Joined: May 24, 2004 Posts: 3428 Location: California, USA
Posted: Sat Sep 25, 2004 8:44 pm Post subject:
"In a nation that was proud of hard work, strong families, close-knit communities, and our faith in God, too many of us now tend to worship self-indulgence and consumption. Human identity is no longer defined by what one does, but by what one owns. But we've discovered that owning things and consuming things does not satisfy our longing for meaning. We've learned that piling up material goods cannot fill the emptiness of lives which have no confidence or purpose." (President Jimmy Carter, 15 July 1979)
---
The dominant economic philosophies, by which I include communism as well as capitalism, are all based on the idea that more is necessarily better. This is the core of the tradeoff between quality and quantity, and it leads directly to the kinds of excesses that are killing us.
Obesity is an obvious symptom, and we recognize it as a sign of trouble because of its relatively immediate health consequences. Because it's clearly unhealthy, we assign it a negative aesthetic value, that is, a visceral dis-incentive which says "don't over-eat, you'll end up looking like *that!*"
But there is a more far-reaching form of generalized obesity in the culture: when I was a kid we called it "conspicuous consumption."
The monster-house, the monster-SUV, the unbridled appetite for energy-consuming luxuries, the monstrous accumulations of wealth beyond any capacity for utilization; these are also forms of obesity.
But we don't say "that's a fat house" or "a fat car" or whatever. Or do we...?
In fact the current slang uses the word "fat" (typically spelled "phat") as a synonym for "cool," i.e. very good, excellent, or as an acronym, "pretty, hot, and tempting."
So now we have the inversion of the core meaning of the word. But if we get down to the root of it, there's a grain of truth in the slang: wasteful luxuries are a form of obesity. And yet, this form of obesity is being extolled by the culture as a virtue
---
What I think has happened is, our culture has given in almost wholly to its baser instincts: the primitive chimpanzee and reptilian parts of ourselves; as Aldous Huxley would characterise it, "Ape" rather than "Essence," our animal-nature rather than our God-nature. In secular terms, instinct rather than reason.
Chimps instinctively grasp at anything that is sparkly or new. They also fling their feces at each other in moments of anger. When confronted with a surplus of bananas, they stop sharing, start hoarding, and fight over the spoils. Sound like any humans you know?
---
We need to get our moral compass in order, by which I do not mean indulging in crusades, or scapegoating targeted groups, or asserting moral superiority by denying moral standing to others. The standard of "compared to someone else" has done much harm, as much in the moral realm as in the material realm. What counts is "what is my standing in the eyes of God?," or its secular equivalent, "what is my standing in terms of my own conscience?" Not as compared to someone else, but standing on one's own merits and shortcomings.
I tend to believe that the capacity for evolving to something higher, is as hard-wired into us as the capacity for devolving back to barbarianism. I use the term "Homo Noeticus" to mean "God-knowing human" or "rational human," an evolutionary potential for achieving something beyond the habitual ways of our chimpanzee heritage.
So I think it is entirely possible that a widespread crisis that takes away the "surplus of bananas" could restore the sense of purpose that Carter noted the loss of. In the process, it could also give us a basis for sorting the wheat from the chaff, in terms of what's really important.
---
Where Monte makes reference to "cooperation rather than competition," some clarification is in order. The implicit definition of competition as the equivalent of warfare by other means, isn't quite accurate; it's the byproduct of the last two decades of cut-throat-ism foisted upon us by the "greed is good" crowd. If you go with the more traditional definition, "vying for a goal within the boundary of defined rules," competition is clearly as much a healthy dynamic as cooperation.
Healthy social dynamics include competition (vying for a goal within agreed rules), cooperation (working together for a goal within agreed boundaries), and symbiosis (reciprocal benefit in pursuit of individual goals). Predation and parasitism are the unhealthy dynamics; in each case there are no rules and one actor attempts to gain something from another at the latter's expense. Predation can mimic competition, and parasitism can mimic cooperation or symbiosis. These may seem like unduly fine distinctions, but they're useful.
I don't think we will (or should) see the end of competition. I do think we'll see a rise of predation and parasitism during the crisis, which should not be unexpected, and which will call for strong & clear response. The question is whether humans and their social institutions will evolve or devolve over the long run.
Great post, gg3! I agree with your clarity on competition. I was hoping that this thread would start this kind of dialogue. We need to find that moral compass again. Less is more. Keep up the good posts, my friends!
Monte _________________ A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
Live in Arizona? Check out: http://sustainablearizona.org and read my blog.
1. That Man has two real existing principles, Viz: a Body & a Soul.
2. That Energy, call'd Evil, is alone from the Body; & that Reason, call'd Good, is alone from the Soul.
3. That God will torment Man in Eternity for following his Energies.
The following Contraries to these are True:
1. Man has no Body distinct from his Soul; for that call'd Body is a portion of Soul discern'd by the five Senses, the chief inlets of Soul in this age.
2. Energy is the only life and is from the Body: and Reason is the bound or outward circumference of Energy.
3. Energy is Eternal Delight.
-- William Blake
If God made this world why is a world of suffering? Reasonable people want to know. For any God who made this world would have what kind of morality? Said Satan one day, fallen to his knees to pray, "Oh Heavenly Father may I one day be as sinful as you." Ah, energy is eternal delight!
If there is such a beast as morality point it out. All men differ in customs so what is this bedrock morality of mankind that is a production of our rationalisation? The most powerful inflict their predjdices on the weak and call it moral, or civilisation, or this or that.
"Sense of Purpose", smells like manifest destiny. Mankind can evolve into something higher? Well get moving for some of us already have, but unfortunately there is one large problem, what do you do with those that haven't evolved? Must you needs liquidate them; for after all evolution isn't like education, you can't teach someone to evolve. Quite the moral delimma, should you kill the lower form of life that threatens your new life or do you allow them to continue on their destructive path which could result in the failure of you as an experiment by mother nature? Tricky. I'll get back to you on what we decide.
The issue of assumptions concerning human nature has been surfacing all over the site. I've had a go at pointing out the dynamic effect on others' conduct of our expectations of their nature, and the resulting limitations on the options we're willing to evaluate, but to no discernable response.
So, for what its worth, here is one (50-year-old) ecologist's perspective on these questions.
First, I'd observe that we carried lethal hunting weapons for something over a million years, during the formative development of our species, without apparently resorting either to reliance on a development of defensive walls or any very significant elevation of the lethality of our weaponry.
Come the Younger Dryass event, about 10,500 BP, during the final retreat of the ice age, there was a massive 8C spike recorded in Greenland's paleo-meteorological record over a 40 year period.
I'm told on good authority (sans documentation) that this was of a scale to impact global temperature and weather dramatically, accelerating the retreat of the northern ice sheets and also perhaps the advance of tropical drylands, followed equally abruptly by this process's reversal.
Not so long after this event, in the isthmus between Africa and Eurasia, the earliest recorded defensive walls were erected; urbo-centric society has degenerated to the use of modern weaponry in the relatively fleeting period since then.
The ratio of the two time periods is of the order of 100 to 1.
In learning whatever I can of native peoples' traditions I've recognised in them cultural values that are vanishingly rare, though are still to be found, in modern urbo-centric society.
Just one example must suffice here:
An elder of the nomadic Gabbra people of Northern Kenya, filmed in the early '90s, surveying one of the seasonal gatherings of the tribe when, traditionally, gifts were given widely, and saying sadly and a bit indignantly,
"These days, the people don't trade for good will: they trade for things ! "
- Beyond those exchanges, if someone had a bad year with drought or lost his cattle to bandits, it was a matter of honour that everyone well off would chip in to get him back on his feet, with no question of recompense later. . . An axiom of the tribe was,
"The poor man shames us all."
That to my mind is a deeply honourable culture. In this brief post it must serve as a rather small hook to carry a quite large thesis:
This is that what we are taught and trained to see as human nature is a mere stunted and stupefied shadow of the underlying reality.
There are two things I would hope to see post peak which will, I surmise, change people's openness to the possibility of a cultural renaissance, a coming together in a time of crisis rather than a retreat into a vicious spiral of warlordism:
The first is an end to the mass-advertizing of factory product which employs mal-psychologists specifically to generate insecure states of mind, with potent effects on culture through stunting the emotional development of the mass of individuals;
The second is an end to urban populations' living with significant levels of volatile fossil hydrocarbons in the air they breathe. In comparing the steadiness, clarity and integrity of mind of minimally-polluted societies with those of traffic-filled urban societies the contrast is far more than obvious.
If this stupefying effect was due to any other common pollutant, such as NOx or Ozone, I would expect the intensive researches into them to have spotted it. By comparison, VFHCs' phsycotropic effects have faced little if any serious research, so it seems a likely culprit.
Given resolute inspiration for the common good, together with cleaner air and a decline in the mass-conditioning apparatus, I personally believe we may see un-guessed-at reserves of integrity and inner courage emerging from within human nature. This is not of course to overlook the profound scale of cultural shock that seems likely in various nations.
Perhaps the crucial resource that has yet to be encouraged is the recognition in ordinary people that what we are seeing is an obvious and wholesale failure and discrediting of an ideology, which I'd describe as being expansionary asset capitalism.
For what its worth these are my views, which I sense in some ways mesh with much of what's already been posted on this thread. I'd apologize here both for the various shortcomings, and for the length, of their expression.
Beyond those exchanges, if someone had a bad year with drought or lost his cattle to bandits, it was a matter of honour that everyone well off would chip in to get him back on his feet, with no question of recompense later. . . An axiom of the tribe was,
"The poor man shames us all."
Nature of conflict
Wajir is a home of several refugee camps owing to the repeated cases of conflict in the past two decades. Cattle raids overtly manifest the clan conflicts and blatant massacres meted on innocent women, children and the elderly. Ajuran, Gare and Degodia are the main feuding clans in the district. Other aggressors include Borana, Gabbra and to a lesser extent the Maasai.
Causes of conflict
Most of the conflicts have their root causes to natural resources, namely pasture, water and land which has hitherto been politically capitalized outside the district.
"Causes of conflict
Most of the conflicts have their root causes to natural resources, namely pasture, water and land which has hitherto been politically capitalized outside the district. "
Beside the attitude of the Kenyan gov.t and its officials towards this area and its people there are further factors to consider, of which the potent impact of the destabilization of the 'wet' season rains over the last three decades is but one.
All times are GMT - 6 Hours Goto page Previous1, 2
Page 2 of 2
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
News
Discussions
Resources
Members
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
