Archdruid Watch: Adam’s Morbid Fantasy
by Jason GodeskyThis week, the Archdruid Report continues “Adam’s Story.” The first installment, published three weeks ago, was “Twilight in Learyville,” wherein Adam left behind the former tourist town in the Pacific Northwest where he’d grown up after the deaths of his sweetheart and his father. This week’s installment, “Nanmin Voyages,” deals with the consequences of waves of Japanese refugees crossing the Pacific to North America. Greer has said that these fictional narratives are tools to help put the situation in perspective, and I heartily agree that fictional narratives can be helpful in that way. But in order to achieve that goal, they need to portray what’s likely, not simply indulge one’s own morbid fantasies.
The most egregious example of this occurs in the first installment, as Greer describes the primitivists who passed through Learyville on their way into the wilderness.
No, most of the ones who came had a different dream. They parked their cars in the café parking lot, paid for one more civilized meal, and then headed out into the woods, convinced they were destined to found the tribal societies of an age about to be born. Those who spotted Adam tried to talk him into coming along; their excited gestures and bright eyes lit up a grand vision of life in the wilderness in harmony with nature, walking the hunter-gatherer path. The first few times he’d gone back to the motel with his head afire, and his father had to sit him down and explain exactly what would happen to a bunch of city kids who thought nature would welcome them with open arms. He’d been right, too. Some of them came stumbling back out of the forest months later, starving and shivering and riddled with parasites. Others never came out at all, and Adam got used to finding their bones in the woods when he and his father went hunting deer in the hills outside of town. For them, nature had opened not her arms but her jaws.
Certainly, someone who wanders into the woods with no knowledge of the natural world won’t last very long there. The death of Christopher McCandless along the Stampede Trail near Denali National Park provided Jon Krakauer with the subject material for his book, Into the Wild. You’ll frequently find In the Wild on primitivist reading lists for precisely this reason—notice, for instance, that it makes Daniel Quinn’s reading list. Quinn writes:
I include this book as recommended reading because I hear from so many youngsters who, like Chris McCandless (the subject of the book), dream of fleeing civilization, of striking out on their own in the wilderness, of “living off the land.” Although this is primarily the story of McCandless’s failure to recognize the difficulties of such an undertaking, the author includes several similar accounts of individuals taking on “the wild” singlehandedly, with the romantic notion that this is what a capable and resourceful person should be able to do. All victims of the Great Forgetting, they were blissfully (and ultimately tragically) unaware that humans did not evolve as rugged individualists, each taking on the task of survival on his or her own. Our ancestors, who universally lived “in the wild,” always faced the task tribally and never took it on singlehandedly. They knew that-even with all their survival wisdom, garnered over countless generations-living in the wild is far too much for any isolated individual to cope with.
Humans, alone in the “wilderness,” do die. Were these “primitivists” setting out to found tribal societies all by themselves? Or were they simply completely ignorant of any kind of primitive skills? I’m about as green as one can come, and even I know how to overcome the problems that keep killing off Greer’s dramatis personae. The elder nanmin sister in the second installment died from an infected cut, something that a decent poultice made from leaves borrowed from Grandfather’s Footsteps could have helped alleviate. Adam’s sweetheart stumbles out of the woods, afflicted with some tick-borne disease. Checking for ticks every evening isn’t just a matter of safety and health, it’s a bonding experience for a would-be tribe, as well, the same way other primates groom one another. Even if you missed one and a disease did develop, the natural world is not devoid of antibiotics. Lyme disease is easily treated with a vigorous antibiotic regimen when caught in time, and there are plenty of antibacterial herbs that can be employed to make such a treatment, including, once again, Grandfather’s Footsteps.
Of course, only 2-3% of tick bites result in infection, and there’s mounting evidence that even that rate of infection is due to our indoor lifestyle and lack of exposure; more frequent tick bites results in a significantly decreased incidence of Lyme disease. Primitive cultures often used bear fat to repel insects in general; I usually use crushed lemon balm leaves.
But Greer’s primitivists apparently don’t know any of this. They haven’t even read about primitive skills to know this much; nor, apparently, have they read any primitivist authors, who frequently emphasize this point. How they ever came around the idea of forming hunter-gatherer tribes in the woods without crossing such information is a huge question. Personally, I don’t think Greer’s primitivists exist. For those who don’t know primitive skills, the “wilderness” is an intimidating place, full of danger and peril. When confronted with their choice of direction along the coast, Adam says, “South, I think. North there’s not much but wilderness for quite a ways.” Yet it only takes a taste of primitive skills to begin to realize the abundance of the living world around you. It can take a lifetime to master all the subtleties, to form a relationship with each plant, and to learn intimately the behaviors of each animal, but it doesn’t take very long at all to notice that you’re surrounded by food, medicine, shelter, and everything that you could ever need—everything humans needed to live long, happy lives for three million years before civilization arose. Greer’s fiction turns into morbid fantasy as the primitivists get what’s coming to them, as the dark and scary wilderness, the frightening Other, comes alive with its vicious “jaws” to consume those foolish enough to question the agrarian dream. To think that nature could have loving arms, or provide shelter, food, or medicine. Nature has “jaws,” the wilderness is dark and treacherous, and human life is cheap and difficult.
This is, as Greer so often points out, a question of narrative. Is the more-than-human world a “home” that provides us with all of our needs, or a perilous, dark “wilderness” that we must overcome with enormous effort and great cost of human life and suffering? Is it our home, or is it our enemy? The former is the narrative found in sane societies; the latter is the narrative of agrarian societies, a narrative that tells us that humanity is at war with the rest of the world, and must conquer the earth and subdue it. Greer is clearly coming from the agrarian narrative. The tale of the fool who tries to “go back to nature” and dies is a gleeful vindication often treasured by the agrarian mind, because they cannot escape the fact that humanity lived long enough to invent agriculture in the first place. That fact alone is possible only in one of those narratives. That’s perhaps the biggest reason for what Quinn called “the Great Forgetting,” the relegation of the bulk of the human experience to the irrelevant footnote of “prehistory,” because it defies our narrative. Its very existence proves that humans have a place in the more-than-human world, and that it provides everything we need. Because of that, we have to ignore it.
There are other bizarre oddities in Greer’s narrative, as well, such as the war. You might assume, as I did, that this was some kind of resource war fought in the Middle East, but then Greer mentions “when the fighting reached Mexico.” Civil wars do not break out willy-nilly for no apparent reason. Restricted resources almost always causes violence, but a civil war requires a level of organization that simply seems unlikely. Food riots, gang wars and so forth are downright likely, but where are the strong secessionist movements that would trigger civil war? In collapse, governments spend more and more of their time just trying to keep themselves together. Their power rarely has a decisive “end,” so much as they cease to be relevant. They become slogans to invoke, rather than actual powers to fear or obey.
Then there is the phenomenon Greer follows in the latest story, that of the nanmin—refugees from Japan.
They’d gone no more than a hundred yards when the fog lifted to westward, swirling and tearing open as the sea wind clawed at it. From the highway the land sloped toward the beach down below, and there, with its bow driven up onto the sand, was the vast black shape of Haruko’s ship. Adam had expected a fishing trawler or the like, certainly not a huge container vessel the size of a small town. Nor had he expected to see another shape like it in the middle distance making purposefully in toward the shore.
“Japan has many people,” said Haruko behind him, “and many ships. Not much food. Each year, more will come.”
In previous collapses, contraction was perhaps the single most archaeologically visible sign of collapse. Lands once cultivated were abandoned; people did not travel quite as far; signs of long-distance trade diminish; communities become more local in character. In the midst of energy decline, Greer is here predicting that our collapse will run completely counter to the trends followed by every other collapse. With diminishing energy, more Japanese will climb onto huge boats to take them all the way across the Pacific Ocean—the largest ocean in the world, accounting for an immense portion of the globe’s circumference—to crash into the beaches of the Pacific Northwest?
To his credit, Greer’s stories do capture a lot of the crushing despair and the cheapness of human life that would undoubtedly characterize the groups he describes—the people who cling to civilization to the very end, caught in a narrative about the eternal war on the more-than-human world that they must continue to uphold, lest they leave those bones that Adam kept finding in the woods. Unfortunately, the usefulness of fiction is undermined when it devolves into mere fantasy, and what Greer writes about primitivism is simply a morbid fantasy of vindication that defies the actual primitive (and primitivist) experience. Greer’s stories do capture what may very well await much of the current population; but they turn to fantasy because Greer fails to recognize that these same trends will “open the map,” and allow for a plethora of alternatives among those who hope for something better.
John Michael Greer’s “Archdruid Report” comes out every Wednesday, and one of his favorite topics is the failing of primitivism, or “apocalyptic narrative,” as he prefers to pigeon-hole it. Unfortunately, Greer also thinks that actual primitivists stopping by in the comments to defend their “apocalyptic narrative” side-tracks the disucssion of how looney and wrong their narrative is. Primitivists who try to answer Greer’s attacks are eventually censored and banned. Enter “Archdruid Watch,” a weekly response to Greer’s weekly attack, on a forum that encourages discussion and dissenting views, rather than squelches them from the bully pulpit. If you think we’re wrong, by all means say so. It’s not as though we’ll delete what you have to say just because you make a good point—and that’s not something all blogs involved here can say.
- Last Week: “A Depopulation Explosion?“
- Next Week: “Völkerwanderung“
I’m trying to figure out how his narrative is less apocalyptic and more optimistic than ours, when apparently there’s no way for his characters to escape a grim fate, even by leaving the collapsing civilization. I mean, at least we allow for a small minority to live happy lives.
Comment by Giulianna Lamanna — 21 June 2007 @ 11:56 AM
Well, see, when Greer says “apocalyptic” he’s really talking about a narrative that allows for “a select few” to “return to a paradise/golden age”, rather than the way the word is used in say, “Buffy: the Vampire Slayer”.
So, really, it’s not that he’s knocking primitivism for being too grim, rather the opposite, that primitivism is being too “rosy” and “blaise”.
At least, that’s the only way I can make sense of his comments. Perhaps, I’m off base.
Myself, I prefer to operate under the narrative that we’ve been in a cycle of spiralling (rather than truly cyclical) and we’re about to be returned to the proper cycle. This will, naturally, require a pretty big correction. Somehow, despite the fact that my narrative operates under a cyclical base, I’m still in agreement w/ 90+% of the Tribe Anthropik.
Hmm, I must be insane or self-deluded.
Comment by jhereg — 21 June 2007 @ 12:24 PM
Not at all; we share an underlying, cyclical narrative. Yet it’s also quite clear that our current mode of life is a freakish aberration, and that we are now far removed from equilibrium. It’s an incident of overshoot, a flash in the pan. These things happen, and they’re always corrected in the same way. You return to equilbrium, and the underlying cyclical narrative takes over again.
“This has been a broadcast of civilization. We now return you to your regularly scheduled cycles.”
Comment by Jason Godesky — 21 June 2007 @ 12:30 PM
I think you missed the understated sarcasm.
Comment by jhereg — 21 June 2007 @ 12:40 PM
That’s entirely possible; I’m dull like that.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 21 June 2007 @ 12:43 PM
You said before, that a citizen of a bronze age kingdom could be free if only he could walk a few days out of range of the kingdom’s army.
But now, it turns out it is not quite as simple. One must know how to live a different life.
Greer’s “primitivists” are walking out, just like you’ve suggested, but without establishing the necessary skills.
Comment by _Gi — 21 June 2007 @ 6:46 PM
If you want to splice hairs like that, then “free” and “alive” are two different things. I never said walking off into the woods without knowing how to survive was a good idea. In fact, I’ve frequently emphasized the importance of primitive skills, tribal relationships and an animist mindset. So I’m afraid your little trap falls a little flat.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 21 June 2007 @ 8:10 PM
Jason, you are wrong! Some humans can survive alone in the wilderness!!!!! How do you account for the mountain men? This is’nt some fantasy, it’s fact.
Sure we’re over 100 years from that time, and granted that was a long time ago, almost no one can accomplish this feat, being from today’s society. I’m not suggesting that anyone try this approach, you’d have to been raised in the wild and quite knowledgable of the natural enviroment. An example of what this lifestyle might look like can be found in either the book or movie, “Alone in the Wilderness”.
Comment by yooper — 21 June 2007 @ 9:27 PM
i’ve been a little confused by this turn that Greer has taken, myself. i like it better when he concentrates more on positive actions, and appropriate ways we can climb back down the Big Machine Age ladder before it burns up under us.
and i get really frustrated by this need within some circles to totally be in command of The Only Possible Way…if variety and adaptability are indeed among the stronger survival attributes of humans, then it makes sense to have a number of different approaches, at least in the short-to-middling term. people need time to learn and change, and we should be prepared for a pretty wide spectrum of possible futures over the next decades, centuries–not sure how long.
if we’d recognized the limits we’d eventually face early enough, we’d be all doing that now, and human cultures would be decentralizing and de-complexifying and the population could return to a sustainable level and a healthier lifeway without so much distress and loss.
of course, it seems to be too late for that now–and still, even among people who are concerned and trying to find a way through, we’ve got all this My Way or the Highway, Pal! business. it’s nearly as bad as the Bunker People (you know–the surplus army rations & lots of ammo Mad Max crowd.)
no one has a monopoly on forecasting the *exact* shape and timing of the future. grrr. besides, he really turned me off when he did the whole “go away” thing on you, rather than seeking common ground or *useful* debate.
a shame, really. i’m glad y’all continue to explore and share your own path, and i hope you don’t get *too* caught up in the trap of Point-for-Point negating of someone else’s need to denigrate it (although i do understand your motivation! it isn’t fair to condemn someone without letting them even speak to false or misleading accusations.)
oh–raw garlic is another good systemic antibiotic, by the way! not the pills–just the damn PLANT, you know? : )
Comment by patricia — 21 June 2007 @ 9:29 PM
So-called “Mountain Men” are largely Romantic myths. Anytime that images from the past seem impossible today, that’s generally a good indication that they never actually happened. “Mountain Men” worked for fur companies, and lived extremely regimented, almost military, lifestyles. Moreover, they were also rarely alone; they had mess groups and hunted and trapped in brigades, with a “boosway” (corruption of Bourgeois) as the brigade leader. The sole mountain man living off the land? Largely a Romantic myth, and nothing more. Sure, people can survive alone in the wilderness for some amount of time, but not easily, or well, or for very long.
I’m not so sure; after all, a lot of people did understand this. People have been trying to do that for centuries; they get steamrolled. When energy supplies are increasing, a belief in progress is adaptive; that’s precisely what Catton’s “Age of Exuberance” idea tells us. So, in true animist fashion, things happened the way they happened for a reason and they couldn’t have happened any other way.
Indeed it is!
Comment by Jason Godesky — 21 June 2007 @ 9:39 PM
Ok, I have alot of problems with John’s scenario, but this is his story and we must respect that what he’s conveying is in the future, where there are no facts. We must hear him out! If not for the shear entertainment of it. How often have you read a story revolving around post collaspe? I have read only one, from Dr. Carolyn Baker, that I found on “Adapatation”. I was so upset, that I emailed her at once, New Years’s Day morning. A quite “lively” email exchange went through the Rose Parade and into the afternoon. I damned her, point for point, in so much, that she pulled the article, I can find it nowhere. Like an idoit, I’ve lost something that I could build from……………. I learned a damn good lesson there!
Comment by yooper — 21 June 2007 @ 9:42 PM
Jason, it was no romantic myth when my Great Grandfather settled on the land, I’ll occupy during and after collaspe. He was the first whiteman in the region, and spent the winter alone, in a “teepee”. This man was dumped off a schooner boat, and what he started remains a “dynasty” to this day, over 125 years ago……………… He soon became the doctor, the dentist, employer, judge, undertaker, for all that followed…..Now, you know a little bit more about me, not “grandstanding” here Jason, it’s fact.
Comment by yooper — 21 June 2007 @ 9:54 PM
Jason, a little off topic here, but I’m watching a 400 pound black bear, fooling around my bird feeders not 30 feet from my couch. I’m viewing this through a 30 ft by 7 ft window wall. Sure wish you were here!!!
Comment by yooper — 21 June 2007 @ 10:04 PM
Then your great-grandfather was either one of the most exceptional people in history, or the stories that have come down to you have been somewhat embellished. My own ancestors often showed a certain distaste for civilization, usually keeping to its fringes and often living as pioneers. But they didn’t make it by themselves, and I doubt your great-grandfather did either. By modern standards it might almost seem like it, but truly alone? You yourself mention spending the winter alone in his “teepee”—that sure sounds like an implication that he didn’t spend spring, summer or fall that way. And since he’s your great-grandfather, that means his life at least included your great-grandmother and one of your grandparents along the way, doesn’t it? If he then became the doctor, the dentist, an employer, a judge and an undertaker, all of those roles suggest other people around him, don’t they? As I said, my own ancestors lived pioneers’ lives, and often found themselves in similar roles, but they were never alone.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 21 June 2007 @ 10:05 PM
What are you wasting time online for then? There’ve been a few times I got to see big, black bears that close, and man, those were some really incredible moments. Get away from the keyboard and live it—tell us about it afterwards.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 21 June 2007 @ 10:08 PM
You’re right Jason, a person cannot live alone in the wilderness, not very long, not very far…..
Comment by yooper — 21 June 2007 @ 10:10 PM
Ha! I ‘ve my little laptop here pulled up next to the couch! ha! Does’nt everbody do it this way? ha!
Comment by yooper — 21 June 2007 @ 10:13 PM
wait–Jason, are you telling me that Grizzly Adams was not real?! you’ve just destroyed my childhood hero.
but seriously, we no longer have the circumstances or skill-set or, frankly, the *health* to try and follow any One Man Alone in the Hills kind of path, no matter how exaggerated or not the tales today of them may be. we are not those people.
i think when i said “if we’d recognized the limits” i meant to imply that along with that had come the collective wisdom and will to face it…it’s clear that most segments of our society who are in any position to make big decisions or call for large-scale changes, do not wish to do so, for whatever reason (ignorance or greed or stupidity) and hence the steamrolling! so, we’re left as individuals and small groups to do what we can, on our own.
whether things are happening this way for a reason, or not, we are still left with the same set of circumstances. it helps, though, if we can create sense from them.
about the garlic–i self treated a really nasty sinus infection last fall by eating *lots* of raw garlic, raw ginger root, supplemented with some oregano oil and a few pre-made herbal treatments and teas from the co-op. as i *have* a work-dependant “health” plan of course i also went ahead and had the GP prescribe an antibiotic, which i picked up, but never opened. if PGH gets a New Orleans treatment any time in the next year or so, i’ve got something worth trading now, i guess.
i’ve also been working with my mum who caught a nasty, recurring MRSA in Jefferson hospital a few years back–and changing her diet, and adding the right herbs has done her wonders. this would be *after* IV antibiotics in the hospital on several occassions did *not* kick its ass properly. if they’d had her on some herbal tinctures prior to the orginal surgery, she might never have picked it up in the first damn place. they should have predicted she would, given her age, type of surgery, prevalence of those nasty little guys, etc.
now…i’ve just got to back that knowledge up a bit to the point where i can grow/forage the plants, and make my own tinctures!
(and yeah–i already know that my sinus trouble likely was made worse by my inability to give up all wheat and dairy…until i was miserable and sick, and even then when i was over it i still went back. i learn slowly. but i have managed to get off most of the processed garbage and stick mostly to raw and/or fermented dairy, and sprouted or sourdoughed grains. it’s a step in a better direction, at least!)
i’m so bummed i can’t make the survival skills thing this weekend–i assume y’all are still going? can’t wait to hear the tale! i’ll be in D.C. instead…the belly of the beast.
Comment by patricia — 21 June 2007 @ 10:17 PM
Jason, it’s my wishes for us to get to know each other well enough, that you could come here, and experience for yourself some incredible moments…. I’ll take you so far back, you’ll experience what “primitive” means. It’s so beautiful Jason! The furhter, we go back, the more this life’s concerns fade away. Soon, you loose this life and into the natural world and learn to play by it’s rules. This is what truely being “free” is, to me. It’s an experience, you’ll never forget.
Comment by yooper — 21 June 2007 @ 10:25 PM
I’m not so sure. Here in Pennsylvania, the original colony had Quaker leadership. They wanted to deal honestly with the Indians. But they couldn’t; not because the leaders didn’t want to, but because they were part of a system, and the system had to follow its own rules.
Yup, that’s where we’re a-viking. I’ll let Giuli write up the account when we get back.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 21 June 2007 @ 11:29 PM
good point:
“…not because the leaders didn’t want to, but because they were part of a system, and the system had to follow its own rules.”
i agree. but…how do we change the system then? if the leaders can’t, and the *regular* people can’t? that’s the puzzle. it may be that natural forces beyond anyone’s control will shape things to a great extent, but at some point, human agency must also step forward and join in that dance…or simply be crushed? i don’t know.
enjoy your woodland weekend! i am entirely envious. me and 10,000 some other librarians will be plotting and wooing and in some cases possibly even *occupying* various political venues in D.C., all, most likely, to no avail whatsoever (except perhaps for a false assuaging of our own consciences: “hey–we tried, but no one listened.” pah.)
i’m never as hopeless as i may sound, though! mmmm…Beast Belly…my favorite!
Comment by patricia — 21 June 2007 @ 11:57 PM
woops–make that 26,000 librarians, expected.
Comment by patricia — 22 June 2007 @ 12:00 AM
Jason, I do agree with your thoughts surrounding this article. I can see hugh “holes” that does’nt seem to hold water. The make-shift locomotive, what could be the reasoning behind this? Where is it going and would it be hauling?
I think, John, alludes to a depression like period. This country cannot go through another 1930’s like depression! We cannot afford this! Yup, that’s right, this country cannot afford to go through a depression!
Comment by yooper — 22 June 2007 @ 6:20 AM
The whole “living alone in the wilderness” subject is one I’ve discussed alot with other primitivists. It often comes down to what one considers “alone” because depending on your definition, there have been plenty of people who have lived quite long and well alone in the wilds. I have heard and read of people who lived for many years (or even decades) alone in the Alaskan bush. These people would live season by season in the wilds personally subsisting on what they alone hunted, fished, and gathered. The only thing is every now and then, they would have to make their way into a settlement. Usually it was for something like ammunition for their rifle. Of course they had to buy the ammuniton so they needed some type of income so most of them were trappers and would sell fur. And of course those steel traps took a beating out there so every now and then, the traps would need to be replaced. This is a relatively common storyline for the lives of some old-time Alaskan trappers. Would you consider that to be alone?
One could argue they weren’t entirely alone in that they still relied on civilization’s (and therefore other people’s) guns and boats or canoes and a few other smaller items like matches and pots for their subsistence. So what would you consider to be “alone”? For these trappers to be truly alone, I suppose, they would have to make and use their own bows and arrows, fishing nets, sleds, etc. Obviously this makes living alone much more difficult.
But to live alone in the wilds with marginal civilizational material like Christopher McCandless had is very do-able. Primitivists(which I am one) like to mention Chris McCandless seemingly as a way to somehow “prove” that it’s nearly impossible to live alone in the wilderness. McCandless was a foolish idiot for running off to the woods without knowledge, experience, and preparation. There have been people who succeeded where McCandless failed, so why is all the focus on him?
Comment by Andy — 22 June 2007 @ 6:24 AM
I would like to submit that whether or not someone can live alone in the wilderness for an indefinite period of time is actually a rather moot point. Granted, it may not be a moot point for the person in question, however, for the human community at large, it very much is. One person does not constitute a culture or community. Humans, no matter how introverted, still need some amount of contact with other humans, and you can safely bet that the preferred amount is going to follow a bell curve. You’ll find a few people that don’t need human contact but once every few years, and you’ll have a few people that always need human contact, most of us are going to be somewhere in the middle. This has nothing to do with skills, technology or anything but simple human behaviour; what it [b]means[/b] to be human.
Garlic, at least, is super easy to grow and requires no more care than planting and harvesting (and curing). You can start w/ mail order garlic cloves, but supermarket garlic works just as well. Around here (OH) the best time to plant seems to be August, but I’ve done pretty well planting all the way up to the end of October. Let them grow for close to a year before harvesting (I generally just harvest in early to mid August). After harvesting, I briefly wash the bulbs, then set them out to dry and “cure” for a few days to a week. Don’t forget to replant.
PS: no tilling is required, if the soil is soft enough, just push the clove in, otherwise a small hole per clove will do just fine and try to give each plant 1 - 2 sq ft of room.
Comment by jhereg — 22 June 2007 @ 9:04 AM
I don’t think you really can—you have to just let it run its course, and there’s very little you can do to stop it, slow it down, speed it up, or change it. It’s a system that operates by its own logic, and it ultimately destroys itself, like a social storm the size of Jupiter’s Great Red Spot. Human agency plays the same role it does in a natural disaster: figuring out how to survive it, and then figuring out how to put our lives back together once it’s passed.
Adny, Alaskan trappers typically don’t live by themselves. They live with other trappers in small groups. There might be some, but they’re very rare. McCandless actually did have quite a bit of knowledge and experience. Before his death in 1996, McCandless had been living as a wanderer for six years, under the alias “Alexander Supertramp.” He wasn’t experienced in the Alaskan bioregion, though, and more importantly, he was alone.
But ultimately, jhereg is right. No wild human ever approaches the “wilderness” as something to be faced alone. It’s always about the tribe. Living alone in the “wilderness” is every bit as pathological as living in a crowded city.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 22 June 2007 @ 9:37 AM
Jason, I had intention to trap, just to explain how impatient youths can interpret the message to abandon civilization, especially when it starts to suck in really obvious ways.
As to the difference between free and alive, very few slaves have the time or opportunity to learn anything at all of which their masters disapprove. And few masters have what it takes to abandon their position for a different life. So, bronze age kingdoms are quite stable in that respect. Not much turn-over.
Comment by _Gi — 22 June 2007 @ 9:40 AM
Your average Bronze Age peasant had vastly more primitive skills than your average urbanite today. They knew the seasons, the plants, and often had to rely on herbal medicines and the like when their families became ill.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 22 June 2007 @ 9:45 AM
One last word on the ‘living alone in the wilderness’ thread. I’ll try to get some info together on Simon Kenton and post it either on Anthropik’s forums or rewild.info’s forums. I think there’s some people who would be very interested, as it very much relates to this topic.
Comment by jhereg — 22 June 2007 @ 10:05 AM
You are right about this, but they did still have a mindset that was not conducive to disappearing into the wilderness, for one thing, they all did call it wilderness.
Nevertheless, the hapless youths that Greer imagined, are most likely simply fleeing the press gangs the best way they know how.
It all comes to preparation. You wouldn’t want your child pressed into service, so you are making plans to disappear way before this will be an issue.
They did not.
Comment by _Gi — 22 June 2007 @ 11:56 AM
It doesn’t take any great deal of preparation, though. You can learn the basics of identifying wild edible plants in a weekend, and you’ll have a store of plants memorized long before your favorite field guide crumbles. Greer’s primitivists aren’t just unprepared, they’re comically stupid. Just one decent field guide between them, maybe a weekend class on herbal medicines, could’ve avoided that grisly fate. These aren’t just unprepared primitivists, these are primitivists who didn’t want and didn’t even try to prepare.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 22 June 2007 @ 12:07 PM
Jason, you’re wrong about some of the old-time (and new-time) Alaskan trappers. These people were not the Mountain Men of the early 1800’s who, as you said, lived extremely regimented, almost military, lifestyles and were almost never alone. These were people who did not work for any fur company. They just lived for themselves in the wilderness, and most seemed to enjoy the solitude. Lone Alaskan trappers were not exactly common, but they were definately not as rare as you indicated. There are a bunch of stories out here(I live in Alaska) of guys who ran 100 mile long traplines alone for 20+ years. Some trappers would have a trapping partner. Two seems to be the most common number regarding the number of trappers in a group, but there were plenty of singles. I have found more than a fewl accounts of people living alone in the wilds, and in one of them, the guy actually said it was easy!
Comment by Andy — 22 June 2007 @ 6:50 PM
jhereg, thanks, my thoughts exactly, almost. It’s very interesting that you resembled human contact with a bell shape curve….I disagree, that someone could go for years without other human contact. I strongly agree with you’re statement about “being human”. You stick around, eh?
One of my favorite topics is “curves”. Show me a bell shape curve that resembles anything of this natural world, and it’ll be the first, I’ve seen. I’m about to get very deep into this topic and provide scientific evidence that popualtion decline NEVER follows this pattern.
Yes, I totally agree that living alone in the wilderness is a moot point for the human communtiy at large. Oh, oh, that’s why I’m predicting almost total extinction, here in the U.S..
Comment by yooper — 22 June 2007 @ 7:11 PM
Andy, you hang around too, eh?! I really like your posts! What Jason, does’nt know is the practical. If he did, we might be hearing a little different story here………………………
However, what Jason does have is knowledge. This is hard to come by, maybe one in a million, has the kind he has. That’s why, I’m sticking around.
I just love Kodiak Island, Alsaska! Very much, one of my favorite places in the world! This island, is a favorite study of mine. When collaspe hits, it would be very interesting if how many would be alive on this island in 6 months. This island can in fact support primitive human life. What an adventure it would be!!!!! In fact, my wife is cozied up with a Kadiak Island blanket, now… If Jason and company could only go there, perhaps, they would realize, what I mean that surviving collaspe would be like climbing Mount Everest! This island, is the size of Michigan’s Upper Peninsula, with only 19 miles of paved roads, only 89 miles of gravel road. I noticed very, very few homes outside of Kodiak, hmmmm, wonder why?
This is another fact, most people that live on the fringes of society, PERFER it that way. They have learned to adapt. To know the feelings these kind of people enjoy can ONLY be experineced. Period.
Great posts Andy!!!
Comment by yooper — 22 June 2007 @ 7:44 PM
Thanks, yooper! So you’ve been to Kodiak? I haven’t, but I’ve known people who’ve been there and have seen pictures(definately not like the real thing though).
I’ll take a guess why there aren’t many people outside the city of Kodiak; really huge bears that inhabit the island at 1 bear per square mile! The biggest bears in the world. But there’s also ALOT of blacktail deer and Roosevelt elk on the island(and always the bounty of the sea), so surviving there after collapse would probably be no harder than anywhere else, just more beautiful!
Comment by Andy — 22 June 2007 @ 8:17 PM
Why do you keep assuming that Jason has no primitive skills knowledge? You frequently talk as if you’re the only person here who’s ever even seen a forest. Just because he disagrees with you doesn’t mean he’s ignorant.
Well, in Alaska, maybe. We’re not in Alaska. We’re setting up in Pennsylvania. It’s far more liveable here.
As for your repeated claims as to how incredibly difficult it is to live in the “wilderness,” the Inuit and the !Kung would beg to differ. Human societies have thrived in even the most marginal, inhospitable environments on Earth. This whole discussion of whether or not it’s technically possible to live completely alone as a hunter-gatherer misses the point. Who ever would want to? Humans were designed for tight-knit communities; that’s what we crave, that’s the environment we operate best in. And no matter what the climate, a supportive community always makes it easier to get by.
Comment by Giulianna Lamanna — 22 June 2007 @ 8:21 PM
Yooper, I’m getting really tired of people telling me what I do and don’t know. You have no idea what I know or what my background is, so kindly stop pretending that you do.
jhereg made a great post about the legendary frontiersmen of American myth—none of whom ever lasted more than two years out in the “wilderness” by themselves.
Andy, your Alaskan trappers are still coming down to the towns to sell their furs and get new gear, so they’re not making it on their own by any stretch of the imagination. They may not have a lot of contact with the people they rely on, but they’re relying on quite a few people to help support them.
You’ll pretty much have to, because population decline always follows that pattern. So disproving known historical and ecological facts will be quite a trick.
You’re backing up your assertion that every hunter-gatherer who’s ever lived is wrong that it’s easy, and you’re right that it’s hard, by listing all the assets you have that will make it easier for you? Or do you actually think those are bad things?
And you assume I haven’t. What kind of place do you think Marienville, PA is?
Comment by Jason Godesky — 22 June 2007 @ 9:17 PM
Jason, back to you. I’m agreeing with much what you’re conveying here, naturally. Now, thinking about it for a day, you kinda caught me off guard about the bear and being on the pc on the same time…. This bear comes here often, as the dozen or so deer, two pairs of sandhill cranes, dozens of squirrels, chippies, woodchuck who’s made his home not 30 feet away from the house and hundreds of birds. Jason, you and I live completely different lives. I want to open my life up to you…………….
I was going to go into my thoughts about “depression”, this can wait. We do have time……However, this is about a much respected investigative writer, who has put his reputation on the line, predicting a “depression” in the second quater of next year……………………….I’ll go into detail about htis tomorro.
What I’d like to convey to you is my dumb mistake, that I’ve been making for years, in hopes that you’ll avoid this. I’ve noticed the Carloyn Baker headline you’ve posted, can’t wait to read it!
I read the posts on BNB for perhaps six months before I posted. This was an extremely intellectual group of people. When I introduced myself, I came on pretty much as I have here with “the prediction.”
I liken this board to a casino, very good card players, laying downs hands, around a table. The best card player left the table when I sat down and stated, “Why do I have to tell him, he must die?” This shook me to the core, never have I been asked such a question, after talking about this to literally thousands of people! I wanted to reply, “well, someone has to tell you this!”. However, this man is on the peak oil circuit, much like James Kunstler. I still, don’t have an answer to him….except see you in the woods! It was little wonder why he folded his cards and left….let me explain…
Soon, we were talking about Kunstler, and I expressed my view, that this man just does’nt, “get it”. I was attacked by just about everyone at the time. However, as I explained that Kunstler is just a writer, making a living from it, that his story has to be plausible, in order for people to “buy it”, however “water down”. In fact, Kunstler has introduced the peak oil theory better than most writers. He is introducing, Peak Oil 101, the beginers class. Most people must go through this stage before they can go deeper into this topic.
What I’m suggesting here Jason, is that you’re offering, “Peak Oil 107″, perhaps for the more advanced students. What you’re trying to convey is for a much advanced bunch of “students”, that is all.
If it were not for John, Kunstler and the like, you’d perhaps have much fewer students in your class. We’re trying to win souls here to the idea, right? I don’t like it, any better than you, but, people cannot accept the strong message we’re both conveying without being “soften” first. Remember, Hanson’s last post………..
Again, Jason, I want you to know, that I really respect what you’re doing here! My best wishes! I don’t like “smooth talk” or suger coating, it may confuse some people.
For not doing that, I actually, admire you.
For one, I cannot meet my maker, and not have told the truth, in what I actually believe. I’m not a writer, and I’m delivering my message to you and those listening ,of my own accord.
Thanks again Jason! To you and you’re whole tribe! Yooper.
Waiting to hear from other tribal members, especially, Giulianna. Please, do not be affraid of me, I’m very much like the “Grizzely Adam” type.
That goes for anyone on these posts, if you have any questions to ask me, please feel free to ask them. I’ll give the shirt of my back for anyone who asks…..Thank you all.
Comment by yooper — 22 June 2007 @ 9:54 PM
Giulianna, it’s quite simple, I know, been there, done that. It’s really simple for me to see who has’nt!!!!!!~!!!
Comment by yooper — 22 June 2007 @ 9:59 PM
Giulianna, you don’t talk to me in that matter, I take offense…I’ve been nice here. I know where the bear shits in the woods, do you?
Comment by yooper — 22 June 2007 @ 10:03 PM
Wow! maybe I’m somewhere I shoud’nt be? I’m sorry for everything…I won’t be back.
Comment by yooper — 22 June 2007 @ 10:11 PM
Andy, to answer your question, there’s no water. whoa, eh? I’ll be looing fror you elsewhere…………….
Comment by yooper — 22 June 2007 @ 10:50 PM
That’s some nerve getting all offended and storming off, yooper. You should know that the minute you start telling someone online, whom you’ve never so much as met, what they know or what they don’t know, how they’ve lived their life, and what kind of experience they have, you’ve crossed an important line.
The small, rural towns along the Allegheny National Forest’s edge that I’ve been visiting every summer weekend since I was knee-high have precisely that kind of attitude you’re talking about. I’ve stood mere feet away from deer, turkey and black bear. I’ve chopped wood, tended fires, gathered wild edibles, made poultices to treat cuts and stings, the whole shibang. As a child, I wove primitive shelters by weaving tree limbs together without even realizing what I was doing at the time. I’ve followed tracks up there since I was six, and I know where the natural springs are—that’s how we got our water. But I also don’t see much point in bragging about such basic fluency, which is why I haven’t had much to say about it. Don’t mistake silence for ignorance; as Mark Twain put it, “‘Tis better to be silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt.”
I don’t fancy myself any expert outdoorsman. I’m acutely aware of how far I still have to go. But I’ve done a hell of a lot more than you give me credit for. Now you’re going to throw a classic online temper tantrum because somebody dared to point out to you just how incredibly offensive you’re being? I think if anyone’s going to be pissed off here, it should be the one that you’ve been condescending to.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 22 June 2007 @ 11:10 PM
Jason, you seem to be annoyed of my little “Alaskan trappers” series, so I ‘ll try not to bring them up again.
In my original post (on #24), I asked you the question: What would you consider to be “alone”? That question is what that post was mainly about. Because depending on what one means by “alone”, there have been plenty of people who have done it.
In your last comment to me you said: “Andy, your Alaskan trappers are still coming down to the towns to sell their furs and get new gear, so they’re not making it on their own by any stretch of the imagination. They may not have a lot of contact with the people they rely on, but they’re relying on quite a few people to help support them.” That answered exactly what I asked you in my first post. You don’t believe the trappers were truly alone because of their reliance on civilization.
And by the way, I said essentially the same thing in my first post: “One could argue they weren’t entirely alone in that they still relied on civilization’s (and therefore other people’s) guns and boats or canoes and a few other smaller items like matches and pots for their subsistence. So what would you consider to be “alone”? For these trappers to be truly alone, I suppose, they would have to make and use their own bows and arrows, fishing nets, sleds, etc. Obviously this makes living alone much more difficult.”
So we’re actually in agreement. I don’t believe the trappers were truly alone either. So by both of our definition, even Christopher McCandless wasn’t alone (just ALMOST alone), and he still bit the dust. Kind of a moron in my book.
Comment by Andy — 23 June 2007 @ 7:23 AM
You’re right, Jason. I owe both you and Giulianna, an apology. I’m sorry. I do have quite a few character flaws, jsut ask my wife! My nature is very intimidating and abrasive. My communication skills are horrendous. Again, I’m sorry.
Jason, you just really rubbed me the wrong way on the “mountain man series”, however, I’m in agreement, with what you’re conveying here.
Is it my diseased imgination or did you not imply, that you have never attempted, say a three month period alone in the wilderness? You can’t compare your weekend camping excursions along the edge of the Allengheny National forest, to this…..This is like comparing flight on flight simulators to actual flying.
Long periods of isolation does have it’s effect on the brain, for example. One must over come these “demons” to actually survive under these conditions.
Jason, you’re right, I have no right to assume anything about you or you’re experience. From now on, I’ll just assume that you know and have experienced, such things.
Thanks, yooper.
Comment by yooper — 23 June 2007 @ 10:23 AM
My great uncle lived off the land in Kane, PA. He trapped, foraged, and had fairly extensive organic gardens…But he struggled in his 80’s to continue being self-sufficient. He no longer would take the long walks to town, so our family brought him extra foodstuff’s a few times a year.
But I was always impressed as a young child that this 80+year old man could survive with little outside help. I only wish now that he was around to pass down his knowledge now that I’m older…so much lost experience.
There are many visions for the future, and likely many variations for how things will enfold. Although I’m a fan of horticulture, I can’t see why primitivism is viewed by Greer so negatively…It’s very possible to borrow from both.
Comment by Bubba — 23 June 2007 @ 10:58 AM
Hell, I don’t see them as remotely exclusive of each other. I really think a combination of horticulture, foraging & hunting is going to be the most flexible strategy for the decade, beyond that, it’s hard to tell. Maybe some of the horticulture could slide a bit, not sure.
Comment by jhereg — 23 June 2007 @ 12:46 PM
Greer’s seemingly irrational hatred of primitivism is making more sense to me as I’ve been mulling it over recently. He is the grand poobah of a religion that cannot exist independent of agriculture. The “cyclical narrative” of so-called earth-based religions is the story of planting and harvest, and is based on Earth only to the extent that crops are dependent upon rain, sun, dirt, and summer. The sabbats are time markers signifying which agricultural activities occur at various points during the year, and their celebrations, artifacts, and deities serve the almost exclusive purpose of ensuring a successful growing season. Greer has tied his religious hierarchical position to agriculture more explicitly than possibly anyone else in the world; anything that questions the wisdom of agriculture is a direct threat to that position.
I think that is why he insists on blurring the distinctions between permaculture, horticulture, gardening, forest gardening, etc., and full-scale farming. Paganism requires planting and harvest; it is the original farming religion. If the unsustainable farming methods that gave rise to paganism must be discarded, then paganism will have to appropriate any sort of deliberate planting in order to justify its own existence. The farming liturgy and rubric must be expanded to include even the most rudimentary seed-scattering, otherwise the hierarchy collapses. Which seems to be, interestingly enough, Greer’s fundamental point of contention with the so-called “apocalypse narrative” — as long as planting occurs, pagan hierarchy, a.k.a. civilization, will continue, and there will be no apocalypse.
Primitivism also threatens Greer’s position as a matter of plain competition. People are attracted to neopagan religions, in general, because they feel inspired by nature in some way and are seeking to incorporate it more fully into their lives; and among neopaganisms, druidry has the reputation of being the most intellectually rigorous. If people below him in the religious hierarchy discover an intellectually robust way of being even closer to nature than druidry provides, his organization may dwindle. People genuinely seeking reintegration with nature have no need of an earth-based religion predicated on the separation of planting from nature, and no need of a grand poobah to govern it. I think that’s why he felt he had to silence you, Jason. The stakes are much higher for him than simply losing an online argument — for him, his blog is quite literally a pulpit from which he addresses not only the public, but also his flock. If AODA members are swayed by your arguments, his job might get outsourced to trees, rivers, birds and bears.
I also can’t help but think that there is an element of religious bigotry in Greer’s behavior. Hatred of Christianity, and southwest Asian monotheism more generally, is practically a sacrament in neopaganism. I might be reading into Greer’s writing what isn’t there, but I personally get the feeling he thinks the Judeo-Christian tradition has nothing whatsoever to offer in any circumstance or context — certainly not something so vital as the original, intended narrative for western civilization. I think it’s possible, to some degree, that he’s rejecting primitivism on the grounds that it is fundamentally Christian without recognizing that Christianity and paganism differ only in their number of deities and scales of conquest. They are essentially the same agricultural religion.
Comment by Paula — 23 June 2007 @ 1:28 PM
Hey Paula.
” Paganism requires planting and harvest; it is the original farming religion. If the unsustainable farming methods that gave rise to paganism must be discarded, then paganism will have to appropriate any sort of deliberate planting in order to justify its own existence.”
Heh. I’m one of the coordinators for Pagan Pride Day, run public rituals AND was heavily featured in a Pagan-friendly documentary.
I read your post & had to laugh.
You’re absolutely RIGHT!!!
I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard the “But I respect the Great Mother. I love Gaea and listen to all things natural” even as they continue to practice agricultural rites that have no connection to their ecosystem and perpetuate the myths of an unsustainable system (”John Barleycorn will rise again!”).
The only thing I can comment on is that animists get lumped under the ‘pagan’ blanket as well, so your comments are mostly true but not entirely true. Meh. We’re talking small word-quibbles.
I don’t know Greer specifically, but seeing that I’m going to go stomping around in his neck of the woods this August (Ashland, OR), I figure I’ll invite him down for a talk just to meet the neighbors.
Comment by Bill Maxwell — 23 June 2007 @ 11:23 PM
Whoa, whoa, whoa, Bill… calm down… that would take some planning.
Remember that Urban Scout may very well show, and there would be all sorts of vehement disagreement between Herr Peter and Der Druid… It wouldn’t surprise me at all if things came to blows… And when Willem jumps in, and Archy calls up some Ents or whatever, things could get ugly.
So, we need to make sure we sell tickets, and have a good video camera available…
Planning, my friend. Planning.
- Chuck
Comment by Chuck — 24 June 2007 @ 12:11 AM
You folks are joking right?
In nothing I read over at The Archdruid Report did I get the impression that he held any hatred for anything, not even primitivism. The entire issue seemed to be with Jason’s inability to see that he was dealing with issues a level above Jason’s crusade to turn the world to primitivism. The fact that Jason kept returning to insist that the discussion be about primitivism must have driven him off the deep end, I know it would me.
I’ve read everything Mr Greer has over there and never once has he advocated Druidry as “the way” (except perhaps in a particular article directly addressed to other druids), in fact many comments he has made indicate that he actively avoids bringing it into his writings there, so your arguments that he attacks primitivism out of some desire to save his religion are plainly groundless. Mr Greer has never advocated any particular concrete method of approaching the future over another, it is your own vested interest and fears that make you see such a thing.
As for the following statement:
Primitivism, according to the definition minted by Jason, also allows for planting and harvesting. If anyone has spent time blurring distinctions and definitions it’s the fellow so highly esteemed here who has managed to rephrase the modern understanding of all aspects of modern food production in order to cherry pick what is acceptable for his “religion” and toss the rest into the “to be denigrated” bin. This is admittedly only as far as people outside the US understand things, because everyone within the borders of the US defines things as Jason does, according to Jason, which is fair enough I guess.
If ever there was a straw man, this whole druid bashing thing is it. The entire point of Mr Greer’s objections to Jason’s posts has been missed in favour of a more useful “understanding” of events that bears little relationship to reality.
I’m not an Archdruid supporter as such, I’m not