“Dunbar’s number is popular with business managers and software developers — folks we’d expect to want a formulaic solution to social problems.” —> Probably the least-important point raised here but man does that hit the nail in the head. Business culture is allergic to critical thinking or nuance, and is the last type of institution we should look at to alleviate social ills or otherwise improve our lives.
> I do say yes to the splitting. I imagine a great shattering, a dispersal and disintegration and coalescence, where people come together, not into nation-states, nor a one-world government, nor small isolated communes, but all of them and none of them at once: a state of overlapping, interconnected layers of organization and spheres of influence. We can combine our deeply local and regional pasts with our highly globalized present.
firstly, i love this
i want to highlight a social structure out of dawn of everything that facilitated this kind of thing - totemic groupings among indigenous societies of the eastern seaboard of turtle island - wherever you found bears, you found bear people, wherever you found eagles, you found eagle people, for these people, hunting or harming their totemic animal was anathema (though it may not have been for people other totems)
... but heres the cool part
when travelling to other places, they could find people of their totem even if they weren't of the same tribe. this facilitated a network of mutual aid between these peoples places to stay along their travels, and a means of connection
now, perhaps we are a long ways away from forming the kinds of connections with our non-human relatives for this exact form, but we may be able to connect under different totems more fit to our current circumstances and understanding of the world... i know not what this may look like, but the network these connections could provide may be indispensable to having a healthy decentralization
Interesting reading. I'd like to contest one point. I've worked for rich people. They are no less happy than anyone else.
It may seem a contradiction, but they generally are not so much greedy as driven. Just as a pro athlete is driven to succeed, so is a businessman/woman. For neither the athlete nor the businessman/woman is it primarily about the money. It's about the success. That's why, long after they've earned more money than they'll ever spend, they keep on striving. And that constant striving by the businessman/woman creates jobs, even entire industries.
Creating jobs and industries sounds good unless your goal is to abolish work and money. Then it sounds more like gatekeeping the means of sustenance from everyone else.
Just remember, all industries are created by the people I described. But it's also true that they can move an industry overseas. Of course, that's good for the people overseas, just not for us.
To become rich, you have to get people to pay you for something. You have to build cars, or computers, or something. Yes, the people in the factory do the work. But how did that factory get there? Where did the materials come from? How do the finished products get to the customer? This stuff doesn't just happen organically.
Nobody is going to abolish work, much less money, unless there's an advantage in doing it. If a greedy businessman finds a way to make a car with 40 employees instead of 50 employees, ten people might lose their job. But the car gets cheaper. That's how Ford made the first affordable car, the Model T. He didn't make the first car, just the first car that the average person could afford.
That's how it works for almost anything; computers, clothes, houses, etc.
We might agree on what governments have done to f uck things up. We might agree on some of the underhanded deals some businessmen have made with politicians. So, let's fix those problems, and not blame all businessmen all the time. If we got rid of all the industry leaders, we'd all be living in caves, no matter what politician we elected. I'd rather get rid of all the politicians.
I think this way of thinking and speaking about what happens, the Great Man approach to history, is good storytelling but doesn't have much to do with the real world. Seeing as "industry leaders" didn't exist until at most a few centuries ago, it's quite fantastical to claim we'd still be in caves without them. Humanity has had a couple hundred thousand years to experiment with organizing societies. Our current business-heavy approach is just the most recent (and won't be the longest-lasting).
Huh? Yes, industry leaders became a 'thing' about three centuries ago. And guess when civilizations started to have manufactured goods, instead of making things by hand. About three centuries ago. Not a coincidence. When was the last time you spun your own flax into thread, wove the thread into fabric, and hand sewed it into clothing? Never? That's how they did four centuries ago. Four centuries ago, every part of a house was made by hand: no power equipment. That means cutting down trees with an axe, sawing them into lumber with handsaws, and so forth. Not even the Amish do that anymore.
So, yeah, if you don't want to have to abide by those nasty industry leaders, go live in a cave.
I wish I had time to learn how to sew. I wish I had time for a whole host of useful skills, but I don't since like most people I'm stuck working 40+ hours a week in a specialized job with about an hour commute. This state of affairs was considered slavery by the ancients (who, as it turns out, didn't live in caves). It's the state of affairs brought about by leaders of industry. They didn't invent the machines we use today, but they certainly made sure none of us saved any time once we had them.
The contradiction in this piece is: you want to a free society to look like nature, yet you think the current human society we have now, all variations of eight billion Homo Sapiens, as not natural. We are as natural as it comes. If you believe in evolution, then the way the world now is part of it, because there's a species - us - shaping the world this way. Like a beaver building a dam, shaping the environment. We are just beavers on a much larger scale. Are we supposed to be an alien species? Or the single species among millions of species that behave not according to natural laws? What makes us a special speciest?
This is actually a good point, and it's something I think about all the time. Most animals pretty much know how to live. Why do humans seem to struggle so mightily with figuring that out? Or is that semblance of struggle itself only a result of our deeply alienating systems? It's a chicken-and-egg problem for sure. We also have to beware the natural fallacy. But honestly I think we're so deep in the sunken place rn that the analogy is mostly an emotional appeal to slow down and press the brakes and get outside.
I'm not sure how many of my posts you've engaged with, but I try to write about the ways our current systems, including governmental, economic, entertainment, social, and religious systems, are not designed for the common good but for the wealth and power of a very few. This is largely accomplished by alienating people from themselves, each other, and the land. For me, this state of affairs is exactly what underlies your question about the human/nature connection.
I appreciate that you challenged the effectiveness of sex registries. One of the biggest problems is that they work on the assumption that most sexual abuse is due to strangers -- that you need to stop them from going to playgrounds or hanging around schools. Most of the time it's a close family member or friend. So often registered sex offenders are forced to stay with family because their housing options become so limited. That's one reason recidivism is so high because many people take sexual abuse by a family member less seriously than by a stranger (it's still so common that adults won't believe or react when a kid comes forward about abuse committed a beloved member of a family or community).
I am so grateful for this series. "I think freer human societies will look much more like forests than machines." My thoughts have been in this vein as well and your thoughtful explanation of the foundational nature of relationships is inspiring. Thanks.
that's wonderful to hear! i'm glad we're in sync. sometimes it feels we're few and far between, but i think a lot more people just fail to voice these convictions, which is very understandable.
“Dunbar’s number is popular with business managers and software developers — folks we’d expect to want a formulaic solution to social problems.” —> Probably the least-important point raised here but man does that hit the nail in the head. Business culture is allergic to critical thinking or nuance, and is the last type of institution we should look at to alleviate social ills or otherwise improve our lives.
> I do say yes to the splitting. I imagine a great shattering, a dispersal and disintegration and coalescence, where people come together, not into nation-states, nor a one-world government, nor small isolated communes, but all of them and none of them at once: a state of overlapping, interconnected layers of organization and spheres of influence. We can combine our deeply local and regional pasts with our highly globalized present.
firstly, i love this
i want to highlight a social structure out of dawn of everything that facilitated this kind of thing - totemic groupings among indigenous societies of the eastern seaboard of turtle island - wherever you found bears, you found bear people, wherever you found eagles, you found eagle people, for these people, hunting or harming their totemic animal was anathema (though it may not have been for people other totems)
... but heres the cool part
when travelling to other places, they could find people of their totem even if they weren't of the same tribe. this facilitated a network of mutual aid between these peoples places to stay along their travels, and a means of connection
now, perhaps we are a long ways away from forming the kinds of connections with our non-human relatives for this exact form, but we may be able to connect under different totems more fit to our current circumstances and understanding of the world... i know not what this may look like, but the network these connections could provide may be indispensable to having a healthy decentralization
Anarchy, the NON-hierarchy.
Based on spiritual, conscious, well-educated, respectful, patient, compassionate, resilient, self-reliant people.
A dream ...
Interesting reading. I'd like to contest one point. I've worked for rich people. They are no less happy than anyone else.
It may seem a contradiction, but they generally are not so much greedy as driven. Just as a pro athlete is driven to succeed, so is a businessman/woman. For neither the athlete nor the businessman/woman is it primarily about the money. It's about the success. That's why, long after they've earned more money than they'll ever spend, they keep on striving. And that constant striving by the businessman/woman creates jobs, even entire industries.
Creating jobs and industries sounds good unless your goal is to abolish work and money. Then it sounds more like gatekeeping the means of sustenance from everyone else.
Just remember, all industries are created by the people I described. But it's also true that they can move an industry overseas. Of course, that's good for the people overseas, just not for us.
To become rich, you have to get people to pay you for something. You have to build cars, or computers, or something. Yes, the people in the factory do the work. But how did that factory get there? Where did the materials come from? How do the finished products get to the customer? This stuff doesn't just happen organically.
Nobody is going to abolish work, much less money, unless there's an advantage in doing it. If a greedy businessman finds a way to make a car with 40 employees instead of 50 employees, ten people might lose their job. But the car gets cheaper. That's how Ford made the first affordable car, the Model T. He didn't make the first car, just the first car that the average person could afford.
That's how it works for almost anything; computers, clothes, houses, etc.
We might agree on what governments have done to f uck things up. We might agree on some of the underhanded deals some businessmen have made with politicians. So, let's fix those problems, and not blame all businessmen all the time. If we got rid of all the industry leaders, we'd all be living in caves, no matter what politician we elected. I'd rather get rid of all the politicians.
I think this way of thinking and speaking about what happens, the Great Man approach to history, is good storytelling but doesn't have much to do with the real world. Seeing as "industry leaders" didn't exist until at most a few centuries ago, it's quite fantastical to claim we'd still be in caves without them. Humanity has had a couple hundred thousand years to experiment with organizing societies. Our current business-heavy approach is just the most recent (and won't be the longest-lasting).
Huh? Yes, industry leaders became a 'thing' about three centuries ago. And guess when civilizations started to have manufactured goods, instead of making things by hand. About three centuries ago. Not a coincidence. When was the last time you spun your own flax into thread, wove the thread into fabric, and hand sewed it into clothing? Never? That's how they did four centuries ago. Four centuries ago, every part of a house was made by hand: no power equipment. That means cutting down trees with an axe, sawing them into lumber with handsaws, and so forth. Not even the Amish do that anymore.
So, yeah, if you don't want to have to abide by those nasty industry leaders, go live in a cave.
I wish I had time to learn how to sew. I wish I had time for a whole host of useful skills, but I don't since like most people I'm stuck working 40+ hours a week in a specialized job with about an hour commute. This state of affairs was considered slavery by the ancients (who, as it turns out, didn't live in caves). It's the state of affairs brought about by leaders of industry. They didn't invent the machines we use today, but they certainly made sure none of us saved any time once we had them.
So, quit and go sew. Quitcher bitchin.
The contradiction in this piece is: you want to a free society to look like nature, yet you think the current human society we have now, all variations of eight billion Homo Sapiens, as not natural. We are as natural as it comes. If you believe in evolution, then the way the world now is part of it, because there's a species - us - shaping the world this way. Like a beaver building a dam, shaping the environment. We are just beavers on a much larger scale. Are we supposed to be an alien species? Or the single species among millions of species that behave not according to natural laws? What makes us a special speciest?
This is actually a good point, and it's something I think about all the time. Most animals pretty much know how to live. Why do humans seem to struggle so mightily with figuring that out? Or is that semblance of struggle itself only a result of our deeply alienating systems? It's a chicken-and-egg problem for sure. We also have to beware the natural fallacy. But honestly I think we're so deep in the sunken place rn that the analogy is mostly an emotional appeal to slow down and press the brakes and get outside.
I don't understand your phrase "deeply alienating systems." Who/what is alienating what/whose systems?
I'm not sure how many of my posts you've engaged with, but I try to write about the ways our current systems, including governmental, economic, entertainment, social, and religious systems, are not designed for the common good but for the wealth and power of a very few. This is largely accomplished by alienating people from themselves, each other, and the land. For me, this state of affairs is exactly what underlies your question about the human/nature connection.
Typo: ~speciest~ species
I appreciate that you challenged the effectiveness of sex registries. One of the biggest problems is that they work on the assumption that most sexual abuse is due to strangers -- that you need to stop them from going to playgrounds or hanging around schools. Most of the time it's a close family member or friend. So often registered sex offenders are forced to stay with family because their housing options become so limited. That's one reason recidivism is so high because many people take sexual abuse by a family member less seriously than by a stranger (it's still so common that adults won't believe or react when a kid comes forward about abuse committed a beloved member of a family or community).
This is all really important context, thank you!
I am so grateful for this series. "I think freer human societies will look much more like forests than machines." My thoughts have been in this vein as well and your thoughtful explanation of the foundational nature of relationships is inspiring. Thanks.
I love that line so much.
that's wonderful to hear! i'm glad we're in sync. sometimes it feels we're few and far between, but i think a lot more people just fail to voice these convictions, which is very understandable.