Ludi's links and info

by **Pops** » Sun 17 Jul 2005, 18:01:42

Welcome seeker.

This is the age of the sound byte, perhaps you might summarize...

by **Raxozanne** » Sun 17 Jul 2005, 18:02:36

Seeker wrote:I'm afraid that my (long) post on the previous page will not be read, since it was in the middle of an ongoing exchange and since it was put at the end of the page rather than the start of a new one. I think I contribute a fresh perspective on this issue to the table, and hope that everyone here will engage with me on what I've written. I apologize for its length, I know people tire of reading really long posts (especially from someone who is supposedly new to the forums, although I've spent a great deal of time here). Thanks for engaging.

Peace,
Devin

I read it and thought is was very insightful!

by **EnergySpin** » Sun 17 Jul 2005, 18:20:33

Welcome Seeker,
I read the post. I think it might be important to note, that never have be submitted technology and progress to the political process. It is that which is responsible, not "progress". If you have received a post-secondary education or at least secondary education (I'm not insulting you, people have different backgrounds) you might appreciate that civilization is many things, not just technical stuff. I am a medical doctor, with a hobbie to read stuff. The constructs of modern physics, biology, mathematics also were the product of "progress", not just all the cruelties of the centuries that preceded us.
It is important to seize the power to understand afforded by science and make the jump. Welcome to the club

To Pops:
I have tried to summarize what I think about the relationship of HGs and the relation to natural resources in page 3 of this thread :roll:

To Raxozanne
Technocracy was covered in this
It was hotly debated btw. The original view was presented by Hubbert himelf (covered in http://peakoil.com/post127585.html#127585 ) and my take on the idea of technocracy was posted here http://peakoil.com/post128669.html#128669 .
The economy of a Technocracy was covered in the following post:
http://peakoil.com/post128866.html#128866
and was hotly debated . I am still recovering from the frustration lol
PS Trying to study for exams and post on PO.com rapidly depletes my brain reserve :roll:

by **Seeker** » Sun 17 Jul 2005, 18:26:25

Pops wrote:Welcome seeker.

This is the age of the sound byte, perhaps you might summarize...

... It WAS a summary! :-D

Seriously, though, I've been looking into writing an entire book on these things, and it's hard to condense it more than I just did. I didn't even have the room to expand on any of that, and I just wrote it a little bit ago... Maybe if you give me some time, I could write an abstract for what will become the basis of my book(s)... But by then, you could have just read the post! :wink:

Let me catch up on this thread, I'm used to slower-moving forums...

Peace,
Devin

p.s. I like to go by my first name, but Seeker is fine if you're uncomfortable with that. I guess this forum is far more impersonal than other forums I've been on. (A lot larger, too, which I doubt is merely a coincidence.)

by **Pops** » Sun 17 Jul 2005, 18:41:32

Actually Devin this is probably the slowest forum here – it’s just hot outside I guess and the gardeners are loafing!

Since you won’t summarize your position could I try?

I put my money here:

“Of particular interest to me is the egalitarian and anarchic structure, the commitment to community, the ecological sustainability, and the spiritual interconnectedness these ecovillages foster.”

May I question how “egalitarian and anarchic structure” work in practice?

by **jato** » Sun 17 Jul 2005, 18:43:12

I read it too seeker. Good stuff! Perhaps you should use the material to start a new thread.

Welcome BTW.

by **Seeker** » Sun 17 Jul 2005, 19:51:48

Jato, thanks for the welcome. I'd be interested in starting a new thread with the material in it, and really, interested in writing an entire book on these topics, but it's just a matter of time and energy.

Pops -- Yeah, that's the summary!

As for your question, "How do egalitarian and anarchic structure work in practice?" I'm not sure I'm capable of answering that at the moment. I'm perfectly willing and able to expand and go into tremendous detail on the critique of civilization, but I only have a limited understanding of the alternatives. Such is the way things go, because I think a critique is necessary to effect a transition to a solution.

There are a number things that facilitate this structure -- and it's most certainly a structure, and not chaos. (One amusingly common perception of anarchy is chaos, which shows you how little we understand freedom, and how much we fear it.) One of these things is Formal Consensus, a form of unanimous egalitarian decision making. I don't really know of much else I could LINK to, really -- but I can describe the general atmosphere, and why it works.

First, there is the idea of community. Everyone knows everyone else, really knows them. One of the worst things about civilization (in my opinion) is the lack of community people have here. Community has tremendous psychological benefits, and true community is essentially egalitarian. In the absence of a hierarchy, there is no motivation for pseudo-friendships to be made on the basis of status or wealth.

All of it goes hand in hand, really. I'm not sure there is a way to separate it out and talk about it all individually. From decentralized resources (hierarchy largely depends on coercion, which is easily done with centralization), to community, to population size (and this one is important), to relative simplicity, to a lack of division of labor, to a lack of hierarchy, the whole system seems to facilitate and reinforce itself.

I feel a bit redundant with the critique of civilization in explaining WHY it works -- it works because it doesn't have hierarchy, centralization, division of labor, or the constant attempt to expand. As these things comprise civilization as I have defined it, the alternative model works simply because it is not civilization! :roll:

I guess the question is centered around the construction of another, practical alternative. Honestly, I haven't worked out much in my own life beyond the NEED for an alternative, and that there are a lot of ecovillages out there that seem to have all of the qualities that I am looking for in an alternative social structure... but that's what I'm working on, and that's exactly where I'm at. I think the real, tangible example of thousands of ecovillages (http://www.ic.org, http://gen.ecovillage.org, etc) has a lot of wisdom and practical experience to offer those of us who are looking for something to do as a solution to our problems ... that is, other than joining a forum and waiting for TPTB to solve things for us before TSHTF. :roll:

But I'm talking to myself, here, more than anyone.

Anyway, I'm not some guy who has all of the solutions to all of the problems of the world. It might seem a little unfair for me for me to criticize our current system so harshly without having a definitive proposal for a solution, I recognize this. But really, my job isn't to solve everything, or to save the world, or any of those things. None of us can do that. All I'm trying to do is look at the situation honestly, and suggest some place we might look to for helpful hints.

As such, we've got some work to do. We don't have very much time, I think, before the world situation becomes dangerously precarious. I think some constructive preparatory action is needed on all fronts. Peak Oil is real, the unsustainability of constant expansion has always been real (and amusingly, economists will debate this point!), and we're hitting some major limits. Be it complexity, the Holocene Extinction, Water Wars, Global Warming, pandemics, WWIII -- you name it, we've got it coming right up.

If not a transition out of desire, we must effect a transition out of dire necessity. And what I think we'll find is the way we were meant to live after all -- in community and in balance with the natural world.

Peace,
Devin

by **Pops** » Sun 17 Jul 2005, 20:06:47

Seeker wrote:Honestly, I haven't worked out much in my own life beyond the NEED for an alternative.

You know, I am a micro guy more than macro. I guess the idea that there is a need for alternatives (or whatever) seems to make me try to fashion one that fits me rather than talking about the problem.

I’m not trolling just stating my modus.

Seeker wrote:‘But I'm talking to myself, here, more than anyone.”

That’s cool I do it all the time.

by **Seeker** » Sun 17 Jul 2005, 21:00:08

Absolutely, which is why I've been so attracted to ecovillages. In addition to the save-the-world-ness, they seem to fit in with who I want to be and how I want to live. What's a model of social organization you would prefer? What's your alternative to civilization, or do you see civilization as being able to continue? What's the "solution" to Peak Oil you advocate? Just curious, and I'd be interested in asking the same questions to MonteQuest and a few of the other lead posters here. I have a good idea of Ludi's vision, from my interaction with her on a different forum, but I'm new here.

Are there any alternatives being offered up as solutions? I'd be really interested in discussing those. Anyway, I should probably do a search for it, but I've just not seen much other than the traditional lines of a "market solution", an alternative energy "solution", "no solution"/"personal solution", etc. Is there anything truly innovative and practical that has come up, here? Is there a chance in hell that this solution would allow this degree of centralization to continue? Is there really even a chance in hell that Our Glorious Leaders would use it? Maybe I'm cynical, maybe I'm disillusioned, but I don't think I'm unfounded in either. I have my fair share of optimism, but certainly not for a solution at a global systemic level. That, I feel, would be blind optimism.

Peace,
Devin

by **EnergySpin** » Sun 17 Jul 2005, 21:12:51

Are there any alternatives being offered up as solutions? I'd be really interested in discussing those. Anyway, I should probably do a search for it, but I've just not seen much other than the traditional lines of a "market solution", an alternative energy "solution", "no solution"/"personal solution", etc. Is there anything truly innovative and practical that has come up, here? Is there a chance in hell that this solution would allow this degree of centralization to continue? Is there really even a chance in hell that Our Glorious Leaders would use it? Maybe I'm cynical, maybe I'm disillusioned, but I don't think I'm unfounded in either. I have my fair share of optimism, but certainly not for a solution at a global systemic level. That, I feel, would be blind optimism.

Technocracy based ideas were discussed in the Forum (do not confuse this with the original movement) and Anarcho-Technocracy ideas (I'm working on expanding the original concepts by Hooton to the PO problems).

by **Seeker** » Sun 17 Jul 2005, 21:31:29

All of those questions constitute an entire package, in my mind. A solution offered has to be practical, scalable, adaptable to our culture and our systems, and accepted by the people. How many people right now are even aware of the WORD technocracy? Is it even on the minds of Our Glorious Leaders?

I won't spend my time criticizing those who think they've found a solution, because really there isn't any point and it would be terribly hypocritical for me to say that someone else doesn't have a practical solution without me having one either. But sometimes, I don't think people quite "get" what the ideas mean or what their logical conclusion is, and I'm freely and equally critical of myself in this regard. I honestly have no clue what it is like to live off the grid, because I've never done it before. But I'm certainly working on it, and I've certainly made numerous choices, purchases, plans, and thoughts toward this end.

One thing I'm not sure people recognize is that inertia is pretty powerful, both for attempts to change in our own lives and for attempts to change our systems. We seem to forget how hard it is to break our eating habits, our consumer habits, and the like. This is not something that we are going to be able to build in one weekend or even a year. It is going to take a radical, conscious, and determined effort to change our ways -- and change they must. Even with this effort, there is still the factor of time. Do we even have enough time before enough people learn about Peak Oil to start a grab for resources, a bidder war ensues, and the price spike sends our economy tanking? (No pun intended.) Call me crazy, but I just don't see a major change happening in civilization, and I think we're going to have to look elsewhere. And as I've touched on in this thread, I don't think that'd be such a bad idea...

Peace,
Devin

by **EnergySpin** » Sun 17 Jul 2005, 21:49:51

A solution offered has to be practical, scalable, adaptable to our culture and our systems, and accepted by the people. How many people right now are even aware of the WORD technocracy

There is NO magic wand solution, a paradigm shift has to take place. Once the new paradigm replaces the old, people will look back and say: "What the hell were they thinking?"
So permit to view your question as rhetorical; there is no such system.

I do think that since the first human, societies faced similar questions and had to adapt to the situation. If you think that reverting to one of the tried solutions will do, fine by me but I do not think so (different situations).
Regarding the "packagibility" of the solutions, it is a matter of opinion.
The original Technocracy movement recognised no political process.
Hooton proposed an anarcho-technocracy mix. The computer (as a machine, tool and a metaphor) will be a powerful catalyst (either guiding bombs, or change)

My opinion? A combination of direct participatory democracy (which is technically feasible because of computer networks) AND a technocratic layer will likely work. Is it going to be tried? I think it will be, most likely in the European Union, quite likely not in the US (which is sad, given the potential of this country it is not just about burgers and tan booths as Kunstler says). China will probably unfold along the lines of traditional Stalinist Communism and they will survive but at great humanitarian cost. Japan will become a Feudalist-Technocracy unless they annihilate themselves by messing with China.
Africa ... who knows, Sahara might become the de facto energy production facility for EU and the Mediterannean countries through space solar. Do not know about the rest of the continent though.
SA is the big unknown for me ... I have no experience from their culture. I have some confidence on my other predictions due to my flip floping of continents and collaborators.
Social capital will be key in restructuring .... and none of the above will happen if nukes start flying around :twisted:

by **Seeker** » Sun 17 Jul 2005, 22:13:04

EnergySpin wrote:I do think that since the first human, societies faced similar questions and had to adapt to the situation. If you think that reverting to one of the tried solutions will do, fine by me but I do not think so (different situations).

Reverting to one of the tried solutions? You mean, like, an INCREASE in complexity and its associated increases in war, technology, hierarchy, poverty, oppression, and population? Because those haven't contributed even more to our current state of affairs, they will now save us?!?!

Because that's what civilization has tried for all ~10000 years it has existed, and the problems have only gotten worse while growing larger in scale.

That's quite the faith you have there in your paradigm shift. Remember that paradigm shift brought about by Galileo and Copernicus coming up with the idea that the Earth isn't the center of the universe? Yeah, 25% of Americans seem to have a problem understanding this. Also, from a Gallup poll:

Only about a third of Americans believe that Charles Darwin's theory of evolution is a scientific theory that has been well supported by the evidence, while just as many say that it is just one of many theories and has not been supported by the evidence. The rest say they don't know enough to say. Forty-five percent of Americans also believe that God created human beings pretty much in their present form about 10,000 years ago. A third of Americans are biblical literalists who believe that the Bible is the actual word of God and is to be taken literally, word for word.

All of this is terrifically superfluous, but it's somewhat amusing to me. Let me know when your paradigm shift is effected. I'm not going to try and convince you of anything... I'll just be over here building another way.

Peace,
Devin

by **Pops** » Sun 17 Jul 2005, 22:18:21

Seeker wrote:Absolutely, which is why I've been so attracted to ecovillages. In addition to the save-the-world-ness, they seem to fit in with who I want to be and how I want to live. What's a model of social organization you would prefer?

If you were addressing that to me, my answer is:

Just like we have done in the past. No great solutions, no big plan. We will go to work and do our best; if the system is fair we’ll get our due, if not, we won’t.

Seriously, I don’t give a rip if you are a Marxist, Mennonite, Militiaman or Moonie (note the alphabetical order) I really don’t care as long as you don’t impose your will on me.

by **EnergySpin** » Sun 17 Jul 2005, 22:33:20

Reverting to one of the tried solutions? You mean, like, an INCREASE in complexity and its associated increases in war, technology, hierarchy, poverty, oppression, and population? Because those haven't contributed even more to our current state of affairs, they will now save us?!?

Tried solution was actually the Hunter Gatherer stage. And you are making (if you permit me the assessment) a logical error by not making a distinction between the various aspects of a civilization. Yes "progress" was associated with all the things that you mention, but HG societies also had infanticide, gerontocide, wars, and cannibalism as part of an adaptation mechanism as part of a package deal of harmonious living with nature. If you are willing to engage in ethical or preference judgements about any system you have to address these simple historical facts.
I think that our society did behave like early HGs and is about to revert to an "energy farming" state with renewables (wind farms and solars) and a greater undertanding of the relation between man-machine-nature.
Pops posed an interesting question that was never answered i.e. about the suitability of a HG stage when resources >> humans.

All of this is terrifically superfluous, but it's somewhat amusing to me. Let me know when your paradigm shift is effected. I'm not going to try and convince you of anything... I'll just be over here building another way

I did not make fun of you or your ideas. As I said I'm not trying to impose my ideas on anyone. I posted on this forum a theory of why the complexity was favoured over a simple HG life during history. My theory is that complexity was (and is) an adaptive mechanism. Do not worry others will be doing the same ....

by **Seeker** » Sun 17 Jul 2005, 22:38:12

Pops -- Then we're right together on this, because I don't see any big plan as being able to do a damn thing. I think that's what I've been trying to emphasize, really, although perhaps subtly.

EnergySpin -- your "anthropology", if one could call it that, is laughable at best. Your portrayal of hunter-gatherer societies is far from accurate, and hunter-gatherer societies are not a thing of the past. Where the system you mindlessly promote has not destroyed them, they are still living. The !Kung Bushmen enjoy long lives of leisure, community, and happiness, and think our way of life is positively crazy. I would tend to agree.

Anyway. I've enjoyed my stay here, and I've said most of what I need to say for now. There are plenty of links I gave in my original post for anyone to further explore the background for my ideas. Of course, you could always ask Ludi, too. I think this was her thread once? :lol:

Sorry, Ludi...

Peace,
Devin

by **okek** » Mon 18 Jul 2005, 00:07:55

Seeker, I'd like to take a shot at some of our points

<<I've been lurking here for quite a while now, after I found out about Peak Oil back in March. In my frustration with the school system, the media systems, the huge government bureaucracy, oppressive global economic schemes, the class structure of the world (2 billion chronically malnourished people, approximately two-thirds of the world living on less than $1000 a year, rich First World governments and corporations actively promoting this poverty under the guise of "humanitarian aid", etc.), global environmental disaster 15 out of 24 ecosystems in serious danger of collapse), tremendous overpopulation and now Peak Oil... I began to look for the root cause of all of these problems. As someone who has continually sought fundamental solutions rather than patchwork ones (most, if not all, political movements are pathetically ineffective), I began to look for some patterns throughout history. >>

Patterns are a good place to start.

<<Unfortunately, history never seemed to show what the problem was, and so in my examination of the world throughout history I never seemed to quite get at the source. All of it had been staring me in the face the whole time -- imperialism, the conquering of the native populations, the constant expansion of nations over time, industrialization, and so on and so forth. But where was the common link? What was the common thread? I couldn't seem to put my finger on it, and in the meantime, all of the problems were simply growing worse. >>

Problems tend to do that.

<<As some of the most difficult things to see are, the answer I have found after extensive reading was pretty much plain to see -- the conditioning of our culture is so strong that "the truth" doesn't even need to be hidden. It's just one of those things that people are taught not to be able to see. The answer, the cause of all of these problems was something that couldn't be fixed, was something that was necessarily unquestioned, and so we simply couldn't see it for what it was: civilization. >>

So, you think civilization is the cause of all ills. Who knew. Civilized behaviour and such. Please and thank you. Good manners. I know, it's deeper ...

<<Give me a break, right? Civilization is not the cause of our problems, civilization is Man's Greatest Accomplishment! It saves us from toil, it protects the Good from the Evil, the Civil from the Savages, the Tame from the Wild Beast of Nature. The Wonders of the World are plain to see, in all of our human accomplishments! Technology, Huge Cities full of lights, fast cars, and now even the Internet! Questioning something so Wondrous and Dreamy and Fantastic couldn't possibly be accurate... could it? I mean, you can't be serious, right? ... Right?? >>

Civilization isn't the cause, it's the symptoms that are out of control. Symptoms like conspictuous consumption and the like (which encompass huge cities, fast cars and the internet).

<<It's overwhelmingly clear to anyone who has ever been a part of this culture that one of the constant messages blared at us is that WE are at the Pinnacle of Human Progress. Glory to God, Glory to Our Country, Glory to Progress. But here is where it all starts to fall apart. >>

Blind adulation to false prophets...

<<What is progress? Does it include war, and poverty, and the overwhelming destruction of our ecosystems? Those arguing for civilization become somewhat uneasy, here. "Well, um, these things are necessary for Progress! Just look at where we've gone in the past 100 years!" Quietly I remind them that wars have killed more people in the 20th century than in all other centuries combined, and that the number of poor, the number of the starving, and the number of the oppressed has risen along with our ballooning population levels. "Well, all of that stuff is terrible, it really is. But it's unavoidable if our wonderful way of life is to continue." If the conversation is not over by now, I quietly remind people that most people aren't really happy in this world... that most people are completely unsatisfied with their lives, and that we spend our lives escaping our problems -- through addictions to TV, technology, money, material wealth (consumerism), drugs, alcohol, crime, work, pornography, sports, political power, books, religion, and so on and so forth. Are these things progress? Is "progress" truly going to be defined as the development of ever better ways to waste our lives? >>

Here's where your pov crumbles.

War, poverty and progress will always exist in various forms. You seem to be focused on *western* progress as opposed to others lack of progress. Fundamentally, it isn't the western world's fault that others are poor, much as you would like it to be. But rather the fault of each country it's ownself. It is not the fault of prosperous countries that others live in abject poverty but rather the fault of their own corrupt, self interested governments. Let's call a spade a spade shall we, rather than call it a *garden tool*.

If people spend their time addicted to various substances or trying to escape preconcieved, media suggested problems that is their own problem. Certainly none of these things are progress unless we buy into them based on what the advertisers tell us is progress. Sadly, most people really do buy into it.

<<Many people will splutter at this, and just end the conversation. The thoughts of our unhappiness are simply too threatening to our comfortably addicted minds and bodies. I often don't even get this far with people. But if you're able to stay with me, here, rather than dismissing me offhand, you'll see that I'm on to something. Perhaps we really HAVE been lied to all of our lives? Perhaps these things we have in our lives, now, aren't exactly making us happy? What, then, truly, is happiness? What do you, personally, WANT in life? Most people have a really difficult time answering these questions, and they often resort to an answer of self-defense: "Well, I am happy with what I have." >>

Well, perhaps only if they are truly unhappy. Lots of us are happy and don't really appreciated being told we shouldn't be, that in fact we should be profoundly unhappy. Some of us will take that to heart and become addicted, don'tchaknow.

I absolutely have stayed with you and think you have some good thoughts. I don't agree with most of what you said (and rebutted best as I could given the family interruptions here).

<<Maybe you are happy. Maybe you're one of the rarest minorities on the planet, someone who is actually, truly, completely satisfied and fulfilled by the workings of our industrial civilization. If you are one out of millions that is perfectly adapted to the life of constant distraction and destruction, and is completely fulfilled and content during news of war, genocide, poverty, oppression, then I really am completely okay with that. If you are one out of the millions that is okay with wage slavery, the funneling of wealth toward the super-rich elite, then I'm okay with that too. There is no one right way, after all, and so I wish you well in life. But I submit that the rest of us, the overwhelming majority of us humans -- perhaps those billions who are caught in the horrific cycle of it even as I write this, perhaps those without another choice, who have no other option to live within civilization's boundaries or else die of starvation -- I don't think we're very happy. >>

I have happy on balance. And am happy to say so. I know others aren't as fortunate as me and mine. Doesn't take away from my happiness.

T<<his, of course, is only one angle of it all -- the happiness angle. I could come from a personal freedom angle, or the angle of community, or the angle of sustainability, or the angle of history, or the angle of my personal experience of building houses for the middle-class in Honduras. (We don't build houses for the poorest ones, they're already dead.) I can talk about Peak Oil, and I can talk about war, and genocide, and slavery, and capitalism. The fact of the matter is, civilization is an absolute tragedy, and we've all been trapped in it. Every single one of us here, typing on the internet, we have "benefitted" from the tragically oppressive systems civilization uses to sustain itself. >>

THere are certainly aspect of civilization that are abhorrent, others aren't. Humans have over the years picked and chosen. What we have now is what we ended up with based on trial and error by former people. We can change it perhaps or not depending on what the majority wants. THe majority really does always prevail, like it or not. Civilization is what it is now but has been many other things over the years, not always bad. Civilized nowadays means courteous, respectful and responsible. The terms has evolved it appears and for the good imo.

S<<o what exactly IS civilization? Civilization is one of those ambiguously defined terms, and so I've provided a link for the working definition I use. Obviously I do not accept civilization in the traditional frame it is viewed in, that of an accomplishment. Primarily, I see civilization as a feedback loop of multiple other feedback loops -- centralization, hierarchy, agriculture, division of labor, and complexity, all leading to civilization's insipid constant expansion. As isolated terms, these things do not appear particularly evil or negative. But we have seen the devastating effects of these too many times throughout history. There is quite the laundry list of horrors that "civilized" people have created and continue to create. We've questioned the "progress" of civilization, and now we must look at the suffering this supposed progress has created. Starting from the beginning -- disease, a shorter lifespan for all but the elite, ecological destruction, slavery, wars, religious persecution, genocide, systematic cultural extermination, the Crusades, the Inquisition, gender inequities, rigid class systems, more wars (but with better technology and more people, so there is even MORE devastation!), child labor, sweatshops, pollution, MASS extinction of nonhuman species, poverty, poverty beyond imagination... the list is tremendously long, and the horrors are real. And all for the comfort of the elite, all for the expansion of a way of life, most of it in the name of God. >>

One of the benefits of modern western civilization has been the curtailment of many of the ills you speak of. Organized labor, laws, legizlation and the like have rendered many of the issues you speak of mute in the (legal) western world. It is only in the uncivilized parts of the world the issues you speak of run rampant.

<<As with Peak Oil, the majority of people who this (short and general) critique phases ask the question: so what can we do? Looking at what existed before civilization, egalitarian societies that lived in ecological balance with the Earth, can give us some ideas. But it's not a practical solution for most of us, requiring a population density of several hundred times less than what we currently "sustain" on this planet. Interestingly, Peak Oil could return us rather quickly to our carrying capacity, as an overwhelming percentage of our food production and distribution is derived either directly from oil or the economy based on oil.>>

Here you could be right. Who can say? All theories are up in the air at this point.

<<But a crash doesn't ensure happiness, or the development of hunter-gatherer tribes. The suggestion is laughable -- who among us has the knowledge, skill, land area, and supportive community for such an endeavor? So what can we do to build another way of life, and preferably one that combats the issues briefly described above? Numerous authors have written extensive critiques of civilization (even Heinberg wrote one, who some of you will know from The Community Solution), but very few have offered up any kind of solution for what we can DO. (Heinberg is a refreshing exception to this.) >>

THe genie can't be put back in the bottle. Technology has given us abilities we will be loathe to give up and we (as humans) will find ways to adapt. I have a hard time envisioning human beings just laying down and giving up. We will find new ways to do things.

<<I'm also somewhat guilty of my exploration of the problem, rather than the solution. But from my understanding of authors such as Daniel Quinn, and a selection of the various authors on the Primitivism website the tribal model (that of sustainable egalitarian community) seems to offer up a significant improvement over the toil, unhappiness, unsustainability, and oppression of industrial civilization. This does not mean a return to hunter-gatherers, we've already seen that this is geographically (and culturally -- we'd die in two weeks or less) impossible. And still the question remains -- sure, sure, we can see that egalitarian communities offer a tremendous improvement to our society, but what can we do to create them? >>

I'm not sure true egalitarian communities can exist because they would be taken over by more aggressive type tribes. Simple survival of the fittest theory.

<<Obviously, decentralization of basic resources comes first. Quinn refers to this as "unlocking the food" -- basically, ensuring that civilization does not have control over your food and water supply. There are several models for doing this... hunting and gathering one of them... but the most practical ideas (Permaculture, the natural methods of Fukuoka) have already been discussed at length on the Planning for the Future subforum.>>

Well, I think the plain english version of this is that people will backyard garden more and start sharing and bartering and working with their neighbors more. But you already knew that

<<But beyond this, the social structure of our alternative systems is of crucial importance. It's quite obvious that people are not able to survive without some system of interdependency. But what is that going to look like? Here is where the usefulness of the model of egalitarian community REALLY comes into the picture. Not wanting to recreate the problems the social structure of civilization has created, we can look to the other models as shown us through anthropology -- i.e. hunter-gatherer tribes of the past. >>

But there will still be leaders and followers. That's just human nature. Sure, the followers will provide something of value but they will still be followers. And there will still be other, more aggressive groups that will want to take what the more passive groups have.

<<There is also another, more tangible alternative, thousands of which are already built, around the world -- ecovillages. These communities and villages are remarkably diverse (and importantly, all over the globe) and provide anyone who is trying to build an alternative to civilization with many examples for exploration and study. Of particular interest to me is the egalitarian and anarchic structure, the commitment to community, the ecological sustainability, and the spiritual interconnectedness these ecovillages foster. They are a place to "ride out" Peak Oil, to cultivate a sense of self and belonging, to overcome our "civilized" neuroses, and to work on building our visions for sustainability. A network of these (described as Rhizome in A Theory of Power) would be able to provide for the needs and desires of all those within. >>

Ecovillages. How nice and pc that sounds. And, how utterly impactical given today's social and economic climate and just plain human nature. Nice try, though if you're looking for venture capital.

Sylvia

by **Macsporan** » Mon 18 Jul 2005, 05:37:04

As a tedious little man with an interest in History I would like to point out that something like 90% of the American Indians from Hudson Bay to Terra del Fuego were exterminated like rabbits by European diseases within 50 years of Columbus, without Europeans even going to where they lived.

By the time North American was settled populations were only one tenth of what they were. All that"Last of the Mohicans" crowd were the shattered, decimated remnants of what had earlier existed.

But for this phenomenom that enabled settlers to walk virtually unopposed into empty space the Indians would have been able to give the settlers quite a run for their money, especially when they got hold of guns and horses.

Imagine King Phillips War, for instance, with ten times the number of Indians fighting, or the Seven Years War.

An interesting parallel might be South Africa where the natives didn't obligingly curl up there toes and perish when the Great White Masters turned up.

Had it not been for this disease holocaust the tribal societies might have fought the settlers to a standstill for all their superior weapons, and people would be a lot less patronising about them today.

by **Antimatter** » Mon 18 Jul 2005, 07:48:24

What happens to the 'excess' 6 billion plus people that have to croak out so you can have enough space to run around chasing dinner with a spear?

I know thats a rather confrontational way of saying it, but the primitivists tend to skirt around this minor problem (ie they are all going to die anyway, so why bother, hence it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy).

by **Seeker** » Mon 18 Jul 2005, 10:16:49

It's amusing to me how most of the arguments here are so TYPICAL. Pardon my amusement, of course, but I gathered that the responses would be as such. The culture has come up with multiple defenses -- the idea of progress, that evolution is a pyramid with humans at the top, that humans are somehow an exception to the Laws of Life, the complete non-sequitur that we can't go back to another way of life, the OTHER complete non-sequitur that the solution proposed by primitivists (who here is a primitivist? me? are you kidding?) won't work for 6 billion people (well, um, duh, no way of life works for 6 billion people, even with our "industrial wonders" we're facing a reduction in carrying capacity on the order of billions of people), the human nature as inherently bad and as something to overcome, the whole barrage of arguments about the problems of hunter-gatherer tribes (as if this makes a difference? can we not learn from their social structure?), and the whole barrage of defenses of civilization.

I'm not even going to try to counter all of these ignorant and irrelevant arguments, but what I'd like to explore is the resistance shown here. What do you have to lose by examining another way of life? So what if it turns out to be better? You don't have to change a goddamn thing, and no one is going to take away your comfortable addictions.

The entire point of this thread was an attempt to explore another social organization, one that we "civilized" imbeciles could stand to learn from. The approaching collapse of our ecosystems doesn't have to bother you, nor does Peak Oil, nor Global Warming, nor Water Wars... but it does bother me, and I would like to spend my time working on a fundamental solution to the problem rather than scaling it back.

But why am I wasting my time, the elite who spend overwhelming amounts of their time on the internet (does this make you happy?) or playing with their elite toys are not my target audience. My target audience is the oppressed, the ones who none of us see or want to see. You have every right to ignore this post, and this thread, if the mere discussion of another way of life, is threatening to your ego. If I recall correctly, the title of this thread was Social Organization... maybe after this you will be able to stay on topic.

Does anyone have ANY issues with examining a small, egalitarian (non-hierarchical), community-centered way of life? One that eliminates class issues like poverty (which is always relative), allows for gender equity, and allows for self-actualization? Because I've offered a couple examples for study, hunter-gatherer tribes and ecovillages.

And I've clearly demonstrated some reasons WHY we should examine these... does anyone have any problems with those reasons? Is anyone going to sit here and tell me that civilization doesn't have some pretty major problems? Is anyone really that blind?? That deluded by "conventional wisdom"??

Let me know.

Peace,
Devin

Ludi's links and info

Who is online