There are seven reasons why I think that a collectively shared agriculture is a good idea. First, if we accept that a local economy is something to strive for (see Wendell Berry, Vandana Shiva, E.F Schumacher and myself among many for arguments pro a local economy) then there are still a few possibilities as to how to do it. There are those who believe that we should all follow our own bliss and everything will work out. That is, if everyone just does what they like and what they are good at, everyone's needs will be met. This is based on a myth that has taken over the imagination of most in this culture. It is a beautiful myth and it makes people feel good, but it is only partially true. It works for a few privileged people in the heart of the empire (but not most), and not for most of the world. The more cheap energy and resources are available to the west, the more "bliss work", i.e. luxury service work can be supported. But most people have to do non-bliss work, both in the west and the third world in the present global economy (the few people whose bliss is to farm and build are exceptions to the general rule that most people's bliss work is not hard physical labor, though hard physical labor can be fun for all in moderation and/or when shared). If energy and resources dwindle in supply, this will be even more true. And similarly, in a local economy that is not subsidized by exploitation of other parts of the world or theft from the future (in terms of non-renewable resources and debt that needs to be repaid in real energy), there is a significant amount of energy that needs to be spent on basic needs. Dividing that work roughly equally amongst all able-bodied people makes it more equitable. In this basic needs economy, there is room for some specialization, so not everyone has to make clothes, build make/maintain tools and do healthcare, but since the majority of labor will be agriculture, most people will have to do some agriculture to achieve an equitable number of hours worked.
Second, a gift economy for basic needs is unstable. It assumes that people who are toiling hard to provide basic needs are going to provide them for everyone out of love all the time. Those who are providing luxuries and not necessities are in a precarious position, dependent on the constant good will of the others to eat and to have shelter. Much better to have a less utopian vision of human nature and have everyone responsible for their basic needs collectively. That way, a gift economy for the "spice of life" can be on a firm foundation. People can follow their bliss knowing that with a bit of work on the foundation, they will be fed, sheltered, clothed, educated, and cared for when sick, old or very young. This is where specialization, trade and diversity of avocations and wants can flourish.
Third, working together on something that everyone needs and most can do, is more fun than working alone, and brings people together providing a basis for local culture.
Fourth, if one can produce one's basic needs oneself, one is harder to control. In the present culture, it is not the farmers who control people, but the market/corporations/media and a few wealthy folks who own the means of production. In a local economy where the farmers produce food for everyone and the builders and handypersons build and maintain shelter for everyone, it is they who accumulate power and can ultimately control everyone else. This is already starting to happen at Earthaven, where the farmers are getting private leases, except that the global food market is still competing with them so their power is still limited. To ensure freedom for individuals, they must be co-owners of the means of production, and not leave it to proxies, whether they are corporations, governments, wealthy landowners and industrialists, or farmers.
Fifth, the "follow your own bliss" myth is ultimately too egotistical. There is spiritual value in doing something that may not be your favorite thing, but that is helping others and needs to be done.
Sixth, shared agricultural work levels class distinctions that arise when some people do the hard manual labor and others do only intellectual work and easy manual labor.
Seventh, a shared agriculture, just like shared shelter and kitchen does with heating, storage, washing and materials, creates an efficiency of shared tools and if there are enough people, a labor pool able to respond to peak labor times (such as digging and harvest of field crops).
Note that only the third, fifth and seventh reasons argue for collectivization, whereas the other ones leave open the possibility of individual/family homesteads. There are some disadvantages to collectivization such as difficulty to coordinate people that might be traded off for these reasons (3 5 and 7).
Monday, June 8, 2009
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Male privilege checklist
Based on Peggy McIntosh's original checklist about white privilege, Ampersand created this male privilege checklist:
http://www.amptoons.com/blog/the-male-privilege-checklist
There are privileges which I would like everyone to have (positive privilege--which might be referred to as a right), and privileges which I would like no one to have (negative privilege). The privilege (which I have had) of having a good education and not being ruled by need, but having choices in how to spend my time is one I would like everyone to have. I don't see that as possible with the present economy and the present technology, and I don't see that changing even if we fight for any of the positive privileges in that list and against any of the negative privileges. There are also privileges that I would like some but not all to have (we can call these positive privileges too). The privilege to lead or manage for example, which should be based on talent and propensity. With that privilege comes responsibility.
How do we use our positive privileges? Do we just write about it and flagelate ourselves, or try to do something to make things better? Can we work for a world where everyone has a good chance to flourish? Can we be an example to the third world that affluence does not equal consumerism and exploitation? Or do we use our privilege to perpetuate the system that oppresses other people and rapes the planet? This reminds me of the (sometimes) christian tactic of continuing bad behavior by going to confession or admitting that one is a sinner. It's not enough to confess to being privileged. Let's do something positive with our (positive) privileges! I am trying to set up a system where everyone owns the means of production. That will not be enough--every individual will have to overcome selfishness and laziness--no system will be able to accomplish that.
I can empathize with women's experience of many of the positive privileges they don't have, but I don't feel like how I live perpetuates these privileges only for men; As far as the negative privileges, I don't have them and don't encourage anyone who does; on the contrary, I feel like there are more basic issues that perpetuate these things and other injustice and that I am trying to tackle. This list would have been revolutionary more than 40 years ago, but western society has moved on and there are more pressing issues.
It is hard for me to identify with many of these items, for example #1 (how do you know that sometimes job-competency is not higher in males on the average--e.g. auto-mechanic, especially jobs that were traditionally done by males? It might be hard to disentangle sexism in applicant selection from competency due to sex (by mostly cultural mechanisms). This does suck for women when they really are equal to or better than men at a job. I know one woman who really is better than most men at handyperson jobs. She faces some discrimination, but when she does get hired, her work speaks for itself and people then hire her because of her work. In any case I don't feel guilty if there are sexist male employers out there because I am a man. Should I feel guilty if there are racist brown-haired people because I am brown-haired?), #6 (I usually have reverse sexism about this one), #14 (I don't have any elected representatives) #20 (I don't watch TV or read newspapers) #26 (I don't buy much clothes), #27 (I don't expect anyone to groom themselves) #37 (I don't care about most religions), # 38 (That has not been my experience, except that I don't like vacuum cleaners or washing machines, would rather sweep and do laundry in a tub, and don't expect my partner to do it for me), #39 (not my experience), #40 (I have followed my 2nd wife to another state, giving up my career as an engineer), #43 (I was subject to violence from my first wife).
root causes vs symptoms
If you could wave a magic wand and get rid of male privilege, the system will still be there with all its nastiness. Not that you could do that, because male privilege is not a root cause, and so new weeds of enslavement will crop up from the roots of selfishness, laziness, empire, patriarchy, centralization of power, inability to produce basic needs locally, ownership of the means of production by a few people, and other roots.
some issues more important than male privilege--
empire privilege
We in the west have the negative privilege to consume slave labor goods and rob the third world of its raw materials.
privilege to not work at manual or dangerous or menial jobs by western women in empire
My first long-term relationship was with a woman who worked in an all-women's carpentry crew. I met her again, 25 years later. She is now a hypnotherapist. There are very few middle class (and in the US, though to a lesser degree, working class) women who take on manual labor or dangerous jobs and even fewer who stick with them. Some of that is because they are discouraged from it (and the psychological dimension of privilege is an important one), but another part is because they have the privilege not to. I think this has far greater reaching consequences for consumerism (as previously discussed in this blog), for social justice, and for environmental stewardship than male privilege. I would say something not too different about middle class men, although the privilege is not as glaring as for women--this is an example of what I call the feminization of capitalist society. One might argue that capitalism is now mostly a feminine-energy enterprise, with the abilities to sit back and rake in the profits while other people do the work, with its encouragement to have no limits on resource use. This brings up another issue: why pick on the (mostly effeminate) men in the west, when patriarchy is much stronger (and the balance of masculine/feminine energies is more towards the masculine) in the middle east or south america? This is a reactionary, middle-class feminism.
land privilege
After 3 years of being unable to find land to create a community where people share agricultural work and produce their basic food, shelter, education and healthcare needs, I feel like land ownership is a far more important privilege than male privilege. Most of the land that I saw that could have been shared with other people is under private ownership of women who are mostly interested in making money just from ownership of that land without doing much work.
privilege to have custody of children, be a lousy parent, and make a profit from it
I did not even try to gain custody of my son when I got divorced. It was clear that the courts were heavily biased towards mothers. I will have paid $232K in "child support" (this also includes the period before the divorce), whereas I think I could have raised my son under much better conditions, without the abuse that my ex-wife put him through, with giving him good attention and role models, for much, much less than that. Money energy that could have gone towards land, tools and buildings. Money that my ex-wife did not need, except to spend on her wardrobe, appliances, electronic gizmos that only last a year, vacations, and a private school that teaches my son about wealth privilege.
A general imbalance towards feminine energies in present day western culture
The pendulum has swung too far towards the feminine. This is partially responsible for consumerism, rising costs of healthcare, government debt, war. I will elaborate in another blog entry, or see the 4 ingredients entry.
Talking about male privilege takes energy away from doing something about these other issues--a distraction, a red herring.
http://www.amptoons.com/blog/the-male-privilege-checklist
There are privileges which I would like everyone to have (positive privilege--which might be referred to as a right), and privileges which I would like no one to have (negative privilege). The privilege (which I have had) of having a good education and not being ruled by need, but having choices in how to spend my time is one I would like everyone to have. I don't see that as possible with the present economy and the present technology, and I don't see that changing even if we fight for any of the positive privileges in that list and against any of the negative privileges. There are also privileges that I would like some but not all to have (we can call these positive privileges too). The privilege to lead or manage for example, which should be based on talent and propensity. With that privilege comes responsibility.
How do we use our positive privileges? Do we just write about it and flagelate ourselves, or try to do something to make things better? Can we work for a world where everyone has a good chance to flourish? Can we be an example to the third world that affluence does not equal consumerism and exploitation? Or do we use our privilege to perpetuate the system that oppresses other people and rapes the planet? This reminds me of the (sometimes) christian tactic of continuing bad behavior by going to confession or admitting that one is a sinner. It's not enough to confess to being privileged. Let's do something positive with our (positive) privileges! I am trying to set up a system where everyone owns the means of production. That will not be enough--every individual will have to overcome selfishness and laziness--no system will be able to accomplish that.
I can empathize with women's experience of many of the positive privileges they don't have, but I don't feel like how I live perpetuates these privileges only for men; As far as the negative privileges, I don't have them and don't encourage anyone who does; on the contrary, I feel like there are more basic issues that perpetuate these things and other injustice and that I am trying to tackle. This list would have been revolutionary more than 40 years ago, but western society has moved on and there are more pressing issues.
It is hard for me to identify with many of these items, for example #1 (how do you know that sometimes job-competency is not higher in males on the average--e.g. auto-mechanic, especially jobs that were traditionally done by males? It might be hard to disentangle sexism in applicant selection from competency due to sex (by mostly cultural mechanisms). This does suck for women when they really are equal to or better than men at a job. I know one woman who really is better than most men at handyperson jobs. She faces some discrimination, but when she does get hired, her work speaks for itself and people then hire her because of her work. In any case I don't feel guilty if there are sexist male employers out there because I am a man. Should I feel guilty if there are racist brown-haired people because I am brown-haired?), #6 (I usually have reverse sexism about this one), #14 (I don't have any elected representatives) #20 (I don't watch TV or read newspapers) #26 (I don't buy much clothes), #27 (I don't expect anyone to groom themselves) #37 (I don't care about most religions), # 38 (That has not been my experience, except that I don't like vacuum cleaners or washing machines, would rather sweep and do laundry in a tub, and don't expect my partner to do it for me), #39 (not my experience), #40 (I have followed my 2nd wife to another state, giving up my career as an engineer), #43 (I was subject to violence from my first wife).
root causes vs symptoms
If you could wave a magic wand and get rid of male privilege, the system will still be there with all its nastiness. Not that you could do that, because male privilege is not a root cause, and so new weeds of enslavement will crop up from the roots of selfishness, laziness, empire, patriarchy, centralization of power, inability to produce basic needs locally, ownership of the means of production by a few people, and other roots.
some issues more important than male privilege--
empire privilege
We in the west have the negative privilege to consume slave labor goods and rob the third world of its raw materials.
privilege to not work at manual or dangerous or menial jobs by western women in empire
My first long-term relationship was with a woman who worked in an all-women's carpentry crew. I met her again, 25 years later. She is now a hypnotherapist. There are very few middle class (and in the US, though to a lesser degree, working class) women who take on manual labor or dangerous jobs and even fewer who stick with them. Some of that is because they are discouraged from it (and the psychological dimension of privilege is an important one), but another part is because they have the privilege not to. I think this has far greater reaching consequences for consumerism (as previously discussed in this blog), for social justice, and for environmental stewardship than male privilege. I would say something not too different about middle class men, although the privilege is not as glaring as for women--this is an example of what I call the feminization of capitalist society. One might argue that capitalism is now mostly a feminine-energy enterprise, with the abilities to sit back and rake in the profits while other people do the work, with its encouragement to have no limits on resource use. This brings up another issue: why pick on the (mostly effeminate) men in the west, when patriarchy is much stronger (and the balance of masculine/feminine energies is more towards the masculine) in the middle east or south america? This is a reactionary, middle-class feminism.
land privilege
After 3 years of being unable to find land to create a community where people share agricultural work and produce their basic food, shelter, education and healthcare needs, I feel like land ownership is a far more important privilege than male privilege. Most of the land that I saw that could have been shared with other people is under private ownership of women who are mostly interested in making money just from ownership of that land without doing much work.
privilege to have custody of children, be a lousy parent, and make a profit from it
I did not even try to gain custody of my son when I got divorced. It was clear that the courts were heavily biased towards mothers. I will have paid $232K in "child support" (this also includes the period before the divorce), whereas I think I could have raised my son under much better conditions, without the abuse that my ex-wife put him through, with giving him good attention and role models, for much, much less than that. Money energy that could have gone towards land, tools and buildings. Money that my ex-wife did not need, except to spend on her wardrobe, appliances, electronic gizmos that only last a year, vacations, and a private school that teaches my son about wealth privilege.
A general imbalance towards feminine energies in present day western culture
The pendulum has swung too far towards the feminine. This is partially responsible for consumerism, rising costs of healthcare, government debt, war. I will elaborate in another blog entry, or see the 4 ingredients entry.
Talking about male privilege takes energy away from doing something about these other issues--a distraction, a red herring.
Saturday, May 9, 2009
selective pressures in the ecology of technology
If technology and the economy of which it is a part are ecosystems subject to Darwinian evolution, then what are the selective pressures driving them? Also, does random variation occur, or are there some other mechanisms for achieving variation?
Variation
I can think of several engines of variation, and several selective pressures. Although looked at from a historical perspective the sprouting of new technologies may appear random (though building on previous technologies and thus becoming more complex), there are human motivation at work which do not seem random to me.
The first familiar engine of variation (since Adam Smith pointed it out) is selfish greed. This is not the same as profitability. Selfish greed is an engine of variation--it motivates trying a new technology. Profitability is a selection mechanism--someone may be greedy but his new mousetrap may not be profitable. That mousetrap will be selected against. Similarly, the mousetrap designer (and/or manufacturer) may be motivated by some of the other engines of variation below, not by greed, and the mousetrap may still be profitable and be selected for.
The second engine of variation is curiosity. We scientists and engineers need to know what would happen if...Curiosity is a harsh mistress, but she motivates many inventions.
The third is love. Love of the planet, love of humanity, love of friends and family, love of one's country, love of freedom, love of science and technology and maybe other kinds of love.
It is important to realize that in the present economy, most inventors of new technology are not primarily motivated by greed, but by love or curiosity. In contrast, the manufacturers of their invention (who in the present system also make most of the resulting money, or lose investment money) usually are motivated by greed. I know this personally--I have a patent for a process to make better transistors (these are the building blocks of computers) from when I was working at Motorola. Neither I nor the rest of the engineers who developed the idea were motivated by greed (we each got ~$500 for it). But the CEO of Motorola and the members of the board probably are motivated by greed (I don't know if Moto actually made money from that paten, but they certainly intended to). Yes, all the engineers were partially motivated by wanting a paycheck so they and their families can survive comfortably, so a little self-interest is present, but I wouldn't call it greed. But self-interest isn't a primary motivator for the typical inventor.
Selective Pressures
The first selective pressure is profitability. I don't have anything new to say about this one. It is the primary selective mechanism in the present economy.
The second is usefulness, which in capitalism correlates with profitability, but in another economy (ecosystem) we will see that a technology could be useful without being profitable.
The third is how human happiness, which also may correlate with profitability, and as with usefulness, in another kind of economy a technology could make people happy without being profitable.
The fourth is ecological sustainability. Societies which do not pay attention to this, well...are not sustainable en masse, not just their technologies. All it takes is one technology which is not sustainable (and for that technology to be selected for by one of the other 3 selective mechanisms) for the whole society to be selected against. In the present global technology this selection for ecologically destructive technologies is quite common, but in an economy where basic technology is local and where profitability is not the primary selection mechanism, that would be less likely (NIMBY).
What kind of ecosystem/economy do I have in mind where profitability is not the primary selective mechanism? One where individuals and small communities (~200 people) make all their basic needs. In that kind of ecosystem, a gadget will be manufactured if it is useful and makes people happy. There is no need for it to be profitable because people are making their OWN gadget and the compensation is for them, unlike in the current system where people make stuff for other people and so they need some other compensation, like profit. The variation/creation is still partially driven by a selfish desire to make life better for oneself and one's community, but the compensation is direct, measured mostly in happiness. It is still possible for someone in my village to not want for their home to make the improved stove that my friend invented and I made and to offer me something in return for making them a stove. In this example, one can think of the return I make for building the stove (whether money or some goods and services) as a profit, and wanting that profit (greed) will certainly be part of my motivation for wanting to build stoves for other members of my village, or other villages. But it is not the primary motivation for invention/creation of new technology (as we've seen it isn't even in the present economy) and it no longer is the primary motivation even for manufacturing of already invented technology. More significantly, unlike in the present economy, whether the stove gets built much will not be primarily determined by whether I make a profit on it. Anyone in my village and neighboring villages (which have access to similar materials) can now build this stove, they are not dependent on me. The usefulness of the stove and how happy it makes people are far more important selective mechanisms to determine how many stoves get built.
So far we have imposed the constraint of locality in production and consumption and argued that it makes profitability non-primary as a selective pressure. We have not tackled the problem of what natural mechanisms would induce a system based on globality, where profitability is the primary selective mechanism in technology, to evolve towards one where locality is a constraint.
The most talked-about selective pressure for locality is the dwindling supply of petroleum which raises the price of petroleum and makes transportation of goods less profitable. My concern with that is that if we don't prepare for locality and are forced into it by peak oil, then things could get pretty harsh and barbaric.
A local technology might evolve from the present global one because the interdependence that now exists among people does not encourage freedom for most on this planet (except for a few individuals, and even then for a price that they usually pay in their youth to acquire that freedom), whereas the more people can produce locally (under non-drudgery conditions), the freer they are. The author Neil Stephenson came up with the contrasting evocative words "seed" vs "feed" technologies. A seed technology is one that enables self-reliance of individuals and small communities, dependence on their neighbors and the local ecosystem, and decentralization of political and economic power. We have very few of these left, and even seeds are becoming feed-like (GMO seeds). A feed technology is one that encourages centralization of political and economic power, and disempowers local communities and individuals, at least as far as being able to be self-reliant. There will be a spectrum between seed and feed technologies, and one must consider the technological system as a whole to assess how seed-like or how feed-like it is. For example, solar panels are seed-like once they are manufactured, but their manufactuing is currently feed-like. Solar panels depend on batteries which are feed-like in their manufacturing, and since they don't last as long as solar panels, their feed-likeness is more serious. Also, some of them depend on being able to obtain distilled water, which could be feedlike or seedlike dependent on how it's done. A nuclear reactor is extremely feedlike in its manufacture, and even in its daily use -it requires centralization, and this probably won't change if it is a fusion reactor. Technology is not economically or politically neutral--there are feedbacks between these ecosystems.
In many people's minds there is a confusion of globalization with specialization, but specialization can be done on a local scale too (but not as much as on a global scale). If the social environment encourages transparency, and the technological environment is based on locality, anyone could learn all the specialties that make life possible and enjoyable, and benefit from not having to do everything because of specialization.
The freedom that comes from seed technologies is also a political one, making people harder to control by governments, corporations or advertizers. It might mean that people who now have no decent choice but to work in sweatshops, choose not to because they don't have to anymore. Many things that are currently cheap because of cheap labor may become more expensive.
Locality and self-reliance in basic needs does not mean that in a local technology/economy people do not form interdependent relationships, on the contrary they form those relationships based on love and affinity, not based on impersonal need and greed. So a selective mechanism for locality is human happiness, whether in the form of greater freedom, or improved personal relationships. However, as discussed in a previous entry in this blog, there is a barrier to overcome to get to a place in the ecological landscape from where we are now, to where locality is advantageous. Small changes will be inconvenient, possibly require more labor, and elicit ignorant punitive actions from govt agencies and local rednecks than just using the current global technologies. We might help locate the mountain pass in the evolutionary fitness landscape by investing our energy in creating, manufacturing and using local technology.
I don't think that most luxury technology (such as computers) can be manufactured locally any time soon, if ever. I have no problem with having a global technology/economy for luxuries. It seems to me that if people are no longer primarily motivated by greed in manufacturing of basic goods, that greed may dwindle in other aspects of life too. Love may become a stronger engine of variability/creation once basic needs are met and thus facilitate the evolution of a gift economy for luxuries.
Variation
I can think of several engines of variation, and several selective pressures. Although looked at from a historical perspective the sprouting of new technologies may appear random (though building on previous technologies and thus becoming more complex), there are human motivation at work which do not seem random to me.
The first familiar engine of variation (since Adam Smith pointed it out) is selfish greed. This is not the same as profitability. Selfish greed is an engine of variation--it motivates trying a new technology. Profitability is a selection mechanism--someone may be greedy but his new mousetrap may not be profitable. That mousetrap will be selected against. Similarly, the mousetrap designer (and/or manufacturer) may be motivated by some of the other engines of variation below, not by greed, and the mousetrap may still be profitable and be selected for.
The second engine of variation is curiosity. We scientists and engineers need to know what would happen if...Curiosity is a harsh mistress, but she motivates many inventions.
The third is love. Love of the planet, love of humanity, love of friends and family, love of one's country, love of freedom, love of science and technology and maybe other kinds of love.
It is important to realize that in the present economy, most inventors of new technology are not primarily motivated by greed, but by love or curiosity. In contrast, the manufacturers of their invention (who in the present system also make most of the resulting money, or lose investment money) usually are motivated by greed. I know this personally--I have a patent for a process to make better transistors (these are the building blocks of computers) from when I was working at Motorola. Neither I nor the rest of the engineers who developed the idea were motivated by greed (we each got ~$500 for it). But the CEO of Motorola and the members of the board probably are motivated by greed (I don't know if Moto actually made money from that paten, but they certainly intended to). Yes, all the engineers were partially motivated by wanting a paycheck so they and their families can survive comfortably, so a little self-interest is present, but I wouldn't call it greed. But self-interest isn't a primary motivator for the typical inventor.
Selective Pressures
The first selective pressure is profitability. I don't have anything new to say about this one. It is the primary selective mechanism in the present economy.
The second is usefulness, which in capitalism correlates with profitability, but in another economy (ecosystem) we will see that a technology could be useful without being profitable.
The third is how human happiness, which also may correlate with profitability, and as with usefulness, in another kind of economy a technology could make people happy without being profitable.
The fourth is ecological sustainability. Societies which do not pay attention to this, well...are not sustainable en masse, not just their technologies. All it takes is one technology which is not sustainable (and for that technology to be selected for by one of the other 3 selective mechanisms) for the whole society to be selected against. In the present global technology this selection for ecologically destructive technologies is quite common, but in an economy where basic technology is local and where profitability is not the primary selection mechanism, that would be less likely (NIMBY).
What kind of ecosystem/economy do I have in mind where profitability is not the primary selective mechanism? One where individuals and small communities (~200 people) make all their basic needs. In that kind of ecosystem, a gadget will be manufactured if it is useful and makes people happy. There is no need for it to be profitable because people are making their OWN gadget and the compensation is for them, unlike in the current system where people make stuff for other people and so they need some other compensation, like profit. The variation/creation is still partially driven by a selfish desire to make life better for oneself and one's community, but the compensation is direct, measured mostly in happiness. It is still possible for someone in my village to not want for their home to make the improved stove that my friend invented and I made and to offer me something in return for making them a stove. In this example, one can think of the return I make for building the stove (whether money or some goods and services) as a profit, and wanting that profit (greed) will certainly be part of my motivation for wanting to build stoves for other members of my village, or other villages. But it is not the primary motivation for invention/creation of new technology (as we've seen it isn't even in the present economy) and it no longer is the primary motivation even for manufacturing of already invented technology. More significantly, unlike in the present economy, whether the stove gets built much will not be primarily determined by whether I make a profit on it. Anyone in my village and neighboring villages (which have access to similar materials) can now build this stove, they are not dependent on me. The usefulness of the stove and how happy it makes people are far more important selective mechanisms to determine how many stoves get built.
So far we have imposed the constraint of locality in production and consumption and argued that it makes profitability non-primary as a selective pressure. We have not tackled the problem of what natural mechanisms would induce a system based on globality, where profitability is the primary selective mechanism in technology, to evolve towards one where locality is a constraint.
The most talked-about selective pressure for locality is the dwindling supply of petroleum which raises the price of petroleum and makes transportation of goods less profitable. My concern with that is that if we don't prepare for locality and are forced into it by peak oil, then things could get pretty harsh and barbaric.
A local technology might evolve from the present global one because the interdependence that now exists among people does not encourage freedom for most on this planet (except for a few individuals, and even then for a price that they usually pay in their youth to acquire that freedom), whereas the more people can produce locally (under non-drudgery conditions), the freer they are. The author Neil Stephenson came up with the contrasting evocative words "seed" vs "feed" technologies. A seed technology is one that enables self-reliance of individuals and small communities, dependence on their neighbors and the local ecosystem, and decentralization of political and economic power. We have very few of these left, and even seeds are becoming feed-like (GMO seeds). A feed technology is one that encourages centralization of political and economic power, and disempowers local communities and individuals, at least as far as being able to be self-reliant. There will be a spectrum between seed and feed technologies, and one must consider the technological system as a whole to assess how seed-like or how feed-like it is. For example, solar panels are seed-like once they are manufactured, but their manufactuing is currently feed-like. Solar panels depend on batteries which are feed-like in their manufacturing, and since they don't last as long as solar panels, their feed-likeness is more serious. Also, some of them depend on being able to obtain distilled water, which could be feedlike or seedlike dependent on how it's done. A nuclear reactor is extremely feedlike in its manufacture, and even in its daily use -it requires centralization, and this probably won't change if it is a fusion reactor. Technology is not economically or politically neutral--there are feedbacks between these ecosystems.
In many people's minds there is a confusion of globalization with specialization, but specialization can be done on a local scale too (but not as much as on a global scale). If the social environment encourages transparency, and the technological environment is based on locality, anyone could learn all the specialties that make life possible and enjoyable, and benefit from not having to do everything because of specialization.
The freedom that comes from seed technologies is also a political one, making people harder to control by governments, corporations or advertizers. It might mean that people who now have no decent choice but to work in sweatshops, choose not to because they don't have to anymore. Many things that are currently cheap because of cheap labor may become more expensive.
Locality and self-reliance in basic needs does not mean that in a local technology/economy people do not form interdependent relationships, on the contrary they form those relationships based on love and affinity, not based on impersonal need and greed. So a selective mechanism for locality is human happiness, whether in the form of greater freedom, or improved personal relationships. However, as discussed in a previous entry in this blog, there is a barrier to overcome to get to a place in the ecological landscape from where we are now, to where locality is advantageous. Small changes will be inconvenient, possibly require more labor, and elicit ignorant punitive actions from govt agencies and local rednecks than just using the current global technologies. We might help locate the mountain pass in the evolutionary fitness landscape by investing our energy in creating, manufacturing and using local technology.
I don't think that most luxury technology (such as computers) can be manufactured locally any time soon, if ever. I have no problem with having a global technology/economy for luxuries. It seems to me that if people are no longer primarily motivated by greed in manufacturing of basic goods, that greed may dwindle in other aspects of life too. Love may become a stronger engine of variability/creation once basic needs are met and thus facilitate the evolution of a gift economy for luxuries.
Friday, March 13, 2009
Gender and consumerism
Most feminist responses to what I have written about the connections between consumerism and gender have been angry or dismissive. Attempts have been made to silence, humiliate, ridicule or throw food at me. On the one hand, this makes me think that I may be onto something, because the same responses were given to early feminists like Margaret Fuller (with the exception of the food throwing) and other thinkers who have exposed what I call Naked Emperors—that is things about a culture that everyone in that culture knows at some level of consciousness, but ignores or represses on another. On the other hand, perhaps I am simply wrong. But then why the anger? People can say things that are wrong without eliciting anger—for example, if someone said the earth is flat. Maybe the anger is a reaction to all the oppression of women by patriarchy (and it’s mythical/religious manifestations), and a perception that I am only going to perpetuate that oppression with my theories. In other words, people may be thinking that I am a patriarchal reactionary. I think this is a misunderstanding, and I want to explain in detail why I think that.
Like most feminists, I share the following values. I would like it if:
1. People are free to express themselves in any joyful way without being constrained by their gender. In other words, I believe that gender fluidity is desirable, and I am not a biological or cultural determinist.
2. People could find an inner balance between masculine and feminine energies, so that they don’t project what Jung called “the Shadow” onto the other gender, but instead have a good understanding of both masculine and feminine energies, through their own experiences and introspection.
3. People are free to experiment with these energies not only within themselves, but within larger groups and relationships, such as dyads, triads, etc. In other words, much joy could be created if for example, one member of a dyad has more feminine energy, and another more masculine energy, then if both are more feminine or more masculine. Both these people could be male or female or trans, although it might be easier if the person with the predominant masculine energy is physically male, and the one with the predominant feminine energy is physically female, as there is more endocrine support for these energies that way.
Things that I am NOT saying (followed by clarification of what I am actually saying):
1. That biology has nothing to do with masculine or feminine energies. Like most sexually reproducing animals, humans are sexually dimorphic. It seems improbable that hormonal, morphological and gene expression differences would not be translated into some psychological differences. But this biological propensity is not deterministic, only correlative and historically originated the meaning of the words masculine and feminine. E. O Wilson had ice water poured over his head for stating the more general observation (which I agree with) that biology has consequences at the level of psychology and sociology.
2. That culture has nothing to do with gender differences. Many feminists and leftist thinkers think, at the other extreme, that differences are due mostly to culture. I disagree and take a more moderate position, but this is not critical to my analysis.
3. That women are responsible for consumerism, or that men are responsible for patriarchy. Both consumerism and patriarchy are systems with many interacting parts. I think the feminine energies of nest-building and the need for comfort and security, when out of balance with male energies, are major (but not only) factors in consumerism.
4. That men need to keep women under control with their testicular masculine energy. The best form of restraint is internal, so both men and women would be less consumptive if they exhibited more testicular masculine energy.
5. That advertising has nothing to do with consumerism. It does, but the advertisers are only successful because they understand basic psychology and appeal to primal things like the needs for comfort and security (in both men and women).
6. That comfort and security are bad. They are necessary for creativity and a good life. But there is more to life than comfort and security. Adventure, joy, curiosity and the comfort and security of others (including future generations) are also important. When comfort and security are everything, they murder the soul, as Khalil Gibran said.
7. That nest-building is bad. Nest-building is natural and beautiful. Only when it is not balanced by a bigger vision and an understanding does it become problematic.
8. That men do not need comfort and security. Of course they do, but less than women who are starting to think about getting pregnant, are pregnant or have children.
9. That men are not factors in consumerism. Of course they are, but I think the main reason is that they do not express enough testicular masculine energy in this present moment in this culture, and moreover are not expressing enough feminine energy within themselves, thus needing it from external sources, consuming mainly to obtain the comfort of female companionship.
The survey, the main experimental tool of sociologists would be useful in testing some of these hypotheses. The experimental procedure is fraught with obstacles though. In the first approximation, one could look for differences between men and women. It would be harder to test differences between masculine and feminine energies, or between the presence and lack of testicular masculine energy. Many controls would be needed, for example, men and women from middle eastern cultures (where men still have a lot of testicular masculine) who have immigrated to the West, could be compared to each other, and also to men and women from our culture. Motivations would need to be examined, not just money spent. For example, if a man buys a house, is he buying it for himself, or for his wife and children? Would he be content with a smaller house? Would his wife? How much money is spent on housing and related industries, vs other things and who cares more about housing, men or women?
Like most feminists, I share the following values. I would like it if:
1. People are free to express themselves in any joyful way without being constrained by their gender. In other words, I believe that gender fluidity is desirable, and I am not a biological or cultural determinist.
2. People could find an inner balance between masculine and feminine energies, so that they don’t project what Jung called “the Shadow” onto the other gender, but instead have a good understanding of both masculine and feminine energies, through their own experiences and introspection.
3. People are free to experiment with these energies not only within themselves, but within larger groups and relationships, such as dyads, triads, etc. In other words, much joy could be created if for example, one member of a dyad has more feminine energy, and another more masculine energy, then if both are more feminine or more masculine. Both these people could be male or female or trans, although it might be easier if the person with the predominant masculine energy is physically male, and the one with the predominant feminine energy is physically female, as there is more endocrine support for these energies that way.
Things that I am NOT saying (followed by clarification of what I am actually saying):
1. That biology has nothing to do with masculine or feminine energies. Like most sexually reproducing animals, humans are sexually dimorphic. It seems improbable that hormonal, morphological and gene expression differences would not be translated into some psychological differences. But this biological propensity is not deterministic, only correlative and historically originated the meaning of the words masculine and feminine. E. O Wilson had ice water poured over his head for stating the more general observation (which I agree with) that biology has consequences at the level of psychology and sociology.
2. That culture has nothing to do with gender differences. Many feminists and leftist thinkers think, at the other extreme, that differences are due mostly to culture. I disagree and take a more moderate position, but this is not critical to my analysis.
3. That women are responsible for consumerism, or that men are responsible for patriarchy. Both consumerism and patriarchy are systems with many interacting parts. I think the feminine energies of nest-building and the need for comfort and security, when out of balance with male energies, are major (but not only) factors in consumerism.
4. That men need to keep women under control with their testicular masculine energy. The best form of restraint is internal, so both men and women would be less consumptive if they exhibited more testicular masculine energy.
5. That advertising has nothing to do with consumerism. It does, but the advertisers are only successful because they understand basic psychology and appeal to primal things like the needs for comfort and security (in both men and women).
6. That comfort and security are bad. They are necessary for creativity and a good life. But there is more to life than comfort and security. Adventure, joy, curiosity and the comfort and security of others (including future generations) are also important. When comfort and security are everything, they murder the soul, as Khalil Gibran said.
7. That nest-building is bad. Nest-building is natural and beautiful. Only when it is not balanced by a bigger vision and an understanding does it become problematic.
8. That men do not need comfort and security. Of course they do, but less than women who are starting to think about getting pregnant, are pregnant or have children.
9. That men are not factors in consumerism. Of course they are, but I think the main reason is that they do not express enough testicular masculine energy in this present moment in this culture, and moreover are not expressing enough feminine energy within themselves, thus needing it from external sources, consuming mainly to obtain the comfort of female companionship.
The survey, the main experimental tool of sociologists would be useful in testing some of these hypotheses. The experimental procedure is fraught with obstacles though. In the first approximation, one could look for differences between men and women. It would be harder to test differences between masculine and feminine energies, or between the presence and lack of testicular masculine energy. Many controls would be needed, for example, men and women from middle eastern cultures (where men still have a lot of testicular masculine) who have immigrated to the West, could be compared to each other, and also to men and women from our culture. Motivations would need to be examined, not just money spent. For example, if a man buys a house, is he buying it for himself, or for his wife and children? Would he be content with a smaller house? Would his wife? How much money is spent on housing and related industries, vs other things and who cares more about housing, men or women?
Monday, February 9, 2009
tradeoffs and compromises
Tradeoffs are what make optimization interesting, giving functions minima, maxima and saddle points. With only one dimension, one process can increase a utility function in the same direction in which another decreases the function, resulting in a maximum or minimum. In more than one dimension, a function can have a saddle point, which is a maximum in some directions and a minimum in other directions. In one model of system change, we can envision a mostly static environment, represented by a utility function. The system tries to minimize that function. There is a large applied math literature devoted to optimization in one or more dimensions, which is done mostly by computer nowadays. We know that a system can get stuck in a local minimum if the only strategy it employs for finding that minimum is going downhill in a local manner. If the environment changes once (but not continually--we will discuss a model for that later) and then is static again, what used to be a minimum may now no longer be one. In that case, a new minimum will be found, in a time depending on the efficiency of the system in locating the new minimum. The new minimum will not be too different from the old minimum unless a cataclysmic change in the environment has occured which destroyed some surrounding mountains of the old valley. To get to other valleys which might have a lower minimum, the best strategy is to go uphill for some time, to get to a mountain pass (a saddle point) which is the least uphill one has to go. But gradual change in a downhill direction will not get us there.
You can see the obvious application to social change in the age of dwindling petroleum. Insulate your house, purchase a greener car or appliance, build a cob/straw-bale house and a rocket stove all of which make your life more comfortable and you won't achieve much change. Much of the old culture is still right there with you--the exploitation of third world people, the exploitation of those without capital/land by those who own them, hierarchies based on power, egotism and greed, alienation caused by overspecialization and abstraction of production, etc. Any direction that has a chance of getting you to the mountain pass has to be somewhat painful, somewhat decrease your fitness, somewhat not work with the rest of the system as it currently exists. That is the (almost) static model of system change based on optimization. Note this has not much to do with dynamical systems theory where there is no function to be optimized in the dynamics, where you can get strange attractors and chaos. Human life does seem to have some function that it optimizes, whether it be fitness, happiness, freedom, or a combination of these.
Now for a dynamic environment model, where each component of a system influences the functions (environments) of other components by only controlling a few variables, whereas each function depends on all the variables.
In game theory, which applies not just to discrete games but to continuous systems with more than one component, competition in a zero sum game can be modeled nicely by each player (or component/cell/organism/species/culture) having a utility function to minimize which has a saddle point. Around this point, one player trying to decrease his function increases the function of his competitor (a simple realistic case for similar players competing for some resource is the same function with the variables interchanged). A compromise will occur at the saddle point, where though each player does not do as well as they could if they had control of their competitor's variables, the system utility function (defined as the sum of the individual utility functions) is minimized.
I am researching this, so I am not sure yet: if the functions to be minimized are not the same, situations could arise in which the strategy of each player minimizing his utility function with only control over his own variables can lead to being stuck at a point which is not a saddle point of his function. Whether the utility functions of different players are the same or not, it is possible to get stuck at a point which is a local but not global minimum of the system utility function. This can happen even in a cooperative domain (a win-win, not a zero sum) where the players reducing their own utility function are also reducing the other players' utility functions. In order to get out of a local minimum, just like in the static environment model, some players have to become altruistic, undergo some suffering and go uphill for a while in order to either reach a lower minimum for themselves eventually (temporary altruism, or altruism in time), or else they may never reach a better minimum for themselves, but reach a better minimum for the system utility function (altruism in space).
So we see that in both the static environment model and the dynamic environment model, a strategy of always going downhill can get the players stuck in a local minimum, and in order to get unstuck one must go uphill sometimes. It follows that changes that seem to improve things for people in the short run will not lead to a better situation for the whole culture.
Also, compromises which place one in the original valley are not worth making because one will still roll back down to the original minimum. Once the new valley has been reached (by going uphill for a while), all kinds of small changes which lead downhill, or compromises which keep one in the new valley may be made with no damage.
Tradeoffs around the local minimum are going to be different than tradeoffs around the global minimum. Around the global minimum it is possible to do better on both aspects of the tradeoff than around the local minimum, or perhaps much better on one aspect and only a little worse on the other.
What tradeoffs have I encountered?
Solitude vs people around: I like solitude. I can think more clearly, be more calm and grounded. However, having more people around, especially people I like, has some advantages like good conversations, good dances and music making, intellectual comrades, romantic partners, ability to do more of what I love because of specialization, more stability in the face of hardship, and energy/labor savings on shared heat, cooking, tools and building materials.
Freedom vs comfort and security. I would much rather spend time doing physics, dancing, working in the garden or on engineering projects than on having clean clothes, electronic gizmos, appliances and any convenience one can think of. The latter take time away from things I love, or vice versa--time is a limited resource and I would rather spend it doing things I love than being comfortable and secure (beyond a minimal level). Some comfort and security comes from being part of the global economy. Some comes from conforming to the norms of a group. Depending on the structure of the group, it is possible to do better on freedom and not much worse on comfort, so that the total happiness is increased. More generally, tradeoffs are dependent on where the baseline optimum is. I think it is possible to have alot more freedom, love and creativity for most people than in this culture, while sacrificing only a bit of comfort, security and convenience.
Freedom vs collective responsibility. I think that beyond basic needs, I would not want collective responsibility for everyone's individual needs in my community. This would cut down on most people's freedom. If someone needs their own cabin for artistic reasons, let them pay for it with their resources. If someone needs a lab, or expensive film equipment, a washing machine, a vacuum cleaner, or alot of land for agriculture as an avocation or for making money, let them pay for it. I may support some of these and not others, depending on my affinities. On the other hand, I want the whole community to be collectively responsible for basic nutritional needs, soil fertility, tools and labor for the land that provides those needs, and basic communal shelter for people. The freedom each individual gains from such an arrangement seems worth it to me.
Feeding people vs protecting wildlife and biodiversity: I saw this tradeoff being bitterly discussed at Earthaven. I fall on the side of feeding humans first, protecting wildlife second. That does not mean that I don't care about wildlife and will try as much as possible to protect it. There is also the issue that relying on the current food system may be even more harmful to the wild than clearing some wilderness around us in order to feed ourselves.
You can see the obvious application to social change in the age of dwindling petroleum. Insulate your house, purchase a greener car or appliance, build a cob/straw-bale house and a rocket stove all of which make your life more comfortable and you won't achieve much change. Much of the old culture is still right there with you--the exploitation of third world people, the exploitation of those without capital/land by those who own them, hierarchies based on power, egotism and greed, alienation caused by overspecialization and abstraction of production, etc. Any direction that has a chance of getting you to the mountain pass has to be somewhat painful, somewhat decrease your fitness, somewhat not work with the rest of the system as it currently exists. That is the (almost) static model of system change based on optimization. Note this has not much to do with dynamical systems theory where there is no function to be optimized in the dynamics, where you can get strange attractors and chaos. Human life does seem to have some function that it optimizes, whether it be fitness, happiness, freedom, or a combination of these.
Now for a dynamic environment model, where each component of a system influences the functions (environments) of other components by only controlling a few variables, whereas each function depends on all the variables.
In game theory, which applies not just to discrete games but to continuous systems with more than one component, competition in a zero sum game can be modeled nicely by each player (or component/cell/organism/species/culture) having a utility function to minimize which has a saddle point. Around this point, one player trying to decrease his function increases the function of his competitor (a simple realistic case for similar players competing for some resource is the same function with the variables interchanged). A compromise will occur at the saddle point, where though each player does not do as well as they could if they had control of their competitor's variables, the system utility function (defined as the sum of the individual utility functions) is minimized.
I am researching this, so I am not sure yet: if the functions to be minimized are not the same, situations could arise in which the strategy of each player minimizing his utility function with only control over his own variables can lead to being stuck at a point which is not a saddle point of his function. Whether the utility functions of different players are the same or not, it is possible to get stuck at a point which is a local but not global minimum of the system utility function. This can happen even in a cooperative domain (a win-win, not a zero sum) where the players reducing their own utility function are also reducing the other players' utility functions. In order to get out of a local minimum, just like in the static environment model, some players have to become altruistic, undergo some suffering and go uphill for a while in order to either reach a lower minimum for themselves eventually (temporary altruism, or altruism in time), or else they may never reach a better minimum for themselves, but reach a better minimum for the system utility function (altruism in space).
So we see that in both the static environment model and the dynamic environment model, a strategy of always going downhill can get the players stuck in a local minimum, and in order to get unstuck one must go uphill sometimes. It follows that changes that seem to improve things for people in the short run will not lead to a better situation for the whole culture.
Also, compromises which place one in the original valley are not worth making because one will still roll back down to the original minimum. Once the new valley has been reached (by going uphill for a while), all kinds of small changes which lead downhill, or compromises which keep one in the new valley may be made with no damage.
Tradeoffs around the local minimum are going to be different than tradeoffs around the global minimum. Around the global minimum it is possible to do better on both aspects of the tradeoff than around the local minimum, or perhaps much better on one aspect and only a little worse on the other.
What tradeoffs have I encountered?
Solitude vs people around: I like solitude. I can think more clearly, be more calm and grounded. However, having more people around, especially people I like, has some advantages like good conversations, good dances and music making, intellectual comrades, romantic partners, ability to do more of what I love because of specialization, more stability in the face of hardship, and energy/labor savings on shared heat, cooking, tools and building materials.
Freedom vs comfort and security. I would much rather spend time doing physics, dancing, working in the garden or on engineering projects than on having clean clothes, electronic gizmos, appliances and any convenience one can think of. The latter take time away from things I love, or vice versa--time is a limited resource and I would rather spend it doing things I love than being comfortable and secure (beyond a minimal level). Some comfort and security comes from being part of the global economy. Some comes from conforming to the norms of a group. Depending on the structure of the group, it is possible to do better on freedom and not much worse on comfort, so that the total happiness is increased. More generally, tradeoffs are dependent on where the baseline optimum is. I think it is possible to have alot more freedom, love and creativity for most people than in this culture, while sacrificing only a bit of comfort, security and convenience.
Freedom vs collective responsibility. I think that beyond basic needs, I would not want collective responsibility for everyone's individual needs in my community. This would cut down on most people's freedom. If someone needs their own cabin for artistic reasons, let them pay for it with their resources. If someone needs a lab, or expensive film equipment, a washing machine, a vacuum cleaner, or alot of land for agriculture as an avocation or for making money, let them pay for it. I may support some of these and not others, depending on my affinities. On the other hand, I want the whole community to be collectively responsible for basic nutritional needs, soil fertility, tools and labor for the land that provides those needs, and basic communal shelter for people. The freedom each individual gains from such an arrangement seems worth it to me.
Feeding people vs protecting wildlife and biodiversity: I saw this tradeoff being bitterly discussed at Earthaven. I fall on the side of feeding humans first, protecting wildlife second. That does not mean that I don't care about wildlife and will try as much as possible to protect it. There is also the issue that relying on the current food system may be even more harmful to the wild than clearing some wilderness around us in order to feed ourselves.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Brook Farm and the repeating of history
Some people may have heard of Brook Farm, an intentional community that sprouted during the 1830s, a time of much social critique and attempts at reconstruction of social institutions and paradigms, with such movements as abolitionism, feminism, perfectionism, communism, and transcendentalism. Of the many people who were associated with BF, the ones who are still widely known are Emerson, Hawthorne and Thoreau, but few have heard of the hero of this story, George Ripley.
Ripley was a unitarian minister who could not continue in his ministry because he felt hypocritical, seeing a higher calling than appeasing the guilt of his mostly wealthy congregation, when faced with sights of homelessness, meaningless employment and poverty on the same streets of Boston where he worked, signs of capitalism and industrialization that continue to this day. At the same time, he was aware of a disconnect between nature and culture, between thinking and doing, that was but a rivulet in his time, but has grown to a raging destructive river in our time. Thus the main goal of Brook Farm was to unite farmer and scholar in the same person. Thoreau and Emerson, though sympathetic to this goal, saw it best achieved on a solitary homestead instead of a collective.
Whether they achieved the goal is debateable. My take on it is that Thoreau was more successful than Emerson, but both were supported by many others including slaves, factory workers and farmers who did not have much time or money to engage in scholarly activities. Hawthorne tried to live and work at Brook Farm, but came to the conclusion that the desired union was impossible (expressed poignantly in his fictional piece "The Blithedale Romance").
A similar goal of uniting thinking and doing, or theory and experiment was proposed with the advent of science during the renaissance. It saw pure philosophy as impotent to find out how nature works and had many heroes such as Galileo, Newton, Hooke and other members of the Royal Philosophical Society, who were theorists and experimentalists united in the same person. Modern Physics is seeing a specialization into theorists and experimentalists and to my mind this is indicative of the degeneration of the field, whereas biology still has experimentalists who can formulate theories and hypotheses, and the field is still vibrant.
The rise and fall of physics parallels the rise and fall of civilizations and intentional communities. When theory is limited to simple hypotheses that can be tested and simple theoretical consequences are worked out and subjected to further experiments, science, intentional community and civilization thrives. When theory becomes complex and the theorists no longer try to test their theories, science, intentional community and civilization degenerates.
Social theorists like Scott Nearing have some success. Others, like Chomsky, Zinn and a myriad of bloggers and pundits, might inspire some people to test their theories, but unless those experimenters are flexible enough to formulate new hypotheses and theories as they go and posess inhuman amounts of energy, the experimenters peter out, as the experiments are either inconclusive, disprove the original theories and are extremely taxing of the experimenters' limited energies.
It is with this phenomenon in mind that I call upon all critiquers of civilization to start doing experiments testing the alternatives that they propose. I have done one myself, am engaged in another one, and am about to start a third. I say to you, as I say to the dead Emerson--we need you not just for your theories, but for the active participation in their testing. We need you for your land, for your money, for your stature and fame--please pick up a shovel and put down the keyboard for a while. Start sharing your land, your money and your time, not just your ideas. Sit around the consensus table, not just on your armchair. Get out of your isolated ivory tower or your pulpit and into the lab, the garden, the kitchen, the workshop, the trench. If you persist, you might end up like Emerson--railing against breaking out of prisons, only to find yourself in the prison of the scholar who cannot cooperate with others on matters of substance or do things in the material world.
Back to Ripley--in the end he was defeated and somewhat broken hearted. Those like Emerson and Greeley (a wealthy leftist newspaper editor) who said they would help, did not. A fire destroyed the new industry building. Fourierism turned out to be misguided. An epidemic (I think flu but don't recall now if it was more serious) reduced energy and morale. Inability to pay back loans due to distance from Boston Markets, the fire and (in my opinion) too much dependence on external markets culminated in Hawthorne suing for his loan getting repaid. Many other reasons may have been at play and I wonder if, dear George, you knew that your example will be an inspiration to future generations and your vision still alive long after you died.
Ripley was a unitarian minister who could not continue in his ministry because he felt hypocritical, seeing a higher calling than appeasing the guilt of his mostly wealthy congregation, when faced with sights of homelessness, meaningless employment and poverty on the same streets of Boston where he worked, signs of capitalism and industrialization that continue to this day. At the same time, he was aware of a disconnect between nature and culture, between thinking and doing, that was but a rivulet in his time, but has grown to a raging destructive river in our time. Thus the main goal of Brook Farm was to unite farmer and scholar in the same person. Thoreau and Emerson, though sympathetic to this goal, saw it best achieved on a solitary homestead instead of a collective.
Whether they achieved the goal is debateable. My take on it is that Thoreau was more successful than Emerson, but both were supported by many others including slaves, factory workers and farmers who did not have much time or money to engage in scholarly activities. Hawthorne tried to live and work at Brook Farm, but came to the conclusion that the desired union was impossible (expressed poignantly in his fictional piece "The Blithedale Romance").
A similar goal of uniting thinking and doing, or theory and experiment was proposed with the advent of science during the renaissance. It saw pure philosophy as impotent to find out how nature works and had many heroes such as Galileo, Newton, Hooke and other members of the Royal Philosophical Society, who were theorists and experimentalists united in the same person. Modern Physics is seeing a specialization into theorists and experimentalists and to my mind this is indicative of the degeneration of the field, whereas biology still has experimentalists who can formulate theories and hypotheses, and the field is still vibrant.
The rise and fall of physics parallels the rise and fall of civilizations and intentional communities. When theory is limited to simple hypotheses that can be tested and simple theoretical consequences are worked out and subjected to further experiments, science, intentional community and civilization thrives. When theory becomes complex and the theorists no longer try to test their theories, science, intentional community and civilization degenerates.
Social theorists like Scott Nearing have some success. Others, like Chomsky, Zinn and a myriad of bloggers and pundits, might inspire some people to test their theories, but unless those experimenters are flexible enough to formulate new hypotheses and theories as they go and posess inhuman amounts of energy, the experimenters peter out, as the experiments are either inconclusive, disprove the original theories and are extremely taxing of the experimenters' limited energies.
It is with this phenomenon in mind that I call upon all critiquers of civilization to start doing experiments testing the alternatives that they propose. I have done one myself, am engaged in another one, and am about to start a third. I say to you, as I say to the dead Emerson--we need you not just for your theories, but for the active participation in their testing. We need you for your land, for your money, for your stature and fame--please pick up a shovel and put down the keyboard for a while. Start sharing your land, your money and your time, not just your ideas. Sit around the consensus table, not just on your armchair. Get out of your isolated ivory tower or your pulpit and into the lab, the garden, the kitchen, the workshop, the trench. If you persist, you might end up like Emerson--railing against breaking out of prisons, only to find yourself in the prison of the scholar who cannot cooperate with others on matters of substance or do things in the material world.
Back to Ripley--in the end he was defeated and somewhat broken hearted. Those like Emerson and Greeley (a wealthy leftist newspaper editor) who said they would help, did not. A fire destroyed the new industry building. Fourierism turned out to be misguided. An epidemic (I think flu but don't recall now if it was more serious) reduced energy and morale. Inability to pay back loans due to distance from Boston Markets, the fire and (in my opinion) too much dependence on external markets culminated in Hawthorne suing for his loan getting repaid. Many other reasons may have been at play and I wonder if, dear George, you knew that your example will be an inspiration to future generations and your vision still alive long after you died.
Thursday, January 8, 2009
gradual vs quick speciation
The fossil record suggests that new species arise quickly, on geological scales. The evidence is consistent with even one generation. Even classic examples of gradual speciation (rare as they are) like the horse, when looked at closely show that there are spurts, where for example a new toe arises. The current explanation for the so called punctuated equilibrium model of speciation is that even though new functions and morphologies require changes in hundreds of different genes in a coordinated fashion, these changes do not occur by mutations in those genes (that would have 0 probability to happen over a small timescale), but by mutations in a few so called master genes which regulate 100s of different genes, or drastic chromosomal events like duplicating chromosome number (hybridization between diploid plant species to form tetraploid progeny, something that does not seem to happen in animals), large deletions, partial duplications, unbalanced translocations, etc. There might be other explanations like morphic fields, but there is not enough evidence for these to be accepted in mainstream evolutionary biology.
The other necessary ingredient for speciation to occur quickly is reproductive isolation. This means that either a small group is unable to mate with the larger group from which it originated, or that the larger group is reduced to a small group by environmental forces like famines, climate change, invasive species, etc. The second possibility is not usually considered an example of reproductive isolation, but since it is due to the same mechanism (which I will explain next), I consider it to be a special case of reproductive isolation. If a species does not split into two (and the process can iterate) but becomes a new species without a split(I think this is called chrono-speciation, which might have happened with some of our hominid ancestors), it requires a small population, for reasons which will become apparent below.
The reason why reproductive isolation is necessary is because
1. selection for beneficial mutations is not the only force in evolution and also
2. a mutation may not be beneficial until the right environment is reached.
Here is an explanation of each of these:
1. Another force, known as genetic drift occurs because many random events participate in the fixing of a mutation in a population, including
A. achieving homozygosity (most mutations are recessive--meaning their phenotype is invisible in heterozygotes) and so either at least two people, a male and a female in sexually reproducing populations, have to get the mutation simultaneously in their germlines, or some incest for which taboos have evolved in primate populations, has to occur) which is dependent on getting the heterozygotes to find each other, mate, and produce viable progeny.
B. Random death of the carriers of the mutation before sufficient reproduction,
C. Other possibilities, related to reason 2 below, where a mutation might diffuse through a population with no benefit to its carriers until the right time (which could be the occurence of another complementary mutation, or a change in the environment). This could be thought of as tunneling through the fitness mountain (or going through the Mines of Moria in LOTR), where the phenotype is invisible until you get to the other side, where another valley exists. Most of the tunneling process could be gradual, but the breaking through to the other valley is quick.
2. The right environment could be either external, or internal, as in all the other genes that cooperate and compete with the mutated gene. In fact, on short timescales, a mutation which would be beneficial in the long run might be actually harmful in the short run, or at least neutral. These two possibilities can be illustrated by the following model. Imagine that a village of blind people, nestled in a valley surrounded by mountains has an earthquake, which shifts the landscape. The inhabitants are most content at the lowest possible elevation, but now they are no longer at that lowest elevation. Some of them might be at a local minimum, having moved away from the main population when the whole valley was flat (a mutation which was neutral previously, and now is advantageous due to a shift in the environment). Most of those are not in the valley (of comparable or lower elevation to what they had previously) on the other side of the mountains yet because that is still too far away--neutral mutations give rise to different strains, or may be totally invisible, but almost by definition (or what should be the definition) of a species, drastic or at least very specific changes are necessary to get to the other side of the mountain. Those few who try drastic (or very specific, lucky but not drastic) shifts, (either in their internal memetic space or in their external geographical space) are selected against because they have to undergo some extra hardship to get to the mountain pass--the mutations are disadvantageous in the short run. Or they fail not only because of extra hardship at the higher elevations, but because their efforts are constantly diluted by the majority of the villagers who would rather be more comfortable (more comfortable than if they go up, but less comfortable than if they stay put or even go down to a valley that is still much higher than what they had before) and have evolved a conservatism that has served them well in times before the earthquake. A few may either have been lucky enough to be on the other side of the new mountain pass before the earthquake so that they are memetically isolated from the rest of the villagers, or they can persevere and make it to the mountain pass despite hardship. I suppose the neutral invisible memetic mutations that do not cause extra hardship could keep happening to people in the main village even after the earthquake, but there is not much time. As the population dwindles in the main village, the force of drift dwindles as well.
I part with mainstream evolutionary theory in that I consider reproductive isolation to be a necessary but not sufficient condition for speciation. Perhaps the sufficient condition is a mutation in a master gene (followed by rolling downhill in negative fitness space towards a new valley), which also implies genetic isolation, as the two populations are now separated by a mountainpass. Anytime reproductive isolation has been achieved in the lab at a genetic level (so not just by separating the two populations), the result is closely related strains. Perhaps over eons they will develop significant morphological and functional differences, but since this doesn't seem to happen in nature, I doubt it would happen in a lab, even with the acceleration of mutation rates offered by radiation or chemical mutagens. My bet is that drastic genetic events will occur quickly (due to a mutation in a master gene), followed by further slow divergence (drift and divergence in the new valley).
As far as how these things concern us, people participating in cultural evolution, unlike organisms participating in biological evolution, we are not totally blind, but neither can we see very far into the realm of possibilities ahead. I agree with JMG that the more experiments/expeditions up the mountain or through the mountain are tried the better chance of finding mountain passes. Small, gradual changes are not likely to get us to another valley before being swamped out by the mainstream culture, unless we get lucky and find just the right master memes. Memetic isolation, despite seeming harsh, might be advantageous (do we have to give up the internet, movies, literature, economic interaction)--how much isolation is necessary? there has to be some interaction with the rest of the ecosystem and the analogy of the mainstream culture being the parent population breaks down--it is also an analogous major part of the ecosystem). Otherwise, we can wait for a large population decrease in order to make some progress towards a mountain pass, a possibility I do not savor given the alternative.
The other necessary ingredient for speciation to occur quickly is reproductive isolation. This means that either a small group is unable to mate with the larger group from which it originated, or that the larger group is reduced to a small group by environmental forces like famines, climate change, invasive species, etc. The second possibility is not usually considered an example of reproductive isolation, but since it is due to the same mechanism (which I will explain next), I consider it to be a special case of reproductive isolation. If a species does not split into two (and the process can iterate) but becomes a new species without a split(I think this is called chrono-speciation, which might have happened with some of our hominid ancestors), it requires a small population, for reasons which will become apparent below.
The reason why reproductive isolation is necessary is because
1. selection for beneficial mutations is not the only force in evolution and also
2. a mutation may not be beneficial until the right environment is reached.
Here is an explanation of each of these:
1. Another force, known as genetic drift occurs because many random events participate in the fixing of a mutation in a population, including
A. achieving homozygosity (most mutations are recessive--meaning their phenotype is invisible in heterozygotes) and so either at least two people, a male and a female in sexually reproducing populations, have to get the mutation simultaneously in their germlines, or some incest for which taboos have evolved in primate populations, has to occur) which is dependent on getting the heterozygotes to find each other, mate, and produce viable progeny.
B. Random death of the carriers of the mutation before sufficient reproduction,
C. Other possibilities, related to reason 2 below, where a mutation might diffuse through a population with no benefit to its carriers until the right time (which could be the occurence of another complementary mutation, or a change in the environment). This could be thought of as tunneling through the fitness mountain (or going through the Mines of Moria in LOTR), where the phenotype is invisible until you get to the other side, where another valley exists. Most of the tunneling process could be gradual, but the breaking through to the other valley is quick.
2. The right environment could be either external, or internal, as in all the other genes that cooperate and compete with the mutated gene. In fact, on short timescales, a mutation which would be beneficial in the long run might be actually harmful in the short run, or at least neutral. These two possibilities can be illustrated by the following model. Imagine that a village of blind people, nestled in a valley surrounded by mountains has an earthquake, which shifts the landscape. The inhabitants are most content at the lowest possible elevation, but now they are no longer at that lowest elevation. Some of them might be at a local minimum, having moved away from the main population when the whole valley was flat (a mutation which was neutral previously, and now is advantageous due to a shift in the environment). Most of those are not in the valley (of comparable or lower elevation to what they had previously) on the other side of the mountains yet because that is still too far away--neutral mutations give rise to different strains, or may be totally invisible, but almost by definition (or what should be the definition) of a species, drastic or at least very specific changes are necessary to get to the other side of the mountain. Those few who try drastic (or very specific, lucky but not drastic) shifts, (either in their internal memetic space or in their external geographical space) are selected against because they have to undergo some extra hardship to get to the mountain pass--the mutations are disadvantageous in the short run. Or they fail not only because of extra hardship at the higher elevations, but because their efforts are constantly diluted by the majority of the villagers who would rather be more comfortable (more comfortable than if they go up, but less comfortable than if they stay put or even go down to a valley that is still much higher than what they had before) and have evolved a conservatism that has served them well in times before the earthquake. A few may either have been lucky enough to be on the other side of the new mountain pass before the earthquake so that they are memetically isolated from the rest of the villagers, or they can persevere and make it to the mountain pass despite hardship. I suppose the neutral invisible memetic mutations that do not cause extra hardship could keep happening to people in the main village even after the earthquake, but there is not much time. As the population dwindles in the main village, the force of drift dwindles as well.
I part with mainstream evolutionary theory in that I consider reproductive isolation to be a necessary but not sufficient condition for speciation. Perhaps the sufficient condition is a mutation in a master gene (followed by rolling downhill in negative fitness space towards a new valley), which also implies genetic isolation, as the two populations are now separated by a mountainpass. Anytime reproductive isolation has been achieved in the lab at a genetic level (so not just by separating the two populations), the result is closely related strains. Perhaps over eons they will develop significant morphological and functional differences, but since this doesn't seem to happen in nature, I doubt it would happen in a lab, even with the acceleration of mutation rates offered by radiation or chemical mutagens. My bet is that drastic genetic events will occur quickly (due to a mutation in a master gene), followed by further slow divergence (drift and divergence in the new valley).
As far as how these things concern us, people participating in cultural evolution, unlike organisms participating in biological evolution, we are not totally blind, but neither can we see very far into the realm of possibilities ahead. I agree with JMG that the more experiments/expeditions up the mountain or through the mountain are tried the better chance of finding mountain passes. Small, gradual changes are not likely to get us to another valley before being swamped out by the mainstream culture, unless we get lucky and find just the right master memes. Memetic isolation, despite seeming harsh, might be advantageous (do we have to give up the internet, movies, literature, economic interaction)--how much isolation is necessary? there has to be some interaction with the rest of the ecosystem and the analogy of the mainstream culture being the parent population breaks down--it is also an analogous major part of the ecosystem). Otherwise, we can wait for a large population decrease in order to make some progress towards a mountain pass, a possibility I do not savor given the alternative.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)