it is known what all these genes do and how various genes relate to behavior. Jeff Vail made a good analogy about Derrivatives markets and how no one knows how they work comparing that with the statement that no one knows how the brain works. No one totally knows about the brain. There are emergent properties like consciousness.
So to say “animals behave this way because of their genes that have been passed down from their ancestors, through generations of natural selection..”
Its not really saying anything. Its a pat explanation that can be applied to all animal behavior universally, so its really not an explanation.
But believe me I am not espousing intelligent design or any other theory, I am just pointing to the fact that much of the world is a mystery.
Comment by Ted Heistman — 10 October 2006 @ 10:07 AM
That’s a good point about the Piraha.
I wonder what types of queue’s they are going from. Maybe the are adept at picking up body language of dishonest people.
Also over time maybe they get a “feel” for what so many nuts are worth.
Its seems like a really shakey trade relationship though….
Comment by Ted Heistman — 10 October 2006 @ 10:17 AM
Jeff said it better than I possibly could have. It isn’t a question of being trendy or cool, or peer pressure—it’s a matter of personal example, and what you honestly esteem.
You’ve obviously never been a programmer, Tony. Lots of things are hard-wired into our biology: that’s precisely what allows ut to avoid rigidity. Not all rules create rigidity; some create flexibility.
I recently listened to the audio book of Blink, soon after finishing Spell of the Sensuous, and it struck me that the kind of instant cognition Gladwell was talking about was comparable to what shamans do, in the same sense that a baby’s rattle is comparable to a symphonic orchestra. We have this enormous capacity, but we neglect it and demean it. Gladwell illustrates some basic ways that we can exercise and hone this skill, but these pale in comparison to the techniques used by animist magicians. So the kind of “intuitive thinking” Janene is talking about here is, I think, a very important element that has been much atrophied by our domestication—and thus critical if we’re going to become feral.
At the same time, Abram’s case that magic is found in the connections between things suggests why science has such a hard time with emergence: it’s magical. Animists believe that magic is all around them, that everything is alive and pulsing with magic. Today, of course, we denigrate such ideas; instead, we have emergence and complexity. What has changed, except our denigration for non-human life? Science begins with the assumption of reductionism: that anything can be understood by breaking it into smaller parts. Of course, if the universe is mainly about connections, that will only get you to a very superficial understanding. If, however, like an animist, we presume that the universe must be understood in terms of relationships, then anthropomorphism is not a fallacy but an invaluable tool, and while such an approach would certainly not build up a scientific body of knowledge, it would develop an understanding of emergence—and an ability to use emergence—far beyond anything we have today. So we can rightly claim superiority over animist cultures in terms of science, but we must also admit our failing when it comes to emergence.
You’re almost certainly thinking of optimal foraging theory, but I think you must have misunderstood it if you were left with the impression of lionesses doing long division. Rather, optimal foraging theory tries to express in mathematical formulae the trade-offs that predators (including humans) calculate intuitively. This is not a calculation that happens consciously; it’s unconscious.
Sheldrake’s a total quack, and his “morphic fields” bit is just more Platonic “Forms” nonsense. I don’t see anything they explain that isn’t already explained by the DNA we can actually observe, without the metaphysical mumbo-jumbo Sheldrake introduces.
Why do we need to introduce the idea of some mystical “collective unconscious” to explain intuition? Even Jung, who originated the term, suggested that the “collective unconscious” was the psychological reflection of our shared genetic heritage. Our intuition is a type of thinking, a thinking that works extremely quickly and according to set restraints of “thin slicing.” It’s the same with the Piraha: they can judge who’s trustworthy and who isn’t through thin slicing. They actively exercise their unconscious cognition processes, where we denigrate and ignore ours. Optimal foraging theory simply sets into an equation the cost-benefit analysis that predators do intuitively, automatically, for the simple reason that those that did so survived, at the expense of those that did not. No more, no less. It’s Ockham’s Razor, one of the few examples of elegant simplicity that our civilization actually does embrace.
Au contraire. It means every animal behavior needs to be explained in terms of survival, and in what way that behavior was adaptive. It’s not always easy, but always revealing. Just look at the peacock’s feathers.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 10 October 2006 @ 12:20 PM
interesting take on the same conpect Jason. What then is remnant from our single-cell ancestors that could be seen as the hardwiring required for infinite possiblities of life (on this planet).
I would like to know those hard wirings, the things that don’t change, that could provide a powerful basis for understanding things like metabolism and adaptation.
Has anyone read Kornfield’s, ‘After the Ecstasy, the Laundry?
There’s a lot to do once you’ve found enlightenment (or, in the above lingo, widening the bandwidth on the intuition receiver).
Comment by TonyZ — 10 October 2006 @ 2:54 PM
I’d say that all life on this planet is hardwired with a command that really can’t be better expressed than the first mitzvah in Genesis 1:28: “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it.” Well, subdue has more to do with our fantasies, but every species on earth reproduces to the best of its ability, and aspires to fill the whole earth with its own kind.
The trick that makes this work, of course, is biodiversity. Flies are trying to multiply as much as possible, but then, so are spiders. So are plants that flies eat. So are frogs that eat flies. So are daddy long-leggers that eat spiders.
When I set up my tent, each pole is trying to pull the whole thing in its own direction, and if it got its way, the whole tent would fall down. But it’s balanced against three other poles, all pulling in opposite directions. Because they’re all trying to pull the tent in their own direction, my tent stays up. Likewise, what would happen if this weren’t hardwired into all biology? What would happen if, say, flies decided they didn’t want to reproduce so much anymore—if they could just decide to rein in their population and not grow so much? What would happen? What would happen to the spiders, and the frogs, and the plants, and the daddy long-leggers? Look at the wolves in Yellowstone. Nature establishes a dynamic equilibrium, and the main, fundamental force that makes it all hold together is that every animal is following the first mitzvah with every ounce of strength it has.
The problem isn’t following the first mitzvah—it’s when the balance is broken, when you’re actually able to make good on that ambition. It’s when the other poles suddenly reach that tipping point and fail when the tent comes crashing down. It’s when humans gain control over their own food supply that mass extinction and ecological disaster loom large.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 10 October 2006 @ 3:08 PM
that’s a good analogy.
Mo’ Money, Mo’ Problems.
Of course, the more problems, the more solutions.
Thinking like a fungal organism, the greater variance in substrates, the greater chance I have in sporulating and creating new organisms.
Would there be a biological instruction to reduce voracity? Easily, our scientists could come up with a bleach-resistant hyper sporulating organism that attcks and devors mammilian flesh, and yet our scientists, and opportunistic organisms, have yet to do such a thing.
The flesh is a huge cornocopia of substrate to explore and devour.
Of course, killing one’s food supply would kill oneself.
So why is man not the prey of any animal?
Could we have been the first organism to free ourselves from predator-prey relationships?
We are rapidly reducing how nature controls our population.
With the common cold cured, is there hope for man?
Comment by TonyZ — 10 October 2006 @ 4:17 PM
Sure: something that’s equally voracious, but eats you. Or at the very least checks you. But such limits can never be expected from the species itself. We don’t let people preside as judges at their own trials, and no species will ever check its own appetites. Really, I’m not sure it can. So can humans hack our biological code to make us less voracious? I doubt it. We’re not really able to check ourselves, but we can be checked. And we will be—one way or another.
Humans are prey to other animals—in Africa, where we evolved. In other areas, animals have yet to figure out that we’re delicious. That makes us alpha predators. They exist. They’re still checked, but by relationships more subtle than predator-prey. They’re checked by food supply, or by competition, or any number of other factors that help rein them in, all beyond their own control. Obviously, the food chain has to end eventually with something that’s only eaten by worms, insects and bacteria. We didn’t free ourselves from predator-prey relationships anymore than any other alpha predator—wolves, bears, lions or sharks. We’re not reducing how nature controls our population at all, we’re just upping the ante, trading cut-offs now for more catastrophic cut-offs in the future.
Com