The subtitles of two new historical works tell the story. There is Stephen Greenblatt’s The Swerve: How the World Became Modern. And there is Cullen Murphy’s God’s Jury: The Inquisition and the Making of the Modern World.
Greenblatt tells the story of the 15th Century’s rediscovery and publication of Lucretius’ epic poem of free thought, The Nature of Things, a book that turned on the lamps at the end of a dark time. Murphy’s book is a history of the Medieval Inquisition and its ongoing influence in contemporary political persecutions and oppressions.
The human desires that fueled these profoundly different historical phenomena remain at war today. The authors’ subtitles get it right. The modern world really has been made in large part by these two forces.
The quest for freedom of movement and thought is always contested by the desire for control, order and authority. Those moved by the latter have their own conceptions of freedom, of course. Some inquisitors think freedom is possible only within strict hierarchy and order. They can be terrified by threats to order. Others are simply cynical manipulators who impose order on others so that they can enjoy the freedom of the oppressor.
It’s not hard to see in American history the ongoing struggle between the forces of enlightenment and the forces of inquisition. Still, there is a widely held fantasy that contemporary grand inquisitors are not inquisitors at all. We’re all pro-freedom and democracy, we just have different conceptions of the government’s role in securing them, according to this particularly tall tale.
The fantasy blinds us to the erosion of civil liberties, the loss of personal privacy to both state and commercial interests, the steady growth of the Surveillance State. Hey, contemporary grand inquisitors say with a smile, we want the same things you do. We just differ a bit in the means to the end.
It’s a cruel hoax. Entire populations are tied up and dropped figuratively into the lake like suspected witches of old. To be free, they must sink and drown.
The contest is not between chaos and order. Humans are social animals, and we all need rules of the games. In their night terrors, the inquisitors and their believers see the choice in Manichean terms. Outside their gated visions of order and hierarchy, there be dragons.
We notice the grand inquisitors when they are moved to unsubtle excess: the Salem Witch Hunts, the McCarthy era, etc. But we are too little aware of their more subtle and refined efforts. For instance, there is their manipulation of the market economy to guarantee trickle-up outcomes that imprison the many in poverty. There is Randian, dog-eat-dog, hyper-individualism that spreads fear and suspicion of all others and feeds an unhealthy greed and selfishness.
In his book on the Inquisition, Cullen Murphy makes the point that the forces of persecution always believe themselves possessed of an absolute truth, a truth that justifies any action in its imperative defense. That is precisely what makes it incompatible with democracy, a system designed in recognition of human diversity and the limits of reason.
But that may also be why Inquisition-like acts are not always recognized as such in anything like a timely manner. The reasoning goes something like this: persecution is incompatible with democracy, we live in a democracy, hence, there are no grand inquisitors here.
We proudly consider ourselves children of the Enlightenment. But we are not so quick to recognize that other parent, the Inquisition. Any attempt to disown it, however, only makes it stronger and more dangerous.
That’s why I’m thrilled that Greenblatt and Murphy published their new books nearly simultaneously. It’s a marvelous coincidence, because together they tell a compelling story of just what forces are at work in the making of the modern world.




90 Comments





Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Good Sunday Morning Glenn☺ As always a thought provoking post!
Last evening’s debacle in Oakland proves WE still have Inquisitors in our midst who are clinging to power through force, as they always do!! But I think this whole Occupy movement WILL force changes for the good on our country. At least I sure hope so for the sake of all the children in the Country!
I’ve long thought that the end game inquisition went underground for a period, and now seems to be resurfacing in all it’s horrors. Telling people they are going to hell doesn’t work any more, if it ever did.
Super essay Glenn. I would like to add another book to read that came out two or three years ago that I am just now getting to read. Isaac Newton by James Gleick. Your review and it add to my emerging awareness of the fact that little has changed in those really few 500 years. More gadgets. Same struggle between genuine humanism and enlightenment.
The Gleick book was particularly evocative and helpful in my own struggle to retain the wholeness of body and mind. It has been said before but in the context of gravity for some reason it really struck me personally. Paraphrasing: “Newton describes what we already know. ”
I would phrase it; science and measurements describe what animate bodies already know.
Yes, we do have inquisitors using force to cling to power, and perhaps the first and most important thing to do is get others to recognize it. It is too easy for some to relax in their fantasies about their country. For the record, I believe the burning of the American flag is a fruitless, off-putting tactic (saw that this happened in Oakland). Better to burn the logo of whatever Blackwater calls itself now.
And not just science and measurements. All thought is embodied. Easy to see when we think how body orientation influences our language, “up” and “down” for instance…
Late last night I caught a radio show called coasttocoastam, which had a man who founded Oathkeepers, a group that is trying to stop the police and members of the armed forces from following illegal orders from Obama and the Dept. of Homeland Security to detain American citizens without any warrant or court order.
By signed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) Obama has crowned himself King, by Suspending the Privilege of the Writ of Habeus Corpus, which is the underpinning of our rights of Free Speech and Freedom of Assembly.
Rep. Ron Paul (R – TX) has introduced legislation to repeal the NDAA. Rep. Ron Paul is the only major party candidate who is anti-imperialist and pro-constitution.
Cheers.
This thoughtful essay following on the heels of TBogg’s hilarious treatment of essentially the same topic is a fortuitous coincidence.
Corey Robin in The Reactionary Mind argues the conservative view of freedom is a freedom for some to rule over others – in the governmental sphere, it has manifested as a defense of segregation against those who seek equal citizenship, or as the ability to rule other countries under the guise of combatting communism or terror. In the non-governmental sphere, it has manifested as the power of a husband to rule over his wife, the employer over his/her employees. The solution is to offer a better view of freedom – one that rejects the false choice, as you say, between chaos and order.
It seems to me that there is a group of about 30% of our population that really wants an authoritarian government. This group really doesn’t like the Constitution and its Bill of Rights; they want a uniformity of constraint among the population. This group has, through the rw megaphone, a political strength far beyond their numbers. The have succeeded in gaining greater strength through scotus decisions, the “patriot” act, the ndaa, and the ‘citizen stripping act,’ that is the ‘Enemy Expatriation Act. If you don’t know about it, look here.
The randian idea of getting ahead of everyone else by not sharing is really pervading the public school education field. One of the ideas that has caught on in education is the Professional Learning Community where all the teachers in a subject in a school get together and share ideas and techniques for best ways to get their subject taught to the student. The counter idea of individual merit pay for teachers will drive the teachers into being isolated and not being part of the community of teachers; a good way to help dumb down education.
Newton did more than describe gravity, he quantified it. That element of quantification is the single most important contribution that led to thinking outside the religion box, so to speak. It still does, but with greatly diminished power it seems. Rather ignore the findings of science, and perhaps, again beat it back into another dark age.
I thought so as well.
We heard part of that as well.
Coasttocoast is being banned, apparently.
The endless war on reason continues apace …
And the forfiture laws are in place to deal with conscience, purpose, and principle.
Why, even a “liberal” like Elizabeth Warren claims that defeating terrorism is “job one” and that NEVER, under ANY circumstance, will she, ever, permit or condone the legalization of marijuana, even for medical use … and the battle-cry of the true believers is, as always, “We MUST choose the lesser evil!!!”
And yet, BILLIONS of human beings on old Mother Earth clearly see the futility of war, and the utter insanity of “endless” war. That these many are intended to “pay” the price of “order and control” with their lives and blood may well prejudice them in favor of endless Renaissance is, no doubt, true … and yet …
Thank you, Glenn, for raising understanding around the “eternal” struggle of the self-selected natural elite against the allegience of the many to the simple joy of living without the crushing yoke of the whims of their betters … the essential “stuff” of recorded history.
It may well be time to seriously consider some alternative, even as we stand, all of us, together … at the edge of the abyss, staring at a new and comprehensive Dark Age.
The star chambers beckon …
Onward and corruptward.
DW
Well said. Don’t want to go to far afield here, but one obstacle to a better view of freedom is the misunderstanding of scientific determinism. Few people ever give thought to this, and I don’t blame them. But the broad acceptance of determinism lurks hauntingly in the shadows of culture. It gives aid to those who argue that freedom is the offspring of hierarchy and order, and not a naturally available promise of human life.
What misunderstanding, Glenn? Is it confusing determinism with scientific determinism?
Most people in the US have enormous freedom and availability of information, yet they gravitate to the television, engaging in unenlightening entertainment to escape from the real world. The way they spend their free time determines the trajectory of society, opening themselves to the influence of control and authority which are promoted as protection of liberty.
Technology, it was believed, would free humanity from the burdens of work, but to a large extent it has made us slaves to those who control the levers of power. It has enabled the exploitation of material and energy resources to provide food and consumer goods which provide comfort and longer lifespans, but the costs in war and environmental degradation are unsustainable.
We need a new Enlightenment, but the inertia of industrial civilization is unstoppable. People are poorly informed. Most of them don’t know they need to change their lifestyle and demand a complete redefinition of the incentives of business. Unfortunately, it will only be through upheaval and catastrophe that we will be forced to live more in harmony with the earth, if that will even be possible.
Yes, exactly. There’s plenty of evidence for the idea that we don’t have conscious control or freedom. Libet’s experiments that show our brain’s “choose” before we consciously make the choice, for instance. But there’s a kind of category error here that’s looking for linear causality when, in truth, and despite the role of unconscious thought in our conscious thinking, we are free to think and create anew. What’s disturbing is the assault on human agency. It’s a very complex subject, and when simplified it gives the impression that we’re all just little reactors doing what our neurons and other cells tell us to do before we choose to do it.
Superbly well said, Glenn.
I see further posts.
Necessary and timely posts.
Continue, please.
DW
Yes, Thank you for adding that. It is indeed the aspect of quantification, putting a number to it, that advanced understanding and how we are able to manage what we know.
There is an interesting book from the sixties by Alan McGlashan called “The Savage and Beautiful Country”. One chapter “Remembering and Forgetting” gets to the heart of one aspect of creativity which applies here.
Karl Popper in “Open Universe” really gets to the heart of the matter between determinism and scientific determinism. As I understand it, he would be somewhat on the side of those who believe that we do not know enough to decide on matters like climate change. I suspect he would also agree that we will never know enough, because we cannot falsify the theories. They don’t rise to the level of testability.
How about simple sociopathic “projection”?
“Humans are the ‘vicious ape’, clawing, savaging, and killing their way to the ‘top’ … ah, yes, this is the essence of ‘human nature’ … and if we don’t do ‘it’, then someone else most certainly shall.”
The abiding “value” of this moment in human time is that “MONEY is all that matters and that unfettered greed is the greatest ‘good’”.
Beyond appeals to a warped “determinism”, increasingly in fashion among the intellectual set, it is our manipulative myths that are killing us …
Before we may destroy our world and fellow beings with impunity, we must first lay waste our own sanity.
DW
Profound and succinct. I am stealing that.
Yes, and Popper decisively draws the line between determinism and the scientific version, lest people sloppily cross the line to use science to underscore their position.
Since reading Popper, question number one when confronted with assertions that it is scientific, is simply that: Is it testable?
Picture, ‘Looking Into the Abyss’
http://www.flickr.com/photos/33388783@N08/5618786680/
Powerful photograph.
When I was young, waynec, my family lived some distance from a state park called “World’s End” … why anyone would wish to go to such a place confounded me quite utterly.
Oddly enough, it is still a “place”, or destination, which seems, to me, that human beings ought not seek to bring about … of be intent upon “finding” …
DW
The park is actually very beautiful and “untamed”, btw.
DW
Which is why people go there!
I spent 6 weeks traveling the wilderness and the established communities in Alaska, alone. The best part was having a campground to myself, in view of Denali, with know grizzlies as neighbors.
They left me alone.
Before getting too carried away with Popper, you might want to look up the Duhem-Quine thesis (aka the underdetermination of theory by data), and Paul Feyerabend and Thomas Kuhn’s work (aka the incommensurability of scientific theories). Whether or not you find Kuhn’s position convincing, Kuhn’s book “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions” is a very good read if you like science and the history of science.
Good on ya, Starbuck.
I had the distinct pleasure of spending much of my young life in the Allegheny National Forest, which my parents had the good sense to allow me to explore quite extensively on my own, so I can well appreciate the qualities of the neighborhood you mention.
;~DW
I am so egocentric I have trouble accepting anyone else’s theories of science. That said.
I would ask does my body affirm it?
I can only cite anecdotal experiences derived from dealing with others and the “bad news” truth sometimes brings. But I have seen over and over again a peace descend on parents of mortally ill children once the symptoms they have been so anxious over are explained.— even when the truth is awful. I can recall more than one parent saying “Thank God. Now we know!”
DW,
It’s Grand Canyon.
John and I find solitude there, hiking off trail, several times a year.
It’s the place superlatives go to die…
So far as I can determine (which isn’t too damn far!) the Duhem-Quine thesis does not counter Popper, in that Popper ever claimed that proving (or disproving) a theory is always possible, but simply that if it cannot be subject to such a test, it cannot be classified as scientific determinism.
I haven’t read Kuhn’s work “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions”. Thanks for the reference.
You might find this optical illusion interesting:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Grey_square_optical_illusion.PNG
By body tells me they are definitely not the same. Photoshop says guess again!
How I perceive it depends on how I attend to it. ie what I am looking for. This thing we call brain processes stimuli based on what we are looking for. If you are a fishing bird your brain automatically (knowing/feeling diffraction and refraction) incorporates what you are looking for and shows you an image that will direct your dive to the where fish really is ….. not where the refracted image would suggest.
It begins with the light and the receptors that are formed to perceive it.
“Let there be light.” Genesis 3
Edward Weston famously said, in response to a question as to what does a photographer need to function: “A photographer can function so long as there is light”.
Agreed. At this stage in my camera work, I can proceed, with significant preciseness, to the exact spot where a composition will come together. I know that the Fibonacci numbers come into play even as I simply look, because they can be affirmed (or not, if I miss the mark!) when doing the editing part.
Which brings another Weston remark: “Composition is the strongest way of seeing”.
Who can argue that?
I also live in a certain reality, apart from the philosophy of science, but I don’t ignore science either.
It’s all one, as the saying goes.
You are a photographer? Now I understand. My nephew is a professional photographer also and he influences my understanding of things. It continues to be exciting, for me, to pursue the thinking about light and its processing by animate forms though I suppose it really begins with light and the chemistry it performs on what it strikes, animate or inanimate.
The most difficult, surprise!, for me to get my arms around is e=mc2
Actually I found the most exciting part of the Newton biography and history to be the fact that he began with light.
It seems to me that even scientific determinism has taken a hit from quantum mechanics and chaos theory. What this means is that knowing everything about initial conditions doesn’t give you god-like ability to predict (or determine) the future, no matter how good the equations you use. One can zero in on probabilities that some things are more likely to happen than others, but at certain levels of reduction and complexity exact prediction is not possible.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/its-official-german-economy-minister-demands-surrender-greek-budget-policy-says-it-first-many-s
It seems to me that even scientific determinism has taken a hit from quantum mechanics and chaos theory. What this means is that knowing everything about initial conditions doesn’t give you god-like ability to predict.
Really?
Then you say that central planning is a waste of human energy?
You likely didn’t mean to say that, but you did.
Yep. Numbers are not enough. And its going to take a long time to put numbers on all the things our bodies know in seconds. A sort of wild notion I have is quantum theories are reminders of that — ie by giving mass and weight to the numbers. It really is not a flat earth. I also can somewhat capriciously apply the notions of inertia and momentum to the snail’s pace of changes in “common knowledge” and resistances by the Inquisitors to even setting in motion change. It is an interesting parlor game to speculate but too often I think of how it will likely be our undoing. We will destroy the species as a result of the knowledge of the chemistry of climate change and destructiveness of irradiation not becoming accepted soon enough to act.
I am off to dinner with those happy images. (sigh)
I wouldn’t argue that central planning is a complete waste of energy, only that thinking it can control everything is a terrible illusion.
Just as a butterfly flapping its wings can change the weather patterns and, say, cause a tornado half a continent away; so can a tornado half a continent away affect the flight of a butterfly. Central planning will affect your actions, but your actions will confound central planning as well. :-P
TS, your comments on this thread are much appreciated and throughly enjoyed, you and Starbuck have got the old neurons cranked-up and aworkin’.
Many thanks to both of you.
DW
Starbuck, I thank you for your thoughts and insights, as I say to TS, me creaky old thought-processor is smilin’ happily.
You share far more than well-considered images, for you delineate a way of seeing … beyond the surface and to the deeper in-sights.
You’ve my sincere appreciation.
DW
Much appreciated (modestly blushing behind fan flapping.) You are not chopped liver yourself.
Well, I’m thankful for that. If he WAS chopped liver, he’d aggravate my gout. ;-)
Haven’t read all comments yet, must record this comment. The Catholic church wisely opposed eugenics, (you know the saving graces of free thought.) Free thinkers and the Inquisitors would be at odds, but that battle is a sideshow.
The escape from suffocating feudal-ecclesiastical orthodoxy was accompanied by ruthless aggrandizement which shortly manufactured it’s own enslavements. A lesser-evil hierarchy was raised which suppressed some of it’s free thinkers. Note that Murphy believes our “modern” world owes precedent to Inquisitors; that recurrence flows right out of a branch of the Enlightenment which cynically advocates security for the common good. Not much changed.
Freethought was not the opposing force. Prosperity was the Enlightenment’s seduction. It’s pursuit broke the ecclesiastical prison. GREED.
So, from one terror to the next because Freethought and it’s companions were mostly suppressed. Nostalgia for eras of freedom is not driven by their quality of freethought, but of their plenty.
Freethought was but the canary extinguised by the poison Power. Light the shrouds and cloaks aflame! Escape the false comfort of the comprador’s cage, that only holds you until the real torture begins.
The Yang and Yin of Capitalism and Religion are dueling forces spiraling to death. Bring on the apocalypse. Do not be fooled; the Enlightenment worshiped Power and a new God. Cast that nightmare off, too.
LOL – same gout problem here.
“Inquisition-like acts” is IMHO a less than good way to put the age old desire that justified the acts of authority to limit the amount of change or fear of change or fear of other people in ones life.
One’s desire for stability and safety in ones life did not arise during the period some label the enlightenment or during the period during which the Church had secular power and tried to provide “stability” via the inquisition.
There is no “we are smarter than they are” attitude that one is justified in having because you read and agree with “enlightenment” thought – nor is there any “rejection of the enlightenment” in the greed of the 1% through the ages and the politics that result. The greed of the 1% existed long, long before Moses, Abraham, or the inquisition, the desire for stability existed from the time humans decided to live together in communities, and to pretend any of this is religious in any way is silly.
I am also fairly certain that labeling those that seek stability “contemporary grand inquisitors” does not advances the liberal progressive agenda.
But OK, whatever floats your boat. :-)
Those are tier one reactionaries. The deeper problem, and another reason the 30% were sufficient but growing less so, are the diminishing population of compradors. Exclusion is the driving logic and contradiction. Tier one has it’s justifications down pat but the growing horde of disillusioned compradors must be suppressed.
Tier one’s love of authoritarianism is a form of hate.
I wouldn’t put it that way. For many Scientism provides the goodies and they are encouraged to believe. The next order of encouraged delusion is that Science cannot be directed – it’s a freedom for scientists and their masters. Determinism is not the subduing faith; it’s obedience.
There’s plenty of evidence for the idea that we don’t have conscious control or freedom. Um, we do have conscious control – inhibition. Surely we have conscious stimulation of inspiration, as well. We don’t have “free will” but we certainly have a degree of autonomy and freedom.
“despite the role of unconscious thought in our conscious thinking, we are free to think and create anew.” I suspect unconscious thought is far less formulaic than it seems you suppose.
“we’re all just little reactors doing what our neurons and other cells tell us to do before we choose to do it.” Our “little” reactors are very impressive. Don’t join their denigration.
But Ulrich Beck informs us that our risk society impells us to react. Technology has unforseen and unmitigated consequences which we must address despite the imprecision of our knowledge. The very power of tech in an unpredicted world must be reigned in for its risks.
“it is our manipulative myths that are killing us”. Yes, the pathologies of Homo Fabulat. But the sciences re-architect the human again and we become the caretakers of our tools. The singularity loonies have pushed that mode to pathological heights.
Yes, but in which direction? Do we know for a fact that reducing carbon emissions will reverse the trend? Or will it go off in another, unanticipated direction (i.e. butterfly effect)?
I readily admit to a conundrum here, and a particularly severe one.
In all this, personally I have little faith in scientific determinism, or determinism in any form.
Define singularity loonies, please.
Oh, and thanks to DW and TS for their comments as well. It’s good to have these exchanges, even as much of our beliefs go in different directions.
Some will definitely sacrifice others; the “survivors” are psychologically shielded against doom.
Yes, someone long ago argued to me that we may overcompensate because the earth itself will counteract – or such like pseudo-scientific bullsh*t.
IANAClimateScientist but I suspect that, if we could reduce carbon emissions, the side effects of the methods chosen would be their worst threat. Of course, the political/economic/social pathologies are far worse than those of the scientific effort.
The ones obsessed by this: Technological singularity, like Kurzweil. They would sacrifice many people, out of necessity, while they portray themselves as saviors.
James Hughes, advocate of transhumanism, is mild compared to the freaks who’d rather junk the human.
The source of the “surprise” is of less interest to me than the existence of potential changes unexpected and unaccounted for.
But then, we may be hit with a meteor comet or some such to render all this moot!
So I celebrate my own existence. That’s the best I can do.
(Here it is, some 11 hours later and still going strong!)
Ah, Moore’s Law writ large!
I thought this singularity would occur somewhere around the end of the Mayan Calendar, when at the same time, Moore’s Law goes vertical to infinity.
That would be a singularity!
Yes, and there’s a terrific new book by Terrence Deacon called Incomplete Nature that really explores the ideas you mention. Thanks!
Actually, Popper indicated the same thing to which mamayaga referred. In Open Universe, he ultimately had little faith in Scientific Determinism, and from that, determinism. In fact, the complete title is:
The Open Universe: An Argument for Indeterminism From the Postscript to The Logic of Scientific Discovery.
I’ll try to obtain the book you mentioned.
Also, here’s one other:
The End of Certainty
-Ilia Prigogine.
Prigogine is apparently wanting in credibility. You can find the criticisms but here is a detailed “critical evaluation” of some of Prigigone’s writings (and others) which is interesting in it’s own right: Science of Chaos or Chaos in Science?.
Wow, with all this complexity in the air, let me add some basics. The desire for stability, security, and control manifests in the real world as acquisitiveness and accumulation. The balance for that would be an embrace of spontaneity in day to day life, a greater willingness to live near the edge and have faith in the continuing flow of the necessities. A healthy sense of “enoughness.” I continue to wait for a rise in societal valuation of the concept of enoughness. My personal experience supports my belief that it is a dramatically undervalued concept.
Enoughness. I like it.
In the 1996 paper to which you linked (thank you)this concerning Prigogine:
Finally, I have to emphasize that this is in no way a criticism of Prigogine’s work
in general, and even less of the Brussels’ school. I shall only discuss the radical claims
made in the popular books and, in particular, the idea that fundamental flaws have
been found in the scientific world-view and that one has to rethink the notion of law of
nature.
I do not embrace radical claims in popular books. Rather, I am seen as a curmudgeon by those who do and I criticize. Certainly I will read them because how can I critique something I haven’t read?
I have to practice enoughness. I have little choice, and practicing that, or rather, accepting that, puts a better perspective on things.
One writer that puts an interesting spin on enoughness, although, to my knowledge, he never called it that is Thich Nhat Hanh.
Enoughness. I encourage you to write in the Diary about it.
I can respect your train of thought as a representation of popular “common knowledge” but necessary brake on the extremes of conceptually splitting “science” from emotional knowledge.
However I believe that you are a bit short on understanding science (description and numbers) and its place in our concepts of what and how we live. You do seem to be relying on a lot of current speculation about psychology and social Darwinism.
My point, admittedly not well presented, is that the whole of people may not be able to accept and act on knowledge of threats to ALL of human life on the planet. And it’s going to take a huge percentage of us to mobilize the necessary will to make changes. We have had lots of kill offs of entire species a number of times. I see no reason to expect man to be an exception. Having a lot of money and buying up air conditioners will not be enough to survive cataclysmic climate change, much less the cumulative effects of exposure to massive amounts of ionizing radiation.
They gave Jimmy Carter a token shot at that and then they tightened the screws.
The US has long been primed for societal disaster – fear, greed, competitiveness, and isolation mean enoughness has low efficacy in the game. It has a moral value and apparently Americans must be harshly chastened in order to recover their morals.
The American grinder: generate compradors, have a war, repeat. Be very careful what you worship, comrades.
;-) Thank you, Glenn. And I love your consistently thoughtful and assumption-challenging work here.
I have practiced enoughness both out of necessity and also by choice when I was quite well off. It’s always seemed to me to be a basic moral path, in a world of finite resources, to take only what I need. You are not the first to suggest a diary, but, at least for now, I think just raising such a basic and obvious concept occasionally in comment threads ought to be “enough” for those susceptible to the idea. ;-)
If we had taken Carter’s advice to wear a sweater and turn down the thermostat, and to adhere to zero-based budgeting, he would have gone down in history as one of our greatest Presidents. Instead, he will be remembered for having lust in his heart lol.
It’s the one’s that eschew the idea that need reaching! Practicing it by necessity when well off says legions!
From my perspective, necessity in times of well being includes a planetary perspective.
Nee Scientist has an article this morning: Power paradox: Clean might not be green forever
You have to register to read it.
Here
On the contrary, Humankind is exceptional in many ways; in fact this die-off would ultimately be due to its exceptionality. No doubt that it may fail to escape this reward but there are reasons he could.
I wonder about the mode of collapse. How long will there be a government and currency? When things turn feudal, won’t many Americans migrate, to Canada, say? I think there will be many enterprises to service/exploit/prune these trends. IOW, it won’t be every person for himself and having a lot of money to start off is the hedge the cognoscenti are making.
I am multiply confused by your note; one specific: you appeal to mass awareness as solution. I, am only pointing out that a brutal eliminationist logic has governed for a long time and that in these circumstances it is only likely to intensify. That would provide a strong cognitive bias against “mass awareness”.
I was curious about your reference to ionizing radiation in your previous comment. Please pardon my ignorance here; specifically what source are you referring to?
That and the hubris you are demonstrating are fatal flaws that inevitably lead to extinction. Respectfully, I think your grasp of the nature of life and our species in particular is more than a little limited.
btw Am I correct to imagine you take your username from von Mises?
Nuclear accidents either of power sources or by way of Dr, Strangelove.
Way off. More like Beethoven and Wittgenstein.
Does that explain your new mis-estimation, “the hubris you are demonstrating”? Having a hard time figuring out where you’re coming from today.
I would have admitted to Beethoven myself!
Starbuck is a multi reference to several appearances of that name in literature and such. Alas! No musician named Starbuck!
LOL I am sure you are. We are living in conceptually parallel universes.
It is the height of hubris, and dangerous also, to consider man or a man so exceptional that he can ignore the realities of physics and biology and create a fantasy world more to his own liking. No. Greed and aggression and pillage are not creating a super species. They are not even a vital survival factor for species. Besides that you are speaking largely only of European cultures of the past some 4000 years; a very thin layer in the millions of years of the species.
Think adaptation: and First there was the Light.
Joan Walsh does a good job of demolishing similar sociological thinking. http://www.salon.com/2012/01/30/charles_murray_does_it_again/?source=newsletter
Actually, TS, it doesn’t seem to me he is coming from the position of ignoring realities. I read that the exceptionalism is the downfall, i.e. without exceptionalism, with respect to other species, we would not be participating in the type of behavior which can doom us.
Anyway, that’s how I see it.
We are certainly in an area of opinion with no good way to come to a definitive determination at this time, short of things taking their course. I do think the hubris ie belief that man is so exceptional and powerful that we can so control the environment to suit our wishes. I hold we must live in balance with with the needs of the planet that nourishes us. There are a lot of these libertarian types that think we simply need to develop geo-engineering technology to manage the toxic air and land we are creating. I don’t think we can, or at the least it is dangerous to count on it coming soon enough to prevent extinction.
We also differ in that Ludwig (speak for yourself) seems to believe that single gifted men can bring about great changes outside the larger group, There is also an implication of a hierarchy of always “improving” strains of the race or species.
Gifted individuals certainly drop ideas and descriptions but it as I have been wanting to say but it takes generations if not millennia for acceptance by the culture and a tipping point number of people to accept much less make change that involves restructuring how a deeply a concept is believed or “felt” and behavior changed.
My guess is if you polled all the people in the world today you would find about a quarter of them believe the world is flat. And in fact technology progressed on the assumption that the world is round based on math. It wasn’t until Pete Conrad in his Geminii capsule was shot into high orbit and gave the call back that “The earth is round.” that actually any man had eyeballed it. A more subtle example of a cultural belief enduring much too long iin too many individuals s the racism embedded in our European culture, especially enduring in the US.
I repeat. This is all opinion. I stand to be proven wrong.
You’ve got quite a chip on your shoulder today. Perhaps you are confusing me with someone else?
So exceptional? Please spare me the caricatures. Your impression that my sociological thinking was demolished by Joan Walsh is erroneous.
Yes, I disagree with your hopeless assessment of the human species. Do you plan on suiciding today?
Hopeless? Living in concert with the earth and all the life on it is hopeless or suicidal?
Just what do you mean by this then?
I have no way of reading your heart but it sounds like you are seeking happiness or at least safety in dominance if not denial.
Have a nice day.
I don’t want to get into a pissing match here, only to go back and see what he said, and quote from #75:
On the contrary, Humankind is exceptional in many ways; in fact this die-off would ultimately be due to its exceptionality.
That doesn’t look like a waiting for the gifted person (doesn’t have to be a man)to”rescue” us, something that still is prevalent in parts of Western religion.
So, I would like to be proven wrong. Am I missing something?
At any rate, I’m off to a wildlife refuge on the Columbia for some afternoon exercise, sightings and perhaps a good photo or two!
Um, perhaps if you were thinking properly you would have thought to quote what led you to that harsh opinion. And perhaps that would help to straighten out your error.
The technological risk mankind is now subjected to is due to it’s application within a system of power aggrandizement. I am no advocate of geoengineering and agree mankind must at least accept ecological constraints for the commonwealth. You yourself admit that there might be a potential for geoengineering to work.
Your characterization of generations or millenia (good noodles!) to change behavior is wrong. It can happen much more quickly. The problem is not “human nature”, it is human abuse.
Is racism your proof that mankind does not have the capacity to care? Can’t agree with that.
What is your problem today?
That’s called analysis, comrade, not advocacy. In order to defeat the enemy, you must sight him.
Hope that straightens you out.
Ludwig, I apologize if I have been unfairly stereotyping you and likely hearing whistles when none were blown. I don’t have the will to go back and read all you have written. I hope you will forgive me.
I can see that we are proving the same point that Glenn intends in this column. That being there are always “thought police” out there to make a case for determinism and against questioning established “truth.”
The “whistle” I thought I was hearing is narcissist man and his belief he is the center of the universe.
I welcome joining with you on the side that cherishes truth.
I was wrong. See my #87 to Ludwig
Accepted, TS, and you have my admiration for doing so as well.
Had a fabulous trip to the preserve. Over 200 shots where I expected but 20 or so.
Thanks Starbuck.
I envy your photography trip. Though we have only one professional our entire family seems to love and appreciate it, including my then 80 some year old mother half blind bringing back from Europe the most fantastic shots — done with a fixed focus camera chosen because of her failing eyes, proving composition is the half of it at least.
Have a good evening.