EcoSphere Lessons

EcoSphere, from Wikimedia Commons

Try guessing the common glue that connects the following topics often covered on this blog in recent years:

  1. The Sixth Mass Extinction is a scary prospect
  2. Space colonization is a fantasy
  3. Agriculture and subsequent inventions spell bad news
  4. Meat-brains are not all that impressive
  5. Dualism drives a sense of separateness

A clue to the glue is that one word will do. And it’s not in the title, exactly. Have I spoiled the challenge with too many hints? Well, in any case, the word is: ecology.

Obviously, the first item is an ecological concern. The second is borne of total ecological ignorance. The third marks a turning point in our ecological relationships—from embedded participants to would-be masters. Our most consequential mental shortcoming is believing we can invent replacements for ecology that have long-term sustainable potential. And the last gets at the philosophical (metaphysical) underpinning that accompanies our ecological estrangement.

This post highlights yet another failure on the ecology front that has overlap bearing on these themes. That failure is the EcoSphere aquaria. An EcoSphere is a desktop curio containing a small, sealed community of life meant to sustain itself for long periods. And it does, sort-of: for a whole hundred-thousandth of timescales relevant to ecology and evolution. Yay? Only 99.999% more to go! You’re almost there!

Continue reading

Views: 869

Bus Driver on Mars

I was recently on a medium-haul bus ride, sitting within earshot of the driver—but not the closest passenger to him. I’d encountered him a few times before: a somewhat chatty middle-aged fellow given to telling the occasional joke into the microphone for the whole bus. He is, on the whole, a friendly and likable guy, who does his job well.

The passenger sitting in front of me obviously had talked with him before, because at one point he asked the driver for an update on his ion drive. It took three tries to have his question heard correctly: “eye-on drive?” But once clear, ho boy did the conversation take off!

This post is partly for entertainment value, but also serves to highlight delusions about space. Granted, some people might judge this character to be a little “out there,” but to my ears all space talk is at a similar level of crazy.

Continue reading

Views: 1654

Ditching Dualist Language

Language built around the soul (Wikimedia Commons).

In the aftermath of surviving the construction of a mono-syllabic blog post—as an exploration of language’s inherent limitations—it is perhaps time to attempt a post in which the dualist underpinnings of modern language are examined and minimized. As an aside, perhaps “Aftermath” would be a better name for this blog, given its shift of focus from quantitative energy analysis to a broader condemnation of the consequences of modernity.

How is the English language a Trojan Horse for dualism? Several major constructs preserve and promote dualistic thinking. Foremost is personhood: first-, second-, and third-person framings emphasize the primacy of individual agency and ownership. Ownership receives its own possessive pedestal in language construction—present even in this sentence. Pronoun choice then serves to establish possession of personhood—or, significantly in the context of a dualist mindset, lack of personhood denoted by “it” (see this fun solution by Robin Wall Kimmerer). Also looming large, subjects and objects serve to promote a clear duality of agency: something or someone does something to something or someone else. The framing promotes humans as subjects having subjective experiences involving instrumentalized objects. Even the use of “something or someone” two sentences back nurtures a dual classification scheme.

This post will explore some of these pernicious dualistic influences in modern language. Throughout, every attempt is made to use non-personed language—mainly via avoidance of “I”, “we,” etc. Some experimentation will also appear toward the end attempting to break subject/object dualism. Don’t expect too much. It is English, after all, and thus a flawed starting point.

Of course, most people in our culture—imprisoned by dualist convictions and thoroughly steeped in dualist language—would struggle to make any sense of the objections and work-arounds contained herein. Presumably, readers of this blog are more amenable to questioning pervading metaphysical foundations.

Continue reading

Views: 1820

On A Lark

Prose for Neanderthals (Wikimedia Commons)

A few times now I have played a game with friends in which you try to get your team to guess a word on a card by way of hints/words you come up with. What makes it hard is that you may not use long words that need more than one “sound” to speak (yes, there is a word for that, but if I used it here, I would break the rules). If you slip up and use a “big” word, you get bopped on the head with a club (a soft one that is blown up with air from your lungs).

What I found was that my style is not the same as that of my friends. They tend to speak one word at a time, each one picked as a key hint that might—on its own—help close in on the word to be guessed. An example might be that hints for the word “soup” would be words like “hot,” “slurp,” “bowl,” “cup,” “broth.” It gets the job done.

But I tend to speak whole thoughts as a string of words that have nouns and verbs and all the bits that join them—the way we tend to speak in real life. And for the most part, I seem to keep up a pace close to what I can do in day-to-day speech—if not just as fast. In the “soup” case, I might say “It’s a type of food made with broth that you eat or slurp from a bowl or cup: best on a cold day or when you’re sick.” I can tell you that it works well. My friends are so quick to guess the right word when I use this scheme that I don’t make it to the end. It turns out that our brains are well-tuned to this style of speech.

On a lark, I thought I would try to write based on these rules, to see where it might go. So far, so good—sort-of. A few times I have had to go off on a strange path to make my point, when a key thought seems to have no short word that can do the job. But as I wrote more, things took a turn that I had not guessed would come to pass when I set out. The lark took the shape of a post!

Words do not make the world. They can’t catch all that is real. Words can’t give a full sense of how red does not look like blue, or what light is, or how quarks move, or why some things are charged or what charge is, in fact. Words are not up to the task. The world has been here for far more time than words have, so does not and can not work based on them. Words can give no more than a poor, pale sense of the truth of things.

What I want to do in this post, just for fun (well, more than that), is use the rules of this game to show how hard it is to make a strong and clear case for a point that would still be tough to make if I could use all words. I think/hope we can learn from it. When bound to a small set of words, all kinds of wrong views can be spawned in the cracks that are left. But this is true as well when the full set of words can be used, which is—let’s face it—still a small set in the grand scheme of things. In each case, words have no choice but to fall short of the full deal.

Continue reading

Views: 1816

Babylonian Banter

Tower of Babylon (by Jankaka on Wikimedia Commons).

In November I gave a seminar talk for the Planetary Limits Academic Network about why I believe modernity to be a dead-end, while also touching on underlying attitudes that drive us in this destructive direction. When presenting the narrative that sequential development of agriculture, writing, money, science, and fossil fuels collectively constituted a decisive trap leading us to the current state, I got pushback from a few in the audience over the notion of determinism. See my Time on the River post for a flavor of this narrative.

Fans of Graeber & Wengrow’s Dawn of Everything (and there are many, especially in the left-leaning academic circles from which I hail) tend to be—like the authors—allergic to suggestions of determinism. They find the notion very appealing that we could just as well have designed and conjured the ideal technological society: egalitarian, global, peaceful, prosperous, clean, and all the rest. See Abundance as recent example of such eco-modernist fantasy. I was honestly stunned by the gross simplifications in Graeber & Wengrow’s book, which elicited a sharp critique from me.

The moderator of the seminar prodded Chris Smaje, in attendance, to comment on my negative portrayal of agriculture. Chris has written, among other books, A Small Farm Future, runs a blog of the same name, and is generally an advocate of a small-scale agrarian response as a path to exit modernity—which in itself I believe is a fine (transitional) strategy.

The discussion prompted Chris to draft a blog post, which he passed by me to avoid misrepresentation and to solicit comments. We had an engaging e-mail exchange for a bit, and last week his post (By the Rivers of Babylon: debating agrarianism with Tom Murphy) went live. This post offers my follow-up response on the subject.

Continue reading

Views: 3489

The Flat Mars Society

A while back I compared enthusiasts for space colonization with Flat Earth believers, in that they both believe strongly in something that isn’t real, and in the fullness of time may look rather embarrassing. I thought it could be fruitful to contact Daniel Clark, producer of the excellent documentary Behind the Curve about Flat Earth believers, who was on board with a bit of space-bashing. When I mentioned this to Alex Leff, the idea for a podcast conversation was born.

You can listen to the hour-long conversation here. In it, we discuss some of the drivers behind odd beliefs, noting the similarities and differences between Flat Earth and space colonization beliefs (hint: one of these crazy ideas is prevalent in our society to the highest levels of wealth and power). I, of course, offer a number of perspectives on the absurdity of the colonization dream. Daniel and Alex work a bit to temper my “you just can’t do it no matter how hard you might want it” with a bit of catering (coddling?) to the unrealistic dreamers, trying to distract them with alternative attractive options, as one might a child. Nothing will stop them from continuing to pine—and failing in the end. Future generations won’t share the misplaced zeal and that will be that. I guess my target audience at this stage isn’t the true believers as much as it is those who might get swept along in their enthusiasm without having ever been exposed to the overwhelming hardships.

I also had a conversation with Derrick Jensen on why we’re not going to space, which he will soon post in a re-launch of his Resistance Radio YouTube channel. For now, this is just a placeholder: I will add a link to the conversation once it’s out. I’ll also put a note in the newsletter to subscribers when that happens.

Finally, I am scheduled to talk about the space fantasy topic with Nate Hagens and DJ White in late February, which I’ll also eventually add here (and notify subscribers).

Views: 1268

Ditching Dualism #10: Determinism

This driver is free to do anything with the steering wheel and gas pedal, at any time…or is he, really? (Photo by Szymon Kochański.)

One major hangup in subscribing to a physics-based universe of material monism is that it appears to remove human agency as typically conceived in our culture. If atoms and their interactions are making everything happen, abiding by rules they (or we) cannot violate, is there any room left for human intervention or free will? As obvious as it is to us that we can weigh decisions and do things when/as we want, this disconnect alone is often enough to cause categorical rejection of materialism—retreating instead to the more comforting and self-promoting metaphysics of dualism. This is quite understandable: the notion that physics, not “soul” is the master of all “our” actions is an exceedingly challenging prospect for meat-brains to square—especially when modern language is constructed around first-person ownership of “ourselves” as subjects. Even if able to make intellectual sense of the matter, it’s still a tough pill for anyone to swallow. It sure doesn’t feel right, for what very little that’s actually worth.

Determinism also rubs people wrong in the context of history: suggesting that only one path was available to the present, precluding any potential counterfactual fantasies that are all-too-easy and entertaining to imagine (by leaving out almost the entire, actual universe in meat-brain models). It also might imply to some (erroneously) that humans played no role in shaping events, if there’s only one way said events could have played out.

Many react to determinism with a “then what’s the point, if everything is pre-determined” sort of response (another fallacious framing). Determinism seems to lay out railroad tracks to the future, leaving nothing for us to do. Why even get out of bed, then?

I’ll try to address these issues here. Perhaps I’ve said it all scattered across other posts and comments, but here it is all in one place, with a few new twists and perspectives. Bear in mind that I am presenting (advocating) the case against dualism and for materialist monism. Please forgive the fact that I do not couch every statement with “In the materialist monist view…,” the repeated absence of which may come across as laying claim to ultimate truth, which of course I cannot do.

Continue reading

Views: 2287

Ditching Dualism #9: Reductionism

Atoms get up to phenomenal self-organized arrangements (adapted from a photo by warrenski on Wikimedia Commons).

Two posts back, we discussed common objections to the materialist (monist) perspective, before visiting the idea of material sentience. Another form of objection is to label such views as “reductionist.” The thinking is that claiming Life to be “nothing but” matter is not only a staggering simplification, but also reduces the amazingness of life to mere “dead” physics.

But see, not only is the “dead” part dead wrong (animated interactions never rest!), the objection itself requires a fundamentally dualist perspective: asserting/fabricating a hierarchy and division between Life and matter as a non-negotiable starting point. If the concern is that Life is devalued by comparing it to (or even further, saying it fundamentally is) “just” matter, the problem is in concocting a dual valuation in the first place. Why not say the entire singular phenomenon is amazing? Maybe the problem is in denigrating matter. What’s the equivalent of “racist” when it comes to matter? I guess “dualist” will do.

Thus, we may appreciate how “sticky” dualist beliefs are. Without truly inhabiting a non-dualist viewpoint, any materialist approach seems reprehensible from within that biased framework. Lots of belief systems feature similar mechanisms to quell questioning or discourage straying far enough from the path that the path begins to seem janky.

Continue reading

Views: 1814

Ditching Dualism #8: Sentience

These animated little guys know what they’re about: sensing and responding (sentient). Adapted from Wikimedia Commons.

Now we turn to one of the more perplexing aspects of materialism: one that prevents many from abandoning dualist beliefs. How can sentient living beings possibly arise from matter alone? Dualism asserts a sharp ontological divide between animate and inanimate (mind and matter as a parallel aspect), categorically prohibiting animate beings from being wholly composed of inanimate matter. The last post addressed the flaw in characterizing matter as being “inert” in the first place.

But even once past this barrier, our inability to connect all the dots from atoms to conscious experience (which no one has managed to do, and likely never will), strongly tempts us to declare—assuming phantasmic authority—that no such route even could exist, or that failure to map it means it may as well be declared non-existent (a reaction worthy of the Ravenous Bugblatter Beast). Where’s the adventure in that?

As an aside, allusion to “phantasmic authority” above may elicit the reflexive charge that advocating materialist monism is an equivalent assertion devoid of authority. Not so fast. Materialist monism amounts to being satisfied that matter/interactions can plausibly form the entire basis of reality even if we don’t understand how. It is in claiming materialism to be insufficient—without evidence—that meat-brains seize more authority than they are due. Materialist monism cedes authority to the universe as we find it, rather than presuming to fabricate comforting alternatives.

Anyway, lacking a complete map, how does materialism deal with our experience as sentient beings, or other sentient life? We find a significant clue in the etymology of sentient. The root word is “sense.”

Continue reading

Views: 2674

Ditching Dualism #7: Objections

Why is strict materialism a hard sell for many in our dualist-dominated culture? Okay, so some are understandably pulled by the attractive idea of an immortal soul. Others just feel that there has to be more to all this than the interplay of matter and energy in a vast, unblinking universe. But attractions aside, what are typical objections to a material-only existence?

It may be instructive to ask why people objected to the idea of a round Earth, to the prospect that Earth orbits the sun, or to the concept of evolution (see Daniel Quinn’s “three dirty tricks“).

Part of it, we must recognize, is good-old-fashioned ignorance. If unaware of the observations in conflict with the stale stance, or insufficiently observant, there would seem to be no need to switch trains. The old view serves quite well enough, and even engenders a certain fondness or comfort. Also contributing is that incomplete grasp of the new idea (perhaps poorly delivered or too unfamiliar) favors its premature rejection—after which entrenchment more likely obtains. But then again, most changes in worldview at the cultural scale happen via generational replacement rather than by changed individuals.

Continue reading

Views: 2994