We’ve allowed our world to be stolen by the rich and powerful, meekly accepting their confidence tricks as inevitable “progress”. Frighteningly I can only see it getting worse, the rich are so rich and the powerful so strong that we’re powerless in our silos - the cult of the individual used against us while we opine in our echo chambers.
Very good post indeed. I see this very clearly in the food system, where you can choose between >20,000 food items in a well stocked supermarket and products from all over the world. So in theory we have a enormous variety and choice available. But this globalized food system has also replaced 1000 local food system which of course together had a much bigger variety. And the global food system is homogenized and standardised and if you look closer on all those "products" you will see that most of them are just variations of a few cheap global commodities, such as wheat, corn, palm oil, soy and sugar, configured in different ways and flavored to tast Mexican, Indian, Chinese or whatever.
The late anthropologist David Graeber has argued that human history is full of different types of political and social organization - including (but not limited to) societies based on principles of equality and reciprocity. It seems as though as societies have become more technologically complex, our social possibilities have become narrower and diminished.
Beautifully written. I benefit a lot from setting up "mental composting" in my mind, because these cycles of death are so absent from our current technological domination and "machine-like" identity dissolution. Things like menstruation or hospice could be valued and spoken about. It is not impossible for us to introduce themes of death into everyday life. but puritanical undertones combined with unforgiving authoritarian settler mentalities seem to have taken people's breath away from speaking about the very things that make us human. We are valued for our ability to separate ourselves from our suffering. Capitalism is a disease on the earth whose numb participants will inevitably see the beast that Nature's chaos is about to unleash/is already unleashing. The race to ignore death while death flourishes is on.
How to solve the¤problem? Well–stated¡Olivia¿tho, I'd venture simplicity ·•ϕ sublime complexity.
Societal agreement that money¤stores ValÜΞ‴ seems to lead well-meaning individual•selfs to strive for ( ฿$ )␈civilisation-termination. As it stands, we've agreed our imagined incentives maximise our integrated efforts+resources, unfortunately resulting in making our shared foundations unavailable to others.
The very fu၁king visible hand of the market¤currency is an algorithm
leveraging imagined debt creating incentive
extracting real energy.
As a global state, we've a perception–math problem. Zero and Minus are useful and imagined to exist; disfortunately unreal; incapable of scribing value, that is valÜΞ derived over time △𝑡‴ , mirroring a relationship⧟between ΞꝚ°ꝛ•⧴perception of reality.
Humans are part of the natural world. The more we simplify it, the more we simplify ourselves. In my interview with John Gowdy in 2022, he explained that complex societies need simpler individuals, people who will fulfil roles, whereas simpler societies can allow for more complex individuals. So our human cultures is more complex, but its member humans simpler.
=end excerpt=
.
I think there's much wrong there.
.
Yes, we are part of nature, at no degree of separation. And yes, if we consider "nature" as distinct from "culture," then culture is driving nature (biodiversity) toward somewhat greater simplicity (albeit under instabilities which may result in explosions of evolutionary adaptation: a snap-back effect).
.
BUT we're not *merely* beasts of nature. Nor did we devise advanced civilization on Mars, then bring it to Earth to impose it here. Societal & cultural complexity emerged from within the world that nurtured our ancestor species, at no degree of separation: they extend and transform the complexity of that world. The eyes of a frog regarding a fly may, indeed, be those of the cosmos regarding itself as a tasty snack. But our eyes vastly extend the scope of cosmic self-awareness. (A frog doesn't have Shakespeare, much less the Internet.)
.
Advanced civilization does require people to fulfill highly specialized & diversified roles, but there's no uniform degree to which roles subsume individuals and become, effectively, their identity. It may be that some people become about as dumb as their job requires, but many (like people who read widely and think carefully) consciously embody a vast range of the complexity inherent in the culture of an advanced civilization.
.
As in society, so in nature . . .
.
The evolutionary tendency toward greater complexity of ecosystems/niches may create pressure toward ever more complex organisms, like ourselves. That DOESN'T mean that all organisms trend toward greater complexity. (Some species are relatively unchanged after hundreds of millions of years.)
.
Likewise, "simple" folks may occupy relatively stable niches, regardless what we think of the damage to their potential individual development. But advanced civilization creates niches for very highly individuated people: niches simply not available in less complex/advanced societies.
Well-considered and well said Rachel, thanks.
We’ve allowed our world to be stolen by the rich and powerful, meekly accepting their confidence tricks as inevitable “progress”. Frighteningly I can only see it getting worse, the rich are so rich and the powerful so strong that we’re powerless in our silos - the cult of the individual used against us while we opine in our echo chambers.
Thank heaven for music - and whiskey.
Very good post indeed. I see this very clearly in the food system, where you can choose between >20,000 food items in a well stocked supermarket and products from all over the world. So in theory we have a enormous variety and choice available. But this globalized food system has also replaced 1000 local food system which of course together had a much bigger variety. And the global food system is homogenized and standardised and if you look closer on all those "products" you will see that most of them are just variations of a few cheap global commodities, such as wheat, corn, palm oil, soy and sugar, configured in different ways and flavored to tast Mexican, Indian, Chinese or whatever.
The late anthropologist David Graeber has argued that human history is full of different types of political and social organization - including (but not limited to) societies based on principles of equality and reciprocity. It seems as though as societies have become more technologically complex, our social possibilities have become narrower and diminished.
Beautifully written. I benefit a lot from setting up "mental composting" in my mind, because these cycles of death are so absent from our current technological domination and "machine-like" identity dissolution. Things like menstruation or hospice could be valued and spoken about. It is not impossible for us to introduce themes of death into everyday life. but puritanical undertones combined with unforgiving authoritarian settler mentalities seem to have taken people's breath away from speaking about the very things that make us human. We are valued for our ability to separate ourselves from our suffering. Capitalism is a disease on the earth whose numb participants will inevitably see the beast that Nature's chaos is about to unleash/is already unleashing. The race to ignore death while death flourishes is on.
Sadly an accurate reflection of where we're at. Relatedly, a new academic book shows how turning everything into data is losing diversities of cultural depth and reality - https://www.adaptcentre.ie/news-and-events/trouble-with-big-data-wins-choice-outstanding-academic-title-award/?mc_cid=ce88b18ad8&mc_eid=4aca7eb6a7 and https://www.bloomsburycollections.com/monograph?docid=b-9781350239654
How to solve the¤problem? Well–stated¡Olivia¿tho, I'd venture simplicity ·•ϕ sublime complexity.
Societal agreement that money¤stores ValÜΞ‴ seems to lead well-meaning individual•selfs to strive for ( ฿$ )␈civilisation-termination. As it stands, we've agreed our imagined incentives maximise our integrated efforts+resources, unfortunately resulting in making our shared foundations unavailable to others.
The very fu၁king visible hand of the market¤currency is an algorithm
leveraging imagined debt creating incentive
extracting real energy.
As a global state, we've a perception–math problem. Zero and Minus are useful and imagined to exist; disfortunately unreal; incapable of scribing value, that is valÜΞ derived over time △𝑡‴ , mirroring a relationship⧟between ΞꝚ°ꝛ•⧴perception of reality.
=begin excerpt=
Humans are part of the natural world. The more we simplify it, the more we simplify ourselves. In my interview with John Gowdy in 2022, he explained that complex societies need simpler individuals, people who will fulfil roles, whereas simpler societies can allow for more complex individuals. So our human cultures is more complex, but its member humans simpler.
=end excerpt=
.
I think there's much wrong there.
.
Yes, we are part of nature, at no degree of separation. And yes, if we consider "nature" as distinct from "culture," then culture is driving nature (biodiversity) toward somewhat greater simplicity (albeit under instabilities which may result in explosions of evolutionary adaptation: a snap-back effect).
.
BUT we're not *merely* beasts of nature. Nor did we devise advanced civilization on Mars, then bring it to Earth to impose it here. Societal & cultural complexity emerged from within the world that nurtured our ancestor species, at no degree of separation: they extend and transform the complexity of that world. The eyes of a frog regarding a fly may, indeed, be those of the cosmos regarding itself as a tasty snack. But our eyes vastly extend the scope of cosmic self-awareness. (A frog doesn't have Shakespeare, much less the Internet.)
.
Advanced civilization does require people to fulfill highly specialized & diversified roles, but there's no uniform degree to which roles subsume individuals and become, effectively, their identity. It may be that some people become about as dumb as their job requires, but many (like people who read widely and think carefully) consciously embody a vast range of the complexity inherent in the culture of an advanced civilization.
.
As in society, so in nature . . .
.
The evolutionary tendency toward greater complexity of ecosystems/niches may create pressure toward ever more complex organisms, like ourselves. That DOESN'T mean that all organisms trend toward greater complexity. (Some species are relatively unchanged after hundreds of millions of years.)
.
Likewise, "simple" folks may occupy relatively stable niches, regardless what we think of the damage to their potential individual development. But advanced civilization creates niches for very highly individuated people: niches simply not available in less complex/advanced societies.
.
[Apologies for not proofing. Must run...]