Hi Chris. As always, thanks for the thoughtful comments.
Yes, I do think we should include pre-city cultures in “civilization”. From my very cursory reading it appears to me that these cultures had, in primitive form, all of the human accomplishments except permanent structures. In terms of understanding humankind, that seems to me to be an arbitrary distinction. Aside from bits and pieces I’ve encountered on the web, my knowledge comes from “The Old Way”, “Don’t Sleep, There Are Snakes”, “Our Kind”, and “The Dawn of Everything”. “Dawn”, in particular, it has a lot to say about “democracy” and “autocracy”.
I just recently ran across Dawkins memes and was just trying out the concept. It does appear that “meme” is too vague to be useful. I’ll have to give this further thought.
Before I say more, perhaps you’d be willing to say a bit more about:
- “the relationship between habit and behaviour, and although I've written about this philosophical issue many times before”
My guess is that none of the ancient philosophers came close to imagining the world most of us think we now live in, and hence are not entirely relevant. A single super state would be a culture disaster, but I think it is clear that our current chaotic, and ad-hoc global institutions are not giving us a world without war. We may have thought that a “bumblebee files against all sense”, but nature had no such thought. Nature has brought us to our current denouement. Are we biologically and culturally equipped to pass through it? We won’t know until we get to the next act.
I hang my hat on a few fundamental propositions:
- by nature every human mind is different,
- only through civil, thoughtful, and empathetic dialogue can groups of humans arrive at even temporarily productive policies and actions.
I also take it as fundamental that although no mind ever fully knows a non-tautological truth, I believe that there are a few propositions that pretty near all of us must accept if we are to survive and flourish. Two of these are:[1]
- from birth to death every human has an inalienable right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”,
- every human being has an inalienable right to a fair share in the earth’s and humankind’s material and cultural wealth.
There are many ways a society can be organized and still live by these propositions. In fact, a multiplicity of different societies is a logical and cultural necessity. But for me, it follows logically that all forms of socially sponsored violence must, in our atomic age, be universally prohibited.
Notes
[1] A personal list, but something similar is an absolute requirement.
Thanks for this comment, which now makes sense to me in that 'lightbulb suddenly lit' kind of way! 🙂
Regarding treating civilisation as commencing before cities, there's much that's appealing about this move, in terms of extending the continuity of human culture and also showing that there are other ways beyond those that the cities fostered. But there's also a certain legerdemain to this move, something that is also inherent in our typical use of civilisation (and I do this too so this is not an accusation against you as such, but against all of us). The humanist in me (seldom my loudest voice) thinks this mythos can serve us well, while the nitpicker in me wonders whether we aren't erasing an awful lot of cultural differences in unifying in this way... It's an interesting tangent in itself.
You ask for more on the relationship between habit and behaviour - that's one heck of a topic! I mentioned it as its my standard riposte against 'meme' as a scientific concept (rather than as a metaphor, where it sometimes works well). I don't think I can cover this briefly, but I'll consider writing on habit later this year. I'm all written up to end of February, and I have plans for March, so I'll see if I can get this into April. Thanks for the encouragement and suggestion!
"My guess is that none of the ancient philosophers came close to imagining the world most of us think we now live in, and hence are not entirely relevant."
I can see why you'd think this, but on the other hand because they are outside the Klein bottle we are trapped within they still have much to reveal to us. If you are stuck in a maze, it is the people outside who can provide the clearest navigation, especially if they have a higher vantage point.
I like your principles, but I wonder about this one:
"every human being has an inalienable right to a fair share in the earth’s and humankind’s material and cultural wealth."
...because this seems to require cancelling our current game of money and creating a new one, which I pragmatically take to be impractical for all that idealistically I think it would be a appealing play.
Many thanks for your continued contributions, Frank - always enormously appreciated!
It seems to me that if I push back “civilization” to refer to our earliest language-using social groups, then I am using “civilization” in two different senses. One is to designate the significant break between pre-human social groups and human societies, and the other to designate specific instances of this. For example, Egyptian Civilization, Inca Civilization, etc. For me the significant break came when we developed enough language to tell stories. Aren’t stories one of the bedrocks of culture?
Re: “ancient philosophers”:
I agree that ancient philosophers have much to teach us if we distinguish between discussions about physical reality, social reality, and subjective realities. Currently our understanding of social reality has not advanced much further than that of the ancients, so their comments are quite germane.
Re: every human being has an inalienable right to a fair share
“because this seems to require cancelling our current game of money”
It is certainly important that we try to understand the forces threatening a dark age, but we should also be trying to describe principles that might enable our civilization to stop yo-yoing between stability and chaos. In seem to me that one such principle is a general notion of economic fairness. Fairness is not a firm concept. There will always be disagreement, but it is now generally agreed on that there are limits. For example, slavery is now illegal everywhere. I don’t see how eliminating, say, extreme poverty requires “cancelling our current game of money’’.
A guess at a necessary condition for a long-term worldwide civilization:
In the distant past a few civilizations lasted several millennia. At what point did we become the First Worldwide Civilization? I’d say between 1914 and 1947, where we can take the formation of the UN as the beginning of our FWC. So, under this view we’ve been a going concern for only around seven decades. Except for a few exceptions in previous civilizations, autocracy has been the rule.[1] We are apparently in a period where either autocracy or democracy will become the dominate form of government in the First Worldwide Civilization. If autocracy becomes the dominate form, diversity will recede, the lights of creativity will dim, and we’ll enter a modern version of a dark age.[2] No sweat. We’ve been there before. But now there’s the wild card of weapons of mass destruction. My reading of the innate properties of the human mind operating in the current FWC culture is that in a civilization dominated by autocrats the eventual use of these weapons is a near certainty, and depending on the extent of the resulting damage, human civilization could permanently end. Such is the view of an old, retired citizen philosophizing from a perch of privilege.
Notes:
[1] Is this debatable? Yes? Then please enlighten me.
[2] We don’t have that many data points, but in recent history this seems to be the case.
Thanks for continuing our conversation! I previously replied that I didn't have time to do these comments justice, but a meeting was cancelled and so I am happy to write a response after all.
"Aren’t stories one of the bedrocks of culture?"
They are, but I would not equate 'culture' and 'civilisation'. The former is older - far older. Indeed, I would contend that culture predates humanity. I think, however, I now understand how you are using 'civilisation', and have no concerns other than it differs from my own, which is trivial, and that it might entail a contradiction. I'll elaborate.
"Except for a few exceptions in previous civilizations, autocracy has been the rule... Is this debatable? Yes? Then please enlighten me."
It comes to the meaning of 'civilisation' again - autocracy has not dominated traditional cultures at all - the chief and the shaman do not possess autocratic power, and the moot has been nearly universal. So it comes to whether or not we associate civilisation with traditional culture, or with something else. You have chosen a broad view of civilisation - on your broad view, I think it is incorrect that autocracy has dominated. But I think this is true on the 'narrow view', that associates civilisation with cities and taxation. So there is perhaps a contradiction in your thinking here, but not a serious one. I think perhaps the contradiction lies in the expansiveness of what you consider 'civilisation', which tacitly aligns with 'empire' (or perhaps with taxation...?). I don't think this is actually a serious problem, because the arguments you are making are not 'sunk' by this contradiction, it just might be that you are glossing over the successes that humanity has had at organising it on a small scale over the last four to ten millennia. From your position, these small scale examples are either 'not civilisation' or are not scalable, and so cannot speak to our current situation. For this reason, I don't think the contradictions in your approach are fatal to your actual arguments. I hope this makes sense!
"Currently our understanding of social reality has not advanced much further than that of the ancients, so their comments are quite germane."
An excellent point! In fact, philosophy has covered this approach rather well over the millennia, but it has steadfastly refused to 'go through' any further than these discussions, creating a significant gap in understanding that is persistent enough that I suspect it will not go away. We well might return to this point in other contexts...
Background:
"Frank: Re: every human being has an inalienable right to a fair share
Chris: ...because this seems to require cancelling our current game of money...
New points:
"Fairness is not a firm concept. There will always be disagreement, but it is now generally agreed on that there are limits. For example, slavery is now illegal everywhere."
Okay, I think the misunderstanding here sprang from your use of 'fair share'; you meant 'fair' in the sense of limiting the extremes *at the bottom*. For me, to evoke 'fair share' is to summon a stronger economic claim, and one that hinges on the disproportionate power that comes from the massive accumulation of money (it matters not very much whether this accumulation is with governments, corporations, or individuals). I think your claim is that every human being has an inalienable right to avoid crushing poverty. This claim does not requiring cancelling the current game of money. However, the easiest way of solving this problem remains to re-establish the commons. The loss of the commons is the primary cause of poverty, which is brought about by the regime of the economic. I hope to touch upon this point again in the future.
You are absolutely correct to draw attention to the wooliness of 'fair' - this, actually, is an enormous problem in itself, and one often misunderstood. One must take care when asserting fairness, because there are no standards here to which we can appeal in isolation. I am finding reading Charles Dickens to be fascinating in this regard (for Dickens truly understands the nature of poverty in his time in a way that I would say we simply do not - perhaps cannot), and I hope to write more about this in the future too.
"A guess at a necessary condition for a long-term worldwide civilization..."
I very much like your remarks here. And I think my only issue remains that the prevailing problem of our time is the association of 'democracy' with a specific ideology (or non-religion) to the extent that folks can talk without a hint of irony about "saving our democracy" by denying democracy to others to whom they are opposed. The situation in this regard is at its worst right now in Germany and Canada, with the United States not too far behind (among the countries that espouse democracy, at least - we can set aside for now the autocratic states, where the situation is evidently even worse).
There remain enormous risks associated with nuclear weapons (there are still, to my knowledge, no other kinds of weapons of mass destruction extant, and chemical weapons while horrific are not obviously worse than conventional bombing). I suspect your intuition about autocracy increasing the risk of their deployment is correct. If previously-democratic states turn autocratic in order to 'save democracy', what might this mean for the possibilities of self-destruction...? I'm uncertain. This risk, I think, is greater than most people realise, even if its consequences can be difficult to fathom. We could end up merely with competing forms of autocracy if we lose sight of the necessity of accepting disagreements for any viable form of democracy. This, I fear, is roughly the impasse we are rapidly approaching.
"Such is the view of an old, retired citizen philosophizing from a perch of privilege."
Perhaps everyone who has a chance to philosophise must necessarily sit upon a perch of privilege... for me, however, it is a privilege to listen to your thoughts. And these are two different sense of 'privilege' that perhaps have more to say to one another than they realise.
Thank you Chris, you are quite right. Non-autocratic societies apparently predominated prior to the rise of cities. Evidence for this is assembled in The "Dawn of Everything" by Graeber and Wengrow. For me, the interesting question is “why?” did autocracy triumph. Perhaps this question has or will come up in more recent Stranger Worlds dialogues.
I may not be fully informed, but with the rise of cities, wasn’t autocratic rule nearly universal?[1]
Re: the commons versus money
I picked crushing poverty as a simple case. I’m with you in bringing up the problem of “fair” share in a civilization dominated by massive accumulations of money. What are viable alternatives? I’m sort of the opinion that human history in the large has followed built-in imperatives. I think this is true of all life forms. But for us, biology driven evolution is behind us. In the coming millennium we will see if we’re up to the task of manifesting a lasting civilization that can support the well-being and creativity of everyone.
I have draft of a reply to a more recent SW post. Perhaps our exchanges should move forward.
Notes:
[1] We’ve discussed ‘democracy’ and ‘autocracy’ previously. To keep the logic simple, I’m using ‘democracy’ to denote societies where the many have an institutionalized say in how they are governed, and ‘autocracy’ where they don’t.
Hi Chris! Glad to see you turning you erudition and attention to the most pressing problem of our time, as you write in this month’s preamble: “to strive towards ending the need for anyone to fight in a war.”
It seems to me that unless we can move to a worldwide civilization in which state sponsored violence is unthinkable (and impossible) your “graveyard of humanity” will eventually come to pass. My understanding of this piece is that it is focused on the geopolitical conditions that have an effect on whether or not states are at war. Certainly, these conditions are important. It seems that some conditions, like an iron-clad bane on state-funded standing armies, are necessary, but in my view these considerations are secondary. For me, everything that is manifested in social reality first occurs in a human mind. Hence, a world without war cannot exist until there is a bedrock shift in the amalgamation of human consciousness.
Despite the fact that the foundations of human consciousness are laid down by nature, I believe such an amalgamation is possible. But first it must be understood that a world without war will not necessarily be a peaceful world, nor is such a world desirable. Here in the 70th millennium of human civilization I cannot imagine a world in which humanity is not organized into competing states along the lines that we currently have.[1] But our inherent human competitiveness need not be manifested in state sponsored, near total violence.
We are a highly adaptable species. In 70 millennia we have created a dizzying array of different cultures. It is not beyond our innate mental/emotional capability to create a multicultural, multistate based civilization in which war is not possible.
The content of our individual consciousnesses is only roughly determined by biology. The bulk of it is determined by life experiences. Our birth culture plays a significant role. Biologically gene changes can take a long time to become dominate. Similarly with cultural memes. It is only within the last 0.3 millennia that we have found (1) that a good model for where we came from is that we are kin to ALL the life forms on this planet, and (2) that “race” is not a natural category. Currently, these two memes are not part of the controlling consciousness of most of us. We can change this. Where is the existential need for brothers to fight to the death?
Note:
[1] It is possible that in some distant future we might all live in a single super state. My imagination balks. Nor do I think such a state would be desirable.
Thank you for this thoughtful comment, Frank. As ever, I have a few comments... I'll start with the most trivial.
You say 70 millennia of civilisation - I take it you are counting through the agricultural and hunter-gatherer millennia here? I have tended to align with those who treat 'civilisation' as commencing with cities, which is only 8 millennia. But I am never entirely comfortable with this, since it is the cities - with which come taxes and armies - that are the start of many of our problems. There is something to be said for counting a phase of civilisation before this... not least of all, that this appears to have been an era of peace that ended with the arrival of the city.
I see you follow Dawkins in thinking in terms of genes and memes. This is not my bag, personally, as I find it too reductive and thus misleading. Gene-effects can actually change very rapidly, as dog breeding demonstrates, but this rapidity should not be an invitation to attempt to solve these problems in genetics. Another kind of disaster lies on this path. As for 'meme', this for me does not track very well the relationship between habit and behaviour, and although I've written about this philosophical issue many times before I'll not bore you with the details. I'll just try to read your 'meme' as 'element of cultural practice' and move on.
This piece, as you say, focuses on the geopolitical issues. The remainder of the pieces this month transition from this perspective towards the personal. I made the journey in this direction for artistic reasons, but also I think we can access the geopolitical dimensions of warfare more 'safely' (in emotional terms), and so this is a gradual immersion in the relevant questions. However, there is also a cost in moving in this direction, which I'll set aside for now but which will cause certain problems to arise for some readers.
I concur with you that a single super state is a legitimate risk. Indeed, I believe we are facing this risk currently. Today's piece will touch upon this, as many here have done previously, and I surely will do so again.
You say:
"Hence, a world without war cannot exist until there is a bedrock shift in the amalgamation of human consciousness."
Aye, again I concur. And herein lies the great challenge, because through various accidents and manipulations, war has become solidified as a necessity. Since war ensures further war, the cycle of violence becomes bedded into people's practices for thought, from which it will not easily be dislodged. For a brief time, fear of nuclear armageddon awoke the desire for peace, but this time has ended - we are not permitted to think about nuclear weapons in the same way that we are not permitted to think about cars... So much has been hidden outside of the space of discourse, and now even that space itself is under threat. Perhaps in playing their hand too soon and too harshly, those who would seek to stifle discourse will awaken those of us who would strive to defend it. It has certainly done so for me.
I do not know what can awaken this possibility of a renewed desire for peace again, but I know that it is possible. As such I just keep faith against the risk of despair and hope that the path to peace can be opened once more if enough of us hold the line and keep dreaming the impossible dreams. The bumblebee flies against all sense, because the truth exceeds our expectations. Let us hope this is true about peace as well.
Reply:TGGHagr_2
Hi Chris. As always, thanks for the thoughtful comments.
Yes, I do think we should include pre-city cultures in “civilization”. From my very cursory reading it appears to me that these cultures had, in primitive form, all of the human accomplishments except permanent structures. In terms of understanding humankind, that seems to me to be an arbitrary distinction. Aside from bits and pieces I’ve encountered on the web, my knowledge comes from “The Old Way”, “Don’t Sleep, There Are Snakes”, “Our Kind”, and “The Dawn of Everything”. “Dawn”, in particular, it has a lot to say about “democracy” and “autocracy”.
I just recently ran across Dawkins memes and was just trying out the concept. It does appear that “meme” is too vague to be useful. I’ll have to give this further thought.
Before I say more, perhaps you’d be willing to say a bit more about:
- “the relationship between habit and behaviour, and although I've written about this philosophical issue many times before”
My guess is that none of the ancient philosophers came close to imagining the world most of us think we now live in, and hence are not entirely relevant. A single super state would be a culture disaster, but I think it is clear that our current chaotic, and ad-hoc global institutions are not giving us a world without war. We may have thought that a “bumblebee files against all sense”, but nature had no such thought. Nature has brought us to our current denouement. Are we biologically and culturally equipped to pass through it? We won’t know until we get to the next act.
I hang my hat on a few fundamental propositions:
- by nature every human mind is different,
- only through civil, thoughtful, and empathetic dialogue can groups of humans arrive at even temporarily productive policies and actions.
I also take it as fundamental that although no mind ever fully knows a non-tautological truth, I believe that there are a few propositions that pretty near all of us must accept if we are to survive and flourish. Two of these are:[1]
- from birth to death every human has an inalienable right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”,
- every human being has an inalienable right to a fair share in the earth’s and humankind’s material and cultural wealth.
There are many ways a society can be organized and still live by these propositions. In fact, a multiplicity of different societies is a logical and cultural necessity. But for me, it follows logically that all forms of socially sponsored violence must, in our atomic age, be universally prohibited.
Notes
[1] A personal list, but something similar is an absolute requirement.
Dear Frank,
Thanks for this comment, which now makes sense to me in that 'lightbulb suddenly lit' kind of way! 🙂
Regarding treating civilisation as commencing before cities, there's much that's appealing about this move, in terms of extending the continuity of human culture and also showing that there are other ways beyond those that the cities fostered. But there's also a certain legerdemain to this move, something that is also inherent in our typical use of civilisation (and I do this too so this is not an accusation against you as such, but against all of us). The humanist in me (seldom my loudest voice) thinks this mythos can serve us well, while the nitpicker in me wonders whether we aren't erasing an awful lot of cultural differences in unifying in this way... It's an interesting tangent in itself.
You ask for more on the relationship between habit and behaviour - that's one heck of a topic! I mentioned it as its my standard riposte against 'meme' as a scientific concept (rather than as a metaphor, where it sometimes works well). I don't think I can cover this briefly, but I'll consider writing on habit later this year. I'm all written up to end of February, and I have plans for March, so I'll see if I can get this into April. Thanks for the encouragement and suggestion!
"My guess is that none of the ancient philosophers came close to imagining the world most of us think we now live in, and hence are not entirely relevant."
I can see why you'd think this, but on the other hand because they are outside the Klein bottle we are trapped within they still have much to reveal to us. If you are stuck in a maze, it is the people outside who can provide the clearest navigation, especially if they have a higher vantage point.
I like your principles, but I wonder about this one:
"every human being has an inalienable right to a fair share in the earth’s and humankind’s material and cultural wealth."
...because this seems to require cancelling our current game of money and creating a new one, which I pragmatically take to be impractical for all that idealistically I think it would be a appealing play.
Many thanks for your continued contributions, Frank - always enormously appreciated!
Chris.
Re: “civilization” before cities:
It seems to me that if I push back “civilization” to refer to our earliest language-using social groups, then I am using “civilization” in two different senses. One is to designate the significant break between pre-human social groups and human societies, and the other to designate specific instances of this. For example, Egyptian Civilization, Inca Civilization, etc. For me the significant break came when we developed enough language to tell stories. Aren’t stories one of the bedrocks of culture?
Re: “ancient philosophers”:
I agree that ancient philosophers have much to teach us if we distinguish between discussions about physical reality, social reality, and subjective realities. Currently our understanding of social reality has not advanced much further than that of the ancients, so their comments are quite germane.
Re: every human being has an inalienable right to a fair share
“because this seems to require cancelling our current game of money”
It is certainly important that we try to understand the forces threatening a dark age, but we should also be trying to describe principles that might enable our civilization to stop yo-yoing between stability and chaos. In seem to me that one such principle is a general notion of economic fairness. Fairness is not a firm concept. There will always be disagreement, but it is now generally agreed on that there are limits. For example, slavery is now illegal everywhere. I don’t see how eliminating, say, extreme poverty requires “cancelling our current game of money’’.
A guess at a necessary condition for a long-term worldwide civilization:
In the distant past a few civilizations lasted several millennia. At what point did we become the First Worldwide Civilization? I’d say between 1914 and 1947, where we can take the formation of the UN as the beginning of our FWC. So, under this view we’ve been a going concern for only around seven decades. Except for a few exceptions in previous civilizations, autocracy has been the rule.[1] We are apparently in a period where either autocracy or democracy will become the dominate form of government in the First Worldwide Civilization. If autocracy becomes the dominate form, diversity will recede, the lights of creativity will dim, and we’ll enter a modern version of a dark age.[2] No sweat. We’ve been there before. But now there’s the wild card of weapons of mass destruction. My reading of the innate properties of the human mind operating in the current FWC culture is that in a civilization dominated by autocrats the eventual use of these weapons is a near certainty, and depending on the extent of the resulting damage, human civilization could permanently end. Such is the view of an old, retired citizen philosophizing from a perch of privilege.
Notes:
[1] Is this debatable? Yes? Then please enlighten me.
[2] We don’t have that many data points, but in recent history this seems to be the case.
Hi Frank,
Thanks for continuing our conversation! I previously replied that I didn't have time to do these comments justice, but a meeting was cancelled and so I am happy to write a response after all.
"Aren’t stories one of the bedrocks of culture?"
They are, but I would not equate 'culture' and 'civilisation'. The former is older - far older. Indeed, I would contend that culture predates humanity. I think, however, I now understand how you are using 'civilisation', and have no concerns other than it differs from my own, which is trivial, and that it might entail a contradiction. I'll elaborate.
"Except for a few exceptions in previous civilizations, autocracy has been the rule... Is this debatable? Yes? Then please enlighten me."
It comes to the meaning of 'civilisation' again - autocracy has not dominated traditional cultures at all - the chief and the shaman do not possess autocratic power, and the moot has been nearly universal. So it comes to whether or not we associate civilisation with traditional culture, or with something else. You have chosen a broad view of civilisation - on your broad view, I think it is incorrect that autocracy has dominated. But I think this is true on the 'narrow view', that associates civilisation with cities and taxation. So there is perhaps a contradiction in your thinking here, but not a serious one. I think perhaps the contradiction lies in the expansiveness of what you consider 'civilisation', which tacitly aligns with 'empire' (or perhaps with taxation...?). I don't think this is actually a serious problem, because the arguments you are making are not 'sunk' by this contradiction, it just might be that you are glossing over the successes that humanity has had at organising it on a small scale over the last four to ten millennia. From your position, these small scale examples are either 'not civilisation' or are not scalable, and so cannot speak to our current situation. For this reason, I don't think the contradictions in your approach are fatal to your actual arguments. I hope this makes sense!
"Currently our understanding of social reality has not advanced much further than that of the ancients, so their comments are quite germane."
An excellent point! In fact, philosophy has covered this approach rather well over the millennia, but it has steadfastly refused to 'go through' any further than these discussions, creating a significant gap in understanding that is persistent enough that I suspect it will not go away. We well might return to this point in other contexts...
Background:
"Frank: Re: every human being has an inalienable right to a fair share
Chris: ...because this seems to require cancelling our current game of money...
New points:
"Fairness is not a firm concept. There will always be disagreement, but it is now generally agreed on that there are limits. For example, slavery is now illegal everywhere."
Okay, I think the misunderstanding here sprang from your use of 'fair share'; you meant 'fair' in the sense of limiting the extremes *at the bottom*. For me, to evoke 'fair share' is to summon a stronger economic claim, and one that hinges on the disproportionate power that comes from the massive accumulation of money (it matters not very much whether this accumulation is with governments, corporations, or individuals). I think your claim is that every human being has an inalienable right to avoid crushing poverty. This claim does not requiring cancelling the current game of money. However, the easiest way of solving this problem remains to re-establish the commons. The loss of the commons is the primary cause of poverty, which is brought about by the regime of the economic. I hope to touch upon this point again in the future.
You are absolutely correct to draw attention to the wooliness of 'fair' - this, actually, is an enormous problem in itself, and one often misunderstood. One must take care when asserting fairness, because there are no standards here to which we can appeal in isolation. I am finding reading Charles Dickens to be fascinating in this regard (for Dickens truly understands the nature of poverty in his time in a way that I would say we simply do not - perhaps cannot), and I hope to write more about this in the future too.
"A guess at a necessary condition for a long-term worldwide civilization..."
I very much like your remarks here. And I think my only issue remains that the prevailing problem of our time is the association of 'democracy' with a specific ideology (or non-religion) to the extent that folks can talk without a hint of irony about "saving our democracy" by denying democracy to others to whom they are opposed. The situation in this regard is at its worst right now in Germany and Canada, with the United States not too far behind (among the countries that espouse democracy, at least - we can set aside for now the autocratic states, where the situation is evidently even worse).
There remain enormous risks associated with nuclear weapons (there are still, to my knowledge, no other kinds of weapons of mass destruction extant, and chemical weapons while horrific are not obviously worse than conventional bombing). I suspect your intuition about autocracy increasing the risk of their deployment is correct. If previously-democratic states turn autocratic in order to 'save democracy', what might this mean for the possibilities of self-destruction...? I'm uncertain. This risk, I think, is greater than most people realise, even if its consequences can be difficult to fathom. We could end up merely with competing forms of autocracy if we lose sight of the necessity of accepting disagreements for any viable form of democracy. This, I fear, is roughly the impasse we are rapidly approaching.
"Such is the view of an old, retired citizen philosophizing from a perch of privilege."
Perhaps everyone who has a chance to philosophise must necessarily sit upon a perch of privilege... for me, however, it is a privilege to listen to your thoughts. And these are two different sense of 'privilege' that perhaps have more to say to one another than they realise.
With unlimited love,
Chris.
Re: civilization and autocracy
Thank you Chris, you are quite right. Non-autocratic societies apparently predominated prior to the rise of cities. Evidence for this is assembled in The "Dawn of Everything" by Graeber and Wengrow. For me, the interesting question is “why?” did autocracy triumph. Perhaps this question has or will come up in more recent Stranger Worlds dialogues.
I may not be fully informed, but with the rise of cities, wasn’t autocratic rule nearly universal?[1]
Re: the commons versus money
I picked crushing poverty as a simple case. I’m with you in bringing up the problem of “fair” share in a civilization dominated by massive accumulations of money. What are viable alternatives? I’m sort of the opinion that human history in the large has followed built-in imperatives. I think this is true of all life forms. But for us, biology driven evolution is behind us. In the coming millennium we will see if we’re up to the task of manifesting a lasting civilization that can support the well-being and creativity of everyone.
I have draft of a reply to a more recent SW post. Perhaps our exchanges should move forward.
Notes:
[1] We’ve discussed ‘democracy’ and ‘autocracy’ previously. To keep the logic simple, I’m using ‘democracy’ to denote societies where the many have an institutionalized say in how they are governed, and ‘autocracy’ where they don’t.
Stranger Worlds
The :Great Graveyard of Humanity.
Frank comment
Hi Chris! Glad to see you turning you erudition and attention to the most pressing problem of our time, as you write in this month’s preamble: “to strive towards ending the need for anyone to fight in a war.”
It seems to me that unless we can move to a worldwide civilization in which state sponsored violence is unthinkable (and impossible) your “graveyard of humanity” will eventually come to pass. My understanding of this piece is that it is focused on the geopolitical conditions that have an effect on whether or not states are at war. Certainly, these conditions are important. It seems that some conditions, like an iron-clad bane on state-funded standing armies, are necessary, but in my view these considerations are secondary. For me, everything that is manifested in social reality first occurs in a human mind. Hence, a world without war cannot exist until there is a bedrock shift in the amalgamation of human consciousness.
Despite the fact that the foundations of human consciousness are laid down by nature, I believe such an amalgamation is possible. But first it must be understood that a world without war will not necessarily be a peaceful world, nor is such a world desirable. Here in the 70th millennium of human civilization I cannot imagine a world in which humanity is not organized into competing states along the lines that we currently have.[1] But our inherent human competitiveness need not be manifested in state sponsored, near total violence.
We are a highly adaptable species. In 70 millennia we have created a dizzying array of different cultures. It is not beyond our innate mental/emotional capability to create a multicultural, multistate based civilization in which war is not possible.
The content of our individual consciousnesses is only roughly determined by biology. The bulk of it is determined by life experiences. Our birth culture plays a significant role. Biologically gene changes can take a long time to become dominate. Similarly with cultural memes. It is only within the last 0.3 millennia that we have found (1) that a good model for where we came from is that we are kin to ALL the life forms on this planet, and (2) that “race” is not a natural category. Currently, these two memes are not part of the controlling consciousness of most of us. We can change this. Where is the existential need for brothers to fight to the death?
Note:
[1] It is possible that in some distant future we might all live in a single super state. My imagination balks. Nor do I think such a state would be desirable.
Thank you for this thoughtful comment, Frank. As ever, I have a few comments... I'll start with the most trivial.
You say 70 millennia of civilisation - I take it you are counting through the agricultural and hunter-gatherer millennia here? I have tended to align with those who treat 'civilisation' as commencing with cities, which is only 8 millennia. But I am never entirely comfortable with this, since it is the cities - with which come taxes and armies - that are the start of many of our problems. There is something to be said for counting a phase of civilisation before this... not least of all, that this appears to have been an era of peace that ended with the arrival of the city.
I see you follow Dawkins in thinking in terms of genes and memes. This is not my bag, personally, as I find it too reductive and thus misleading. Gene-effects can actually change very rapidly, as dog breeding demonstrates, but this rapidity should not be an invitation to attempt to solve these problems in genetics. Another kind of disaster lies on this path. As for 'meme', this for me does not track very well the relationship between habit and behaviour, and although I've written about this philosophical issue many times before I'll not bore you with the details. I'll just try to read your 'meme' as 'element of cultural practice' and move on.
This piece, as you say, focuses on the geopolitical issues. The remainder of the pieces this month transition from this perspective towards the personal. I made the journey in this direction for artistic reasons, but also I think we can access the geopolitical dimensions of warfare more 'safely' (in emotional terms), and so this is a gradual immersion in the relevant questions. However, there is also a cost in moving in this direction, which I'll set aside for now but which will cause certain problems to arise for some readers.
I concur with you that a single super state is a legitimate risk. Indeed, I believe we are facing this risk currently. Today's piece will touch upon this, as many here have done previously, and I surely will do so again.
You say:
"Hence, a world without war cannot exist until there is a bedrock shift in the amalgamation of human consciousness."
Aye, again I concur. And herein lies the great challenge, because through various accidents and manipulations, war has become solidified as a necessity. Since war ensures further war, the cycle of violence becomes bedded into people's practices for thought, from which it will not easily be dislodged. For a brief time, fear of nuclear armageddon awoke the desire for peace, but this time has ended - we are not permitted to think about nuclear weapons in the same way that we are not permitted to think about cars... So much has been hidden outside of the space of discourse, and now even that space itself is under threat. Perhaps in playing their hand too soon and too harshly, those who would seek to stifle discourse will awaken those of us who would strive to defend it. It has certainly done so for me.
I do not know what can awaken this possibility of a renewed desire for peace again, but I know that it is possible. As such I just keep faith against the risk of despair and hope that the path to peace can be opened once more if enough of us hold the line and keep dreaming the impossible dreams. The bumblebee flies against all sense, because the truth exceeds our expectations. Let us hope this is true about peace as well.
With unlimited love,
Chris.