The Thirty Theses
Special Series » The Thirty Theses
See “The Future of the Thirty” for what’s currently going on with the Thirty Theses.
- Diversity is the primary good.
- Evolution is the result of diversity.
- Humans are products of evolution.
- Human population is a function of food supply.
- Humans are neither good nor evil.
- Humans are still Pleistocene animals.
- Humans are best adapted to band life.
- Human societies are defined by their food.
- Agriculture is difficult, dangerous and unhealthy.
- Emergent elites led the Agricultural Revolution.
- Hierarchy is an unnecessary evil.
- Civilization must always grow.
- Civilization always pursues complexity.
- Complexity is subject to diminishing returns.
- We have passed the point of diminishing returns.
- Technology cannot stop collapse.
- Environmental problems may lead to collapse.
- Peak Oil may lead to collapse.
- Complexity ensures collapse.
- Collapse is an economizing process.
- Civilization makes us sick.
- Civilization has no monopoly on medicine.
- Civilization has no monopoly on knowledge.
- Civilization has no monopoly on art.
- Civilization reduces quality of life.
- Collapse is inevitable.
- Collapse increases quality of life.
- Humanity will almost certainly survive.
- It will be impossible to rebuild civilization.
- The future will be what we make of it.
What are these?
We all have basic assumptions about the world, human nature, and the relationship between the two. We are taught certain perspectives as children, and this recieved wisdom forms the common ground for communication. Ultimately, when we see the whole picture, our major disagreements are squabbles over details. Should gays be allowed to marry? We assume here a common understanding of what “marriage” means. Should we raise or lower taxes? We assume the legitimacy of government, and of taxes at all!
What happens when the disagreement occurs at an even more basic level? Like, whether or not our civilization is even a good thing?
The case is complex, but in truth no more complex than our “common ground” of unexamined, recieved wisdom. In many cases, it is much less complex. But it is different. Since forming these ideas, I have faced an increasing obstacle in communication. Unspoken, differing assumptions force me routinely to return to the same arguments again and again. So I resolved some time ago to crystalize my philosophy into a single, comprehensive work, which could from a base for further communication.
There have been several failed attempts at this, the most recent being “The Anthropik Canon.” The Thirty Theses recycles much of my previous work, but extends and elaborates on all of it, as well. This is my latest attempt to develop a comprehensive treatment of my core philosophy, reduced to thirty pronouncements which I individually defend.
You are also watching the writing of an “open source” book in real time. These will become the rough drafts to a final book version that will be published by the Tribe of Anthropik and distributed online, including through this website. Your comments, criticisms and questions about these entries will be addressed and incorporated into the final work.
Jason Godesky
Technoshaman, Tribe of Anthropik
28 July 2005
friends,
i can understand what you are trying to do - i wish you the best. these are strange days indeed.
uptown ruler
Comment by uptown ruler — 25 October 2005 @ 12:29 PM
half a lap to go!
keep on running
i cannot thank you enough for giving me so much to think about, reading material, and making the grind worth it.
Comment by Anonymous — 12 November 2005 @ 12:41 AM
The grey background - while aesthetically pleasing - causes my eyes to hurt much more than a white one when reading your thesis. I will copy and paste and read them, but a white background (or the option of the same) would be an improvement from my understanding.
Otherwise, nice site.
Comment by jane — 18 January 2006 @ 5:30 AM
You mean the margins? OK … I’m planning a redesign soon, so I’ll keep that in mind.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 18 January 2006 @ 10:45 AM
White background? that’ll make MY eyes hurt, what about making it darker?
I’m not joking either, although it must look funny
Comment by Aaron — 21 January 2006 @ 4:47 AM
Great stuff here. I have you linked at our site, as well. I think we believe much of the same thing. I have some material I want to put on the site (and I can send to you).. I am also working on an “open source” book project - great name for it, by the way. And don’t redesign! The site is so good! Heh. I found you guys via some shamanism link, an article about how some of it is crackpot or something. Keep up the great work, and talk again soon.
Comment by anonymous world citizen — 17 February 2006 @ 9:00 PM
One more thing - wanted to clarify, when I said I had material, I did mean for OUR site (NOT FOOLED) - I wouldn’t mess with your already-great structure! But I’m going to send a few things your way, just for you to check out.
Comment by anonymous world citizen — 17 February 2006 @ 9:02 PM
Heh, maybe an annoying question but: when do you think you will have the book finished Jason?
I can’t wait to get it and spread it around. Maybe I could translate it in Dutch if I find the time, although people here should be able to understand english quite well.
Comment by gunnix — 21 February 2006 @ 6:04 PM
Mid-2006, perhaps?
Comment by Jason Godesky — 21 February 2006 @ 6:06 PM
I stand in awe, man, and I look forward to digging through this. I’m sick as a dog, lying on the couch and feeding of some neighbor’s wireless….this looks like a good way to spend a day. Thanks for this.
Comment by Wombaticus Rex — 28 February 2006 @ 2:43 PM
I don’t know where it would be appropriate to post this seeking a response from the site regulars, so I thought the last entry in the the “30T” would be as good a place as any.
I just read this very pessimistic interview of scientist and author James Lovelock on global warming. Here’s a quote from it:
“Across the world, from the American Indians to the aborigines of Australia to European hunters, research is suggesting that native peoples played a key role in the burning of forests and the extinction of thousands of species. “
Jason is the anthropology answer-guy, but I would be interested in hearing what anybody around here has to say in response to this assertion by Mr. Lovelock.
Comment by Thomas Rondy — 5 September 2006 @ 12:35 PM
so I thought the last entry in the the “30T” would be as good a place as any.
As would the cover page of the same series, where I in fact ended up putting it.
Comment by Thomas Rondy — 5 September 2006 @ 12:37 PM
I wrote a response to Lovelock’s claim back when it was first circulating in advance of the publication of Gaia’s Revenge, in the form of an article with the same title: “Gaia’s Revenge.”
Comment by Jason Godesky — 5 September 2006 @ 12:50 PM
I’m glad I discovered this website. It is certainly not lacking in worthwhile reading material.
Comment by Thomas Rondy — 5 September 2006 @ 3:14 PM
Thank you!
Comment by Jason Godesky — 5 September 2006 @ 3:48 PM
Also, my own response to the specific claim about deforestation (you already answered the one about extinctions in a one of the 30T) is that while it makes me sad to think of primitive humans abusing the environment, what harm they did before agriculture was vastly exceeded by the harm they did with the implementation of totalitarian agriculture.
Hopefully a mythology will be developed by our primitive-living descendants about the devestation wraught by humans during The Time of Madness so that they know why they would be well-served not to repeat the mistake!
Comment by Thomas Rondy — 5 September 2006 @ 8:16 PM
We’re way ahead of you, man…
Comment by Giulianna Lamanna — 7 September 2006 @ 7:11 AM
I would very much like to send you an email with attachments. If at all possible please could you let me have an email address. Love, light, peace, truth, & justice.
Comment by Julie — 27 September 2006 @ 4:35 AM
Contact info is available on our author pages: me, Giuli and Mike.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 27 September 2006 @ 10:11 AM
Ha! Mr. Godesky, you’re a freakin’ smart one. I only read your post at metafilter, one thesis here, and the title to all your other 29. Don’t need to read any more, but I will.
Amazingly enough I too have come to a similar conclusion, right down to #30: the future is still unwritten.
But unfortunately, I also believe most people are either too stupid, scared, or greedy to change until it’s too late; and that their unwillingness to face reality in time to make a difference will bring every one else down with them.
Where do you see religion in all this? Seems to me if we could get rid of all the christians who are convinced jeebeshus is going to give them a new earth, the US might actually stand a chance of doing some good. As it is, we’re going to do much damage to the rest of the world while we implode…
Comment by Johanna — 1 December 2006 @ 4:43 AM
Thanks for your kind words, Johanna. Every society has its religion; it’s part of culture, and as such, it supports whatever it is that the culture needs. Check out “No One Dies For Religion.” The same applies here. The role of religion in contemporary American is not a reason, but a rationalization. It is driving forward the expanding complexity that our civilization requires to keep going. If you somehow strip away the religion but leave the civilization, the need will remain, and it will simply be replaced by some other excuse. I thought the South Park episode with Richard Dawkins was actually fairly spot-on, showing how you could just as easily use another excuse for the exact same ends. So I think that religion is a red herring. All too often, we accept the rhetoric at face value that religion is why these things are happening. But that’s not the case at all; religion is just the excuse cooked up once you’ve already decided what it is you’re going to do for entirely other reasons. Humans aren’t rational creatures—we’re rationalizing creatures.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 1 December 2006 @ 10:50 AM
Very interesting reading. I am not ready for the hunter gatherer society but I can live with and society with the civilization and technology that existed in Europe in the 1600’s. So I have been part of the SCA since 1979. It is a step in the right direction as the technology circa 1600 is pre-industrial revolution and is very much familial in most of its aspects. And while it is true that the SCA does have a hierarchy that form is far more fluid an establishment then the modern hierarchy here in America. For more information on the SCA please go to http://www.sca.org
and find out what we have been doing to create a currently available transitional society between the modern and the post collapse societies.
Thanks for reading this.
Namarie,
Cathrea
Comment by Cathrea — 28 February 2007 @ 6:47 PM
Secular humanism — boring and reminiscent of the 60s ‘doom’ movement if not downright destructive to freedom.
Sickening.
Comment by NH — 5 August 2007 @ 9:32 AM
It’s not secular humanism at all. It’s deep ecology, it’s ecopsychology, it’s systems thinking, you could even call it animism, but it’s not secular humanism. Secular humanism is all too often blatantly anti-environment, acting as if there’s a trade-off to be made between human interests, and the foundation of all human interests.
As for “the 60s ‘doom’ movement,” to quote the documentary What a Way to Go, “Remember thirty years ago, when scientists told us, ‘If we don’t do something in 30 years, we’re going to be in some serious trouble’? Well it’s now, and we are, because we didn’t.” If The Thirty Theses seems reminiscent of claims you heard back in the ’60s, it’s because for people like me who weren’t alive at the time, we now need to face the consequences of your inaction. You were the last group that had a chance to change things, but you didn’t even try. That’s why my generation now needs to come up with some way to deal with the mess you’ve left us.
If it’s any consolation, you’re only the latest generation of the past 10,000 years to pass the buck, and each time it becomes a little heavier. When you passed it on, it crossed the line into the full-blown threat of human extinction. So we can’t pass it on like you did, or your parents or your grandparents, because if we do, there won’t be a humanity left.
As for “downright destructive to freedom,” as the Thirty Theses clearly show, that is a good description of civilization. And I agree, civilization is sickening.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 6 August 2007 @ 8:48 AM
brilliant
glad I stumbled across this
Comment by jacques de beaufort — 4 May 2008 @ 8:20 PM
Good post. You make some great points that most people do not fully understand.
“The case is complex, but in truth no more complex than our “common ground” of unexamined, recieved wisdom. In many cases, it is much less complex. But it is different. Since forming these ideas, I have faced an increasing obstacle in communication. Unspoken, differing assumptions force me routinely to return to the same arguments again and again. So I resolved some time ago to crystalize my philosophy into a single, comprehensive work, which could from a base for further communication.”
I like how you explained that. Very helpful. Thanks.
Comment by Evaine — 21 May 2008 @ 9:29 AM