Re: [pf] Fork in the evolution road

by Jill Taylor Bussiere

27 December 2000 19:07 UTC

I am reading more today from The Chalice and the Blade by Riane Eisler.

I am on chapter 4, which attempts to explain how we changed from an
egalitarian, partnership, goddess centered, governing is a responsibility,
horticultural state of equilibrium to a hierarchical, dominator, warrior god
centered, inegalitarian society.

Very interesting.

It was not technology that won the day with either society/culture/way of
life, but rather the attitude toward that technology.

The technology of copper and bronze had come into being in the "chalice"
societies, but had been used first for jewelry, statuettes and ritual
objects, and later for  wood-working tools,  fishhooks, awls, needles,
shaft-hoe axes.

But the nomadic groups (such as the Scythians, and the Hebrews, for that
matter) on the peripheries of the fertile farming areas soon learned of the
metal, which was not available, apparently, in the areas that they hailed
from, but rather in the agricultural areas.  Once they got a hold of the
technology, they used it to fashion weapons, and to conquer.  As they
conquered, their "Blade" outlook on life impressed itself upon the peoples
that they conquered.

Now to another book, which my father-in-law did indeed get for me (isn't he
great!) - The Local Politics of Global Susbainability by Thomas Prugh,
Robert Costanza, and Herman Daly.  I have only read the first page of the
preface here, but this is what they lay out therein:
below is  quoted from page xi.

"1. The Alfred E. Newman Camp.  There are no problems, and there will be
even fewer of the in the future.

2.  The Technocratic Optimist Camp.  Maybe there are a few little problems,
but we can tinker here and there, install some compact fluorescent light
bulbs, support mass transit, and get  by.  (Some optimists consider this
position too gloomy.  They think that economic growth, new technology, and
human inventiveness in general will lead us inevitably on the the broad
sunlit uplands of a forever better, richer, and more populous world.)

3. The Jeremiah Camp.  We're in deep trouble, and getting out of it will
require not memerly new technology but also fundamental social, political,
and economic transformation.  Soon."

The authors say that although Camp No. 3 is the most likely to be true, that
it is also the least likely to be accepted.  Because:
        They are annoying- people are comfortable with the status quo
        It is a message that is deniable, at least for now - the Cuyahoga no
longer catches on fire.

So the authors state that they want a bit of distance from Camp No. 3,
partly because Jeremiah's legacy is not anger, but despair, and hope rather
than hoplessness.  That social and religious atonement and reconciliation
would create a new society .  The authors want to direct people to an
overarching good -  a vision of a good life.  And the authors want to focus
on process rather than product.  That "the most important dimensions of
sustainability are cultural and political." (p xiii) So there is a focus on
communities - and the wisdom of Think Globally,Act Locally.



----- Original Message -----
From: Kaleopono <ssa@ilhawaii.net>
To: <positive-futures@igc.topica.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2000 11:21 PM
Subject: Re: [pf] Fork in the evolution road


> David A,
>
> Nothing that I wrote is from the assumption that the next hundred years
will
> be like the last hundred years, and that the next billion years will be
like
> the last billion years.  On the contrary, I argued that introduction of
> change by technological man is producing out-of-control perturbations in
the
> system and that there's more than we can handle already, right now.  It is
> certain that the next hundred years will be so different from the last
> hundred years...that we may not survive as a species.  I was arguing for
not
> making the situation any worse than it already is.
>
> If we don't stop fouling our nest, it won't matter how many new and
> different technlogical angles we pursue to try to cope with what we had
> already unleashed.  The pace of introduction continues to rise
> geometrically, and now it's not just our physical environment that
> industrialists are targeting, but the very genetic code of life forms.
>
> Your response expresses clearly the view that was highlighted in Chellis
> Glendinning's essay on technological addiction and the lack of balance
that
> technological man has produced:   one technological control device after
> another as the situation gets increasingly out of hand; this is no
different
> from one drink after another downed by the alcoholic in denial.  I
> articulated the view that it is necessary to stop denying the state we are
> in, then interrupt and finally overcome the addiction itself.
>
> Kaleopono
>
> > Kaleopono wrote:
> > > Looking at it from the perspective of the billions-of-years,
> > > evolutionary timescale:  if phosphorescent potatos are destined
> > > to replace farmers' eyes and fingers for the task of
> > > determining when crops ought to be watered, it surely won't
> > > matter whether they are introduced today or 100 years from now.
> > > In the evolutionary timescale, it will still be instantaneous.
> > > Taking 100 years will assure ample time for relaxed consideration of >
> > > the possible consequences of their introduction, and whether
> > > there is really any point to widespread use of this new,
> > > manufactured life form in the first place.  The new organism's >
> > > behavior under widely varied conditions can be observed and
> > > evaluated.  With no compulsion to hurry in lunging dog
> > > fashion, stress within all parties will be reduced not increased.  > >
> > > Life will be more enjoyable and satisfying.
> >
> > You're assuming the next hundred years will be like the last hundred
> > years, and that the next billion years will be like the last billion
> > years. Neither are true. One important change, perhaps the most crucial,
> > is that the world is coming quickly to a water crisis. (Indeed, it's
> > already arrived in places.) You've been forwarding these news items to
> > the list--have you read them? Have a look at Peter Gleick's writings at
> > the Pacific Institute.
> >
> > The world already uses 1/4th - 1/2th of all freshwater on earth, every
> > year. There is projected to be an 85% increase (1985 to 2025) in the
> > number of people living in "high water stress," to 2 billion by 2025.
> > (Even the UN gets this wrong by looking at the situation only on a
> > country-by-country basis, as Charles Vorosmarty at the University of New
> > Hampshire, whom I just interviewed on Tuesday, wrote in the 7/14/00
> > issue of SCIENCE.) The World Resources Institute projects that by 2025
> > at least 3.5 billion people--roughly half of the world--will experience
> > water shortages (John Flesher, Associated Press story, 10/21/00). And so
> > on. Many expect that water, not climate change, is going to be the most
> > important issue of the 21st century.
> >
> > Agriculture accounts for at least 70% of this water use. "Long-term
> > productivity [in food production] wis threatened by increasing water
> > scarcity and soil degradation," writes the World Resources Institute in
> > "Freshwater Systems," c. 2000. As I wrote in an earlier post, future
> > increases in food supplies *must* come from increased productivity, as
> > the amount of arable land has remained about
> > constant since 1960, and will be under future stress from growing
> > populations.
> >
> > Farmers are not going to be able to irrigate as they have in the past.
> > "Making irrigation more efficient is a top priority in moving toward
> > more sustainable water use.... Reducing irrigation needs by a tenth, for
> > instance, would free up enough water to roughly double domestic water
> > use worldwide. " (Sandra Postel, THE LAST OASIS, p. 99) Worldwide,
> > irrigation efficiency is estimated to average less
> > than 40% (Postel, p. 100). New sprinkler designs and drip irrigation are
> > a good start, and while they pay for themselves in the
> > long-run, both methods require significant capital to implement (up to
> > $3000/hectare).
> >
> > Crops in some parts of the world simply fail due to lack of rainfall
> > that follow centuries-old patterns--one in every three years in some
> > African countries. "Unreliable, uncontrollable, and insufficient rains
> > often foil the best-laid plans of farmers in sub-Saharan Africa and
> > other dry regions lacking irrigation.... Hopes that large irrigation
> > schemes will solve the water and food problems of these regions,
> > particularly Africa's drylands, are fading fast." (Postel, pp. 114-115)
> >
> > Water shortages also affect water quality, biodiversity, and carbon
> > storage.
> >
> > Clearly something has to be done, as a global average. Don't you think
> > it's worth pursueing many different avenues to see how each might
> > contribute to solving this problem?
> >
> > David