Greetings Rog,
I think we just have two opposing worldviews. I wish someone could step in a
mediate, because I would be interested in the perspective of others with a MOQ
"expertise." I would confidently assert that you are suffering from "delusions,
but I am not thoroughly convinced that it is not I that suffers from them
instead. But, I will try and give you some insight into why I hold certain
views.
You said: "More people live longer, eat better, have more rights, have
more education, have a wider range of opportunity and experience and work
together in larger and larger interactive networks."
My response: I agree, but this is only because there are more people in the
world. In 2050, when the global population levels reach 9-12 billion there will
be even more of the people in the catergories that you list above than there are
today. This is strictly a measure of population growth. Likewise, There will be
more people that die in childhood, more people with little or no rights and more
illiterates...
You said: In Chapter 24, Pirsig writes, "Society exists primarily to free people
from
these biological chains. It has done that job so stunningly well
intellectuals forget the fact and turn upon society with a shameful
ingratitude for what society has done."
My response: I disagree with Pirsig on this. Society does not exist for any
purpose at all. It is simply the result of the interactions of individuals.
Complex societies formed, because simple societies could no longer support large
sedentary populations. There was never any need to free man from the biological
chains. I know from your past posts that you disagree, but hunter and gatherer
tribes did live in relative harmony with there environment. This is not to say
that they did not have an effect on their surroundings, but they never caused any
large-scale damage to the ecosystems that they coexisted in.
You said: "I believe that 'Cultures can be graded and judged morally according
to their contribution to the evolution of life... and a culture that supports the
dominance of intellectual values over social values is absolutely superior to one
that does not.'"
My response: I take it that this is another qoute from Pirsig. In anycase, I
think the contention here is in the presumption that hunter and gatherer cultures
did not support the "dominance of intellectual values over social values." Why
would we assume that this is the case?
Finally, You ask: "If you could point out contradictory trends."
Let me start by recommending a couple of books that you would be interested in
(if you enjoyed Diamond). First a couple by Mark Nathan Cohen "Health and the
Rise of Civilization" and "The Food Crisis in Prehistory." Also "The Conditions
of Agricultural Growth" by Ester Boserup and "The Collapse of Complex Societies"
by Joseph Tainter. This might help you grasp partly from where I base my
viewpoints from. I don't think it will do much good to cite "concrete trends,"
because I am sure that none will have any affect in dissuading you from your
beliefs. ("Lifespan, literacy, nutrition, income levels and other statistical
trends are all widely available, as are
trends on human rights, pollution levels, international trade") From my
processing of these widely available statistical trends I reach opposite
conclusions. This is not because we are looking at different data. My feeling is
that it is because we each hold different bias's while going over this data. For
instance, your characterization of global warming as "hypothetical."
>From these books, it is clear that hunter and gatherers did not experience an
improvement in the quality of their lives when they began to live sedentary
lifestyles supported by agriculture. In fact, lifespans went down, health
deteriorated, and people worked longer and harder. These new lifestyles were
adopted out of necessity to support growing populations in limited geographical
areas. These new socieities also could no longer be supported by the egalitarin
political structure of the hunter and gatherer tribe and became manageable only
by a top-down hierarchical structures (chiefdoms, fuedal overlords, etc.). It is
not until the 20th century that we begin to see health and lifespans that were
comparable to the hunter and gatherer tribes. We can attribute this to the
advancement of the machines, fossil fuels and sewer systems. But (for example,
see "bottleneck," by E.O. Wilson in most recent Scientific American), we are
reaching a threshold in the benefits that these advancements provide versus the
costs of a global society. The outlook, in my opinion, is not good for quality.
And if there is ever some omniscient judge of quality in the universe that may
rank human societies based on the "their contribution to the evolution of life,"
our age will certainly rank toward the bottom based on the diversity of life that
we have helped destroy during our tenure as the dominant species on the planet.
Regards,
Andy
RISKYBIZ9@aol.com wrote:
> Hi Andy,
>
> I wish I could understand your views better. I too could give contradictory
> examples to each point, but I cannot find contradictory trends when I look at
> the big picture. More people live longer, eat better, have more rights, have
> more education, have a wider range of opportunity and experience and work
> together in larger and larger interactive networks. Seems like clear
> progress at "contributing to the evolution of life" to me.
>
> In Chapter 24, Pirsig writes, "Society exists primarily to free people from
> these biological chains. It has done that job so stunningly well
> intellectuals forget the fact and turn upon society with a shameful
> ingratitude for what society has done." He then goes on though to call modern
> American society a nightmare due to our failure to use society to keep
> biology under control (to control crime, to instill decency in people, etc).
> Pirsig's solution (foes of Platt beware!) is a "policeman or a soldier and
> his gun."
>
> I disagree that Pirsig would give the nod to a hunter/gatherer society. I
> believe that "Cultures can be graded and judged morally according to their
> contribution to the evolution of life... and a culture that supports the
> dominance of intellectual values over social values is absolutely superior to
> one that does not."
>
> On the other hand, he does see a clear missing in modern American society.
> That is that our intellectual level has lost its sense of value, and that it
> has mistakenly undermined social control of biology. ( Remember though, this
> was written during a time greatly influenced by pseudo-intellectual, liberal
> excess that experienced abnormal crime, drug problems, unwed mothers, welfare
> abuse, etc and that Pirsig is obviously bitter about the recent murder of his
> son). I agree with Pirsig that America suffers from this intellectual hole,
> though I do feel American Society has gotten better since Lila was published.
>
> Finally, as for your comment that I "mistake the evolution of complexity for
> improvements in quality." I am at a loss. I continue to give concrete trends
> toward quality in many different areas. Lifespan, literacy, nutrition,
> income levels and other statistical trends are all widely available, as are
> trends on human rights, pollution levels, international trade, etc, etc. If
> you could point out contradictory trends, I will be very appreciative, as it
> will cure me of my delusions. And I don't want no stinkin' delusions.
>
> Rog
>
> MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
> Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
> MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
>
> To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
> http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:01:47 BST