Musing at the end of time

[Ferrus]

In any event I am no lover of modernity, I honestly think the pre industrial world was a far better place for the most part and would far rather the industrial revolution had not happened.
I suppose the chief disadvantage of it was that the majority of people were tied to food production, which was a destruction of human potential in some ways, insomuch as without the industrial revolution there was little by way of academia (the universities of the time were chiefly for training priests) or business and commerce. Even the wealthy were usually tied to specific social and religious roles.

[djm]

I suppose the chief disadvantage of it was that the majority of people were tied to food production, which was a destruction of human potential in some ways, insomuch as without the industrial revolution there was little by way of academia (the universities of the time were chiefly for training priests) or business and commerce. Even the wealthy were usually tied to specific social and religious roles.

On the contrary I would regard that as the major advantage. The population was kept at a level that the land could naturally sustain without recourse to completely unsustainable practice. Allied to this all other resource depletion was pegged back with this lower human head count and the inability to over-exploit resources.

The separation of toil from sustenance for the 'many', coupled with mass production allowing the 'many' to benefit from the wit of the 'few' on hitherto unimaginable levels has created what is likely to be the downfall of mankind. Allowing people to benefit from things without them actually understanding the consequences is a very dangerous thing when magnified to such a large level by mass production.

[MacGuffin]

So we should keep sustenance farmers where they are right now?

Thread split!

[djm]

So we should keep sustenance farmers where they are right now?

Thread split!

No as there is actually plenty of scope for them to have improved lifestyle and productivity without recourse to the unsustainable methods that have historically been employed in the industrialised world.

Rather it is the non-subsistence farming in the west and the bloated society it has created which needs a serious rethink. It actually makes the third world more poor, sucking away it's food and natural resources to a ludicrous level based on having an overblown global populace due to use of fossil fuels generating nitrogen and widespread use of chemical poisons.

[Ferrus]

On the contrary I would regard that as the major advantage.
I agree of course, but the issue I was trying to get at is - any attempt to return to that is collectively beneficial but individually often disadvantageous. After all - would you been personally happy with an economic system that could likely have condemned you to be a peasant rather than a scientist? Even the wit of the 'few' - the early entrepreneurs I mean that galvanised the industrial revolution - only had the capacity to be expressed when there was sufficient capital circulating as a result of the agricultural surpluses of the 18th century, which were themselves, if I remember my economic history correctly (it has been a little while), chiefly the result of the entrenched British squirearchy of hereditary yeomen slowly adopting new agricultural techniques. And of course, professional scientists are a by-product of the industrial revolution themselves. And, in truth, my impression from history is that many of the 'few' who did invent these things often were not fully aware of the consequences of their own work either, both scientifically and socially. People do, as a whole, have visions of the world sharply circumscribed by the enviroment and social conditioning, even the most intelligent, and the most deep rooted of these influences are often the ones we are least able to see.

I don't know, I often feel this is part of the reason we have ended up where we have. It is a classic game-theoretic situation where what is beneficial for one individual acting in their own interest, becomes disastrously opposed to everyone's self interest when acted upon en masse. Smith's invisible hand in reverse as it were. Personally - the more I observe human society the more I see threads of these clashes between collective and individual interest emerge. It is maybe a product, I sometime wonder, of our evolution, that we are half way between invidualistic animals and social animals. We have, on the one hand, become sufficiently social to work together. But we have no evolved sufficiently that people will instinctively act against their own interests for the sake of the group at large, as say will an ant or even, to a lesser degree, a wolf. Human intelligence is mismatched severely with our capacity to organise ourselves, and our whole evolutionary psychology has been geared towards short-term decision making over long-term planning.


It actually makes the third world more poor
In terms of lifestyle and general well being, much of Africa was, I think, best suited to traditional pre-agricultural tribal societies such as existed there.

Oh... poetry:

Song on the End of the World by Czeslaw Milosz

On the day the world ends
A bee circles a clover,
A Fisherman mends a glimmering net.
Happy porpoises jump in the sea,
By the rainspout young sparrows are playing
And the snake is gold-skinned as it it should always be.

On the day the world ends
Women walk through fields under their umbrellas
A drunkard grows sleepy at the edge of a lawn,
Vegetable peddlers shout in the street
And a yellow-sailed boat comes nearer the island,
The voice of a violin lasts in the air
And leads into a starry night.

And those who expected lightning and thunder
Are disappointed.
And those who expected signs and archangels' trumps
Do not believe it is happening now.
As long as the sun and the moon are above,
As long as the bumblebee visits a rose
As long as rosy infants are born
No one believes it is happening now.

Only a white-haired old man, who would be a prophet,
Yet is not a prophet, for he's much too busy,
Repeats while he binds his tomatoes:
No other end of the world there will be,
No other end of the world there will be.

[djm]

I agree of course, but the issue I was trying to get at is - any attempt to return to that is collectively beneficial but individually often disadvantageous. After all - would you been personally happy with an economic system that could likely have condemned you to be a peasant rather than a scientist?

I doubt someone with my mindset would ever be happy with their lot, but that's a moot point.

You are of course right that what is good for the whole is not always pleasant for the parts. The difference though is that without industrialism the masses can not have enough of anything to permanently damage the earths fabric so much as to destroy our ecosystem. They starve before the get so populous.

Of course it will not happen by human will, as we lack the will to do what's best for us. But nature will out, sooner or later the human population will collapse. The bigger we are the harder will be the fall.

If industrialism had not occurred then I personally believe that humankind could have evolved a more socialistic mode of living. Technology without the mass production, would have fostered this. Communism decoupled from mass production makes a deal more sense, but when allied to 'a means of production' it becomes monstrous.


Even the wit of the 'few' - the early entrepreneurs I mean that galvanised the industrial revolution - only had the capacity to be expressed when there was sufficient capital circulating as a result of the agricultural surpluses of the 18th century, which were themselves, if I remember my economic history correctly (it has been a little while), chiefly the result of the entrenched British squirearchy of hereditary yeomen slowly adopting new agricultural techniques.

Yes, but what good have these people done anyway? People are never happy with their lot once they see that there is more available. What kept things stable was the certitude of there being nothing more available, when that was the case people imbibed their simple pleasures, and trudged through life accordingly. The odd person broke out into the elite, and the odd person fell out of the elite but the pace of life was rarely so great that the odd Malthusian check could not keep on top of things.


And of course, professional scientists are a by-product of the industrial revolution themselves. And, in truth, my impression from history is that many of the 'few' who did invent these things often were not fully aware of the consequences of their own work either, both scientifically and socially. People do, as a whole, have visions of the world sharply circumscribed by the enviroment and social conditioning, even the most intelligent, and the most deep rooted of these influences are often the ones we are least able to see.

Therein lies my antipathy towards technological progress. Whilst the elite concentrated on matters philosophical and on pursuit of higher things through art - society could never over-stretch itself. The masses could never destroy the fabric of the world, could never take enough to cause damage.

The moment commerce led to pursuit of matters technical, was the moment all that is best in humanity was cast asunder with reckless abandon. Sure it has benefitted individuals (mostly people like myself) and even the masses for a few generations - but at what cost? People are too weak to put aside an easy gain in lifestyle for the good of our planet and for the good of their species, or even for the good of their own descendants (past a couple of generations). Even now when it is obvious to all but the most cravenly stupid that we are spiraling down the metaphorical toilet bowl, society will not galvanise itself into preventing it. I wont either for that matter, I will continue to drive a car, to eat food that is imported, to consume electricity on frivolities such as INTPc, I am just as flawed as the rest of us.

The industrial revolution was the greatest catastrophe ever to befall the earth. Technology has given godlike power to a species that does not have the intellect, or collective spirit not to misuse it. It is little different to a nuclear detonator being given to a chimp in Dudley zoo in the great scheme of things.


I don't know, I often feel this is part of the reason we have ended up where we have. It is a classic game-theoretic situation where what is beneficial for one individual acting in their own interest, becomes disastrously opposed to everyone's self interest when acted upon en masse. Smith's invisible hand in reverse as it were. Personally - the more I observe human society the more I see threads of these clashes between collective and individual interest emerge. It is maybe a product, I sometime wonder, of our evolution, that we are half way between invidualistic animals and social animals. We have, on the one hand, become sufficiently social to work together. But we have no evolved sufficiently that people will instinctively act against their own interests for the sake of the group at large, as say will an ant or even, to a lesser degree, a wolf. Human intelligence is mismatched severely with our capacity to organise ourselves, and our whole evolutionary psychology has been geared towards short-term decision making over long-term planning.

I don't disagree with any of that.



In terms of lifestyle and general well being, much of Africa was, I think, best suited to traditional pre-agricultural tribal societies such as existed there.

Quite - but you can't put the genie back in the bottle.


Oh... poetry:

Song on the End of the World by Czeslaw Milosz

The sentiment there is not dissimilar to that most marvelous miserablist work of TS Eliot's - or at least it's ending in any event.

The Hollow Men

Mistah Kurtz—he dead.

A penny for the Old Guy

I

We are the hollow men
We are the stuffed men
Leaning together
Headpiece filled with straw. Alas!
Our dried voices, when
We whisper together
Are quiet and meaningless
As wind in dry grass
Or rats’ feet over broken glass
In our dry cellar

Shape without form, shade without colour,
Paralysed force, gesture without motion;

Those who have crossed
With direct eyes, to death’s other Kingdom
Remember us—if at all—not as lost
Violent souls, but only
As the hollow men
The stuffed men.

II

Eyes I dare not meet in dreams
In death’s dream kingdom
These do not appear:
There, the eyes are
Sunlight on a broken column
There, is a tree swinging
And voices are
In the wind’s singing
More distant and more solemn
Than a fading star.

Let me be no nearer
In death’s dream kingdom
Let me also wear
Such deliberate disguises
Rat’s coat, crowskin, crossed staves
In a field
Behaving as the wind behaves
No nearer—

Not that final meeting
In the twilight kingdom

III

This is the dead land
This is cactus land
Here the stone images
Are raised, here they receive
The supplication of a dead man’s hand
Under the twinkle of a fading star.

Is it like this
In death’s other kingdom
Waking alone
At the hour when we are
Trembling with tenderness
Lips that would kiss
Form prayers to broken stone.

IV

The eyes are not here
There are no eyes here
In this valley of dying stars
In this hollow valley
This broken jaw of our lost kingdoms

In this last of meeting places
We grope together
And avoid speech
Gathered on this beach of the tumid river

Sightless, unless
The eyes reappear
As the perpetual star
Multifoliate rose
Of death’s twilight kingdom
The hope only
Of empty men.

V

Here we go round the prickly pear
Prickly pear prickly pear
Here we go round the prickly pear
At five o’clock in the morning.

Between the idea
And the reality
Between the motion
And the act
Falls the Shadow
For Thine is the Kingdom

Between the conception
And the creation
Between the emotion
And the response
Falls the Shadow
Life is very long

Between the desire
And the spasm
Between the potency
And the existence
Between the essence
And the descent
Falls the Shadow
For Thine is the Kingdom

For Thine is
Life is
For Thine is the

This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
Not with a bang but a whimper.

[Ferrus]

After what you said I have meditated on some of this. I noticed you displayed self-honest. It is one of those old fashioned virtues mentioned before that is sadly lacking in the world today, as it always was, and yet especially today. It is the fundamental dishonesty to the truth of what one is that, for example, leads me to despise so much of the 'celebrity' culture we have, quite apart from the philistinism. I can't help but remember a quote from Brother's Karazamov:

'Above all, do not lie to yourself. A man who lies to himself and listens to his own lie comes to a point where he does not discern any truth either in himself or anywhere around him, and thus falls into disrespect towards himself and others. Not respecting anyone, he ceases to love, and having no love, he gives himself up to the passions and coarse pleasures, in order to occupy and amuse himself, and in his vices reaches complete bestiality, and it all comes from lying continually to others and to himself.'

Humanity has lied to itself about what it really is over the centuries. The essence in it is the oft quoted assertion that somehow we are not animals. In a strange way, the creedo of science and engineering conquering all - albeit a vision most strongly connected to before the second world war - was a form of Protestant exhaltation of the human subjet to the near divine. As tenuous as it may sound - Hegel noticed this too - Luther forcibly demanded each individual was like a small god unto themselves, capable of their own salvation. It is no coincidence that, soon after, modern philosophy and science is originated by Descartes upon Luther's principals - cogito ergo sum is the expression of the power of the human mind to rationally determine all about it. And of course these beliefs were validated by the great scientific revolution of the late 17th and early 18th century. The world wars did destroy some of our faith in the perfect rationalisability of the human, but the economic system it spawned was too closely wed to our self-perceptions, that we now desperately cling to it. Because now, it defines us, even as it is destroying us. Which is why Marx was only partially right in his theory of alienation. Medieval peasants were more closely psychologically linked to their work, and they did live in proto-socialistic manner outside the very small cities - which is no surprise - humans will be inclined to work as a group typically only to people they know and upon whom their mutual survival depnds, not an abstract mass of faceless individuals the modern nation state presents them. Industrial work does alienate us from the products of our own hands as he claimed, and deny of some of positive fruits of labour. But in our own ways, we have somehow come to see out material possesions within modern industrial society as being our Lockean fruits - look at the cult of homeownership in England.

I think, to some degree - lying to oneself is an inherent psychological instinct (http://polynomial.me.uk/2010/06/22/why-deception-is-our-way-of-life/). That link I think gives good reasons why humans are so self-deceiving. Becuase in many ways the very egos with which we affix the 'I' to ourselves are fragile fictions built from the ideas we form in our existence with the natural world and with human society. And it is, to a large extent purely a manner of neurology - a neurology that creates a veil that is like a prison of our actions, we have a personal model of reality in our head that is a) misleading towards self-interested action of the sort we have not evolved to be capable of and b) make it extremely hard for people to change fundamentally their patterns of thinking after they have been socialised. I do think freewill - at least radical versions that are not compatabilist arguments are based on one of these grand self-lies undergirding the structure of human self-consciousness.

And yes, I fundamentally agree with the corrosiveness of technology and humanities underdeveloped capacity to use it sensibly. It reminds me of the cartoonist (probably the greatest British political cartoonist although that is debatable) David Low the day after the first atomic bomb was dropped, in a different context but a similar sentiment:

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/2WWpotsdam.JPG

'Baby play with a nice ball'

Heh.

[Architectonic]

I wont either for that matter, I will continue to drive a car, to eat food that is imported, to consume electricity on frivolities such as INTPc, I am just as flawed as the rest of us.


'Above all, do not lie to yourself.

Accepting the aforementioned contradictions is lying to yourself. I do it too and it is a real problem. Ok so we can't put the genie back into the problem, but how do we move on and how do we avoid catastrophic mistakes as we are about to open a dozen new cans of worms in the next few centuries?