Recapitulation
The consciousness and being of modern humans is almost incomparably different than that of ancient people. The myths and teachings of traditional civilizations indicate that in the first few millennium following the dawn of consciousness in humankind, “primitive” peoples lived and worked with an intimate and undifferentiated sense of the sacredness of Life in all the many forms in which it flourished in the world around them. This childlike acceptance by humanity of the wonder of Life might be said to reflect symbolically the early years of the individual human child.
As the countless generations passed, however, this sense of the sacred inherent in ancient peoples gradually diminished. Just as with all children, a growing striving toward self-determination and independence began to push out these childlike feelings of faith, trust and wonder. Slowly but eventually an important inflection point was reached. For ancient humans this point was probably most definitively embodied by the adoption and reliance on a strictly agrarian culture; human tribes and societies left off trying to work with Nature, and instead they gradually began to work Nature to their own intentions. And with this transition a new chapter was begun, whereupon humankind began to assert his own will upon the Earth and the larger World (and also, it should be mentioned, upon each other: there further emerged an increasing specialization of social life, along with the ensuing rise of “economy”, “politics”, “class” and other forms of social disparity). Thus was ushered in the birth of modern human civilization.
Children grow into young adults, and as they develop they gradually shrug-off their dependence in order to explore their individuality in the world. But as the saying goes, there are two ends to every stick. So with the positive aspect of a developing individuality comes also a corresponding negative aspect, which we might call the “arrogance of youth”—an arrogance born of equal parts naiveté and intemperate desire. This arrogance is perhaps a natural, or at least unavoidable, characteristic of the transition from childhood to responsible adulthood, but it introduces a distinct element of danger for that being’s development. That which we do now carries weight, and therefore consequence. For this reason, discernment and sobriety must be cultured within ourselves—requiring of us a long effort to harness the too-proud passions and pleasures of youth. In practical experience we find that many people are not able to make this transition successfully, and their maturity can become retarded or “frozen”, even though their body continues to "grow-up”. Ultimately such people tend to become a burden on their family and on society to some greater or lesser degree—a negative influence against which the more responsible adults must work all the harder. And sometimes, of course, their arrogance leads them to self-destruction. I would suggest that this is precisely the stage we have reached as a humanity.
The civilization we call the Modern World has already begun to collapse. It has quite simply played itself out. Just as we have sown the wild oats of our careless days, now we must reap the consequences. Some people hold that “the End is nigh”—the apocalypse or Armageddon or some such; others retort that such talk is foolish. But in sober truth, there is no need to believe in any religious or eschatological justifications to see that, for all its “vibrancy”, the essential life or spirit of our civilization is spent. There are a great many indications of this for those who wish to verify it for themselves, although perhaps understandably, very few seem inclined to do so. Everywhere we look various critical systems fundamental to the framework of modern society show acute and accelerating degenerative developmental patterns. In my own research to understand this situation I've written many times about the coming economic depression descending upon the Western world, and also about the scarcity of resources needed to support the untenable population explosion of the past century, the dissolution of human dignity and autonomy under modern corporate rule, and of the resulting movements toward global warfare in the wake of these situations. I have not really addressed at any length the critical environmental degradation that modern civilization is inflicting on the world, since this is not an area that I have direct knowledge or experience in; although ultimately that is the foundation for everything else—the distressed soil in which all of these other weeds of crisis are growing. In fact, those who do have an understanding of the environmental crisis we face continually and consistently report that the corruption of soil, water, and atmosphere has already entered an irreversible trend toward imminent global catastrophe.
This is the place humankind has arrived at in our seemingly long history upon the Earth: the closing moments of our careless and misspent youth. A profound “rite of passage” has been reached, in which the details remain a mystery, but whereby we are most certainly being called to “put away childish things”. If ancient peoples lived with an inseparable sense of sacredness toward Life, yet they were still immature in collective experience, and had only limited ability to serve that sacredness responsibly. For modern peoples, therefore, the time has come whereby we are apparently being called to accept this responsibility for our creation and for our gifts. The coming cycle of maturation—for those who seek to become grown up human beings—will therefore be informed by the fundamental questions of this life-stage: “Who am I?” and “Why am I here?”
All the crises of our day are preparing humankind for this passage. A great many will not make it. Perhaps none will. Success is never assured.
Our present form of human “civilization” has become, to put it bluntly, a scourge upon the Earth. Therefore if our relationship with the Earth is to continue, we will need to transform our human culture and society completely. Not simply chart a new course, or adopt new and widespread ideals; we need to break completely with this irredeemable corpus civitas, to be reborn anew as a species which understands its place and its duty. We will need to awaken to our true responsibilities toward Life, in all its manifestations. Many who’ve come to this same conclusion refer to this as a need for “spiritual” awakening, but I would suggest that this term has actually become too diluted and divisive in meaning. We are being asked to enter into a profoundly new way of being, both individually as well as collectively. Almost certainly, as many people believe, a “revelation” is indeed in store for us. But to imagine a transformation which merely descends upon us from above with little effort on our part, and as we continue to live our lives in just any old way, is truly the foolishness of youth; while to similarly believe that our time and our work here in this World are of no importance is utter madness. No, those who would embrace this call toward responsible existence must begin now to do so responsibly. In other words, it is going to require great effort on our part to recognize what is required of us if we wish to help the human race mature into adulthood. And then we will need the fortitude to begin to adopt a new way of life in accordance with these demands.
Response and Responsibility
If we have recognized the comprehensive nature of the problems before us, then we begin to see that our solutions will have to be correspondingly comprehensive. But first we should admit that for most people a complete change of lifestyle is not going to be an easy task to accept, no matter how convinced one might be of the need for it. People generally don’t embrace self-discipline, especially when it is less than clear what they are expecting to avoid or achieve. So perhaps before discussing the changes that are necessary it might be best to admit up front that whatever changes we choose, they will need to be both desirable to us as well as beneficial for us even in the event that all our predictions of crisis turn out to be only so much smoke. In other words, since it is never possible for any individual to possess a complete understanding of processes unfolding on a global scale, we have to respect the part of us that urges caution before action. In this way we will not be at war either with ourselves or with those we love who may not feel the desire to act as strongly as we do.
To provide an initial reference point, a common ground for discussion in this regard, we have been aided by the recent popularization of the Peak Oil issue. This concept helps in that it gives us a rather more tangible image of what lies before us, an image which can be quite useful to help us prepare. A thoughtful study of this issue shows us how much of our modern life is made possible and supported only because of the cheap availability of hydrocarbon resources. Without the incredible potential energy contained in these fuels, the infrastructure of the modern world will collapse. Even the first signs of diminishing supplies will send the developed global economies into a tailspin. (Nevertheless, it is crucial to realize that fossil-fuel resource depletion is yet only a particular aspect within the larger, systemic set of problems, and it would be incorrect to identify this as the only issue facing us). Yet by way of this conceptualization—a world past its “peak” in oil—a great many people have already come to recognize a simplistic basis for preparation; thus there's already much discussion underway about what I would term “gearing up and getting out of the way”.
The most literalistic of these preparations, however, involve little more than establishing some form of temporary self-reliance with stored food and water, and stocking-up on supplies to get through an initial period of “shock”. But I would argue that to embrace too practical and short-sighted a vision of what is required of us is to make a transition toward a regressive way of life, such as that experienced by people living hundreds of years ago or more. I feel there is something subtly wrong with this “survivalist” approach. And what I've come to recognize is that this is not really a response to our problems—it’s merely a reaction. After all, what might this approach truly accomplish? For one thing, the coming crisis will probably not happen during the course of a mere year or two; it will likely unfold in wave after prolonged wave over many years. And one cannot live indefinitely by oneself; it takes a village to raise a child, and it takes one to support an adult as well. But more important, as I see it, is to recognize the flawed ideal (or more correctly, the absence of any ideal) behind such a strategy. The coming hardships we are soon to face represent the closure of a long period of development. Yes, there is the possibility for a “rebirth” of humanity to come about, but such renewal will not, and cannot, come about in continuity with the outcome of the present period; if it is to come about at all, it will have to mark a profound “break” with this present cycle. A tree which is dying cannot regenerate a new trunk; yet it can be born anew—in essence—through the sprouting of the seeds that it leaves behind. This is an idea which actually goes against the modern rationalistic mantra of “progress”, so I suspect many will balk at it, preferring to hold to the more conservative belief that tomorrow will be only a somewhat different—inevitably more advanced—version of today. But to do so implies an ignorance of our fundamental situation and a reliance on a too-subjective view of history.
However my central argument is that I strongly feel we need to ask ourselves whether taking a regressive stance is going to be the most beneficial approach. Now without doubt the human “system” is destined to experience a return to the mean—a level more commensurate with that experienced and lived by peoples for thousands of years—but that does not imply that no growth has been achieved by contemporary civilization whatsoever. Even should all our advances in the material world—our cities, our technologies, our global enterprise—crumble to dust around us, are we not still in many substantive ways a different people than any of the ancient cultures which never knew these things? Even should we be forced to haltingly reinvent for ourselves the “primitive” world these people knew, would we not have our own wealth of knowledge, experience, and understanding to draw on and contribute? And if we are indeed at the apex of material history, do we not then have a unique vantage point from which to chart our course forward? What is crucial in this regard is that we work to separate that which is contingent on “modern life” from what is essential to human society and to Life itself.
If we can accept that humanity is being called into its adulthood, that it is being called toward maturity, responsibility and self-possession, then we must also accept that this transformation cannot come about absent any effort or intention on our part. It is this recognition, in my estimation, which the “survivalist” approach is lacking. While certainly not a judgment on any individual people, the approach itself could be said to be “sterile”: it does not contain within itself any force or living “blueprint” for inseminating a truly new type of human society—and therefore it does not comprise a truly transformative effort, one which holds its aim on a level above that of material self-preservation. Those who truly wish to affect this degree of change must make it a conscious effort, an effort realized and made manifest within the medium of their lives. If we believe that such change is possible—that indeed it is needed and is perhaps even being asked of us—then we should begin making the first steps right now toward embracing it and realizing it in the world. We must begin, right now, to make our break with this untenable modern civilization, and gather together to explore a new way of being. In this way we might begin to sow the seeds of our future society; to forge the first tiny microcosms of a more responsible human way of life. And thus our approach in preparing for the future will be one whereby we use the opportunities and the knowledge we have now—before the period of crisis has fully erupted—to begin planning and laying the foundation for the society we envision for tomorrow.
Restoration
”The only sustainable world we can build is a world of decentralized local communities which minimize their resource demands but maximize human welfare and happiness. This is the world the ecovillage movement is both defending and rebuilding.” — Vandana Shiva, International College of Sustainable Living, India
Somewhere in the last decades of the 20th Century something unusual began to occur. At the height of human “progress”, in the full flower of technology, and at the pinnacle of economic and material success, a small trickle of people began to “drop out”. They were not giving-up on the world—on the contrary they were making immense efforts to seek out new, more authentic connections with it. A revolution had begun, without a doubt, but one devoid of leaders or fanfare or conditions; a simple, silent revolt led by thousands of people in dozens of countries, hardly any of them knowing that their other fellow revolutionaries even existed.
Most of them left their cities or their villages, although some did not. For a few it was only a matter of making slight readjustments to their way of life, but for most it required a substantial reconfiguration. The decision was an ideological one for many, but a decidedly practical one for all of them. Some slammed down on the brakes hard, while others down-shifted more slowly and gradually. In a myriad of ways and by a variety of means, these “drop-outs” began to sever the countless ties that bound them (or threatened to bind them) to the modern civilized world, and came together into communities of their own choosing. Yet whatever their differences of culture and desires, still their reasons were invariably the same: they had quite simply outgrown the stale vision of the modern world that was offered them. They tired of “industrialism” and “consumerism”, and they rebuked “globalization” and “economic progress” as nothing more than con-artistry. They felt driven to return to the land, to the Earth—not as exploiters of it, however, but as stewards of it.
And all the while these first few communities dug in their roots and struggled to find their footing, the trickle was steadily growing….
Those of us who are just now coming to these same conclusions will find that we are joining this revolt at an exciting phase. In just the last ten years the ecovillage or intentional community movement has begun to be taken up by a more mainstream current. (Although to be correct, the ecovillage movement comprises a rather specialized subset of the more general intentional community movement). According to most estimates there are presently several thousand such communities worldwide, most of them in existence less than ten years. Figures vary, but the average successful community numbers between 50 and 300 people—although interestingly, few number more than 500 people. Each reveals its own distinctive character and principles. Some have organized around commonly-shared spiritual practices, while others come together to explore new models of community and culture. A great many practice common aims for integrating sustainable methods of living such as permaculture, renewable energy, equitable economies, holistic healthcare, etc. But despite their wide range of seeming disparities, intentional communities worldwide have eagerly begun to integrate and to organize themselves, creating crucial networks for information sharing and support…even beginning to forge important trading-routes which might one day lead toward a healthy inter-dependence and the reinstatement of truly localized, democratic enterprise.
Three basic themes have been identified as being more-or-less central to all such communities:
Ecological Responsibility — living in harmony with Nature and respecting the Earth’s resources
Social Responsibility — i.e. the elimination of hierarchical desires, encouraging non-violent relationships, the integration of spirituality with community
Green Economics — local, non-corporate, sustainable and responsible enterprise
And while it is not the purpose of this article to analyze the ecovillage movement in detail, it should thus be clear that what is happening now is vastly different from the utopian communities and religious communes and such which have dotted most of human history. The ecovillage movement is almost certainly an emergent response to the terminal phase of instability which the human system has reached. Yet they also differ fundamentally from “survivalist communities”, since their purpose and aim is rooted in hope and not in fear—in aiding the positive effort of transcendence and acceptance to prevail over the negative reaction of fight or flight.
Contemporary ecovillages are life boats—voluntary refugees cutting themselves adrift of a sinking ship. Or conversely they might be seen as the hopeful seed-pods of a new human society, humbly germinating in the underbrush of decaying civilization. Because while it would be wrong to say that a vision of impending crisis informs all of the people who choose to embrace such a responsible way of living, there can be little doubt that a peculiar sense of mortality is a primary catalyst: the urging to shelter themselves from the tragic destiny that faces a civilization grown top-heavy with competition, pride, selfishness and material worship. A civilization steeped in the too-careless traits of adolescence. And still, what is guiding these movements is by no means a rejection of the world—it is, on the contrary, an intense love for it. Theirs is not an act of quitting but rather a redoubling of the effort to prevail.
The ecovillage movement represents a model, a host of independent experiments aimed at discovering a renewed vision of human society, and helping the forces of Life and of Being to predominate over the degenerative, downward pressures of materiality and “doing” which permeate contemporary civilization. They are the first fumblings of a humankind which seeks to grow-up. And certainly for the great majority of people they won't represent a practical ideal, and that's likely not required. But we should look to them as an ideal nonetheless. So that what is being attempted there can help to inform the organization of our existing towns and cities.
Because if we believe that there is any purpose in the fate of the world, then we have to acknowledge that the coming period of crisis presents the human race with a singular opportunity to decide whether we wish to take up such an effort or not. Indeed if, as is often said, every crisis also presents us with an opportunity, then we must marvel at how the modern current of life seems to be crafting a situation tailor-made for placing this decision of maturation unavoidably before us all…or to cast it in a slightly different light, for realizing conditions which might serve to separate the wheat of humankind from the chaff.
Beautifully stated.
Posted by: Leo | July 12, 2005 at 04:08 PM
Superb. Inspiring. I am gratefull to hear from you again.
Your work here has inspired me to adopt a similar line of thinking, which form the basis of my own journal, which I'd like to think forms a theoretical compliment to your own here.
My initial inspiration was to explore the nautre of the 'counter-initiation' you discussed some time back. and while that's been the focus of most of my writing so far, I'm trying gradually to intersperse some notions of what sort of human, and what sort human civilisation will be born out of this crisis.
If my suspicions are anywhere near accurate, we are facing a global intiatory crisis, and besides our own pride and foolishness, there are more than few groups out there determined to derail the process. Mostly to suck the last drops of blood from a neotenised and aborted world civilsation, one might think.
If it were as simple ( if we could even dream of calling it that! )as riding out the changes, it would be bad enough, but without a vision of a positive rebirth, we have no hope whatsover of facing the parasites and predators who would stand at the grave of our destiny.
Posted by: zacharius | July 12, 2005 at 11:38 PM
Well written. But badly argued. There will be no rebirth, so don't get your hopes set on it.
It's a mistake to think: "Human “civilization” has become, to put it bluntly, a scourge upon the Earth. Therefore if our relationship with the Earth is to continue, we will need to transform our human culture and society completely."
This planet is remarkable BECAUSE of human life. We are a credit to the planet, the solar system, and possibly the galaxy. We are the best thing that ever happened to this little rock because we ARE constantly transforming our culture and society.
And we will continue to adapt to changes, even the ones we cause ourselves within the global ecosystem. I agree we should do all we can to minimize our impact on our precious planet, but at the same time we must realize that our technological progress is the single most important path we follow. It leads to a glorious new world, not disaster.
Civilization is more grown-up than you give it credit. It will not collapse, as say it did with the Mayans, with the people suddenly fleeing back into the wilderness--now that was an adolescent civilization, where human sacrifice was their version of reality TV.
Today, we build powerful centers for learning, for arts, for science, for culture. Urbanization is actually a great stabilizing force as it increases productivity while suppressing population growth.
You say: "The coming period of crisis presents the human race with a singular opportunity to decide whether we wish to take up such an effort or not...
Contemporary ecovillages are life boats, and they know it—voluntary refugees cutting themselves adrift of a sinking ship."
Actually, those who isolate themselves from a perceived crisis have, historically, always failed to thrive. But your sense that we are moving away from the current geo-political map is correct. Those who will thrive are those best able to adapt to a post-geographic society.
Indeed, we will all be pushed, like it or not, towards a more homogenized world-village--and we will get there through technological progress, driven by our insatiable consumerism.
Technology will help us stabilize many of the problems you fear. And we will all get to the glorious future faster by being even bigger consumers.
Posted by: jst33z | July 13, 2005 at 08:33 PM
"Indeed, we will all be pushed, like it or not, towards a more homogenized world-village."
Some will resist being pushed into your shopping-mall world. Without the local, the heterogeneous, much of what makes life worth living is lost.
What you perceive as stability may be perceived by others as fascism.
And before you refer to others' writings as "badly argued," you may want to examine your own comments more closely. "Insatiable consumerism" is, by definition, unsustainable.
Posted by: Kylark | July 14, 2005 at 12:44 AM
Jeez, talk about children writing nonsense, or could I use an analogy of someone whistling past a graveyard to keep the boogieman away.
jst33z writes:"This planet is remarkable BECAUSE of human life. We are a credit to the planet, the solar system, and possibly the galaxy. We are the best thing that ever happened to this little rock because we ARE constantly transforming our culture and society."
What stupid arrogance is this? The planet that sustains us doesn't give a rats ass about us, it doesn't feel privileged to be accommodating us. This planet will quite "happily" spin in its orbit whether it is a pristine water world or a burnt out cinder.
Steven Lagavulin writes that the new ecovillage movement is something new and improved. Huh? Where have I heard that before?
Most of the ecovillage promotions I've read are either crass "Florida-swamp-real-estate-scams" or amatuer, poorly planned utopian fantasy."
Stop trying to write the next great thriller, action adventure movie script. Life will go on, some will die, some will live. Make the best decisions you can, source out what you consider to be the best unbiased information and learn. Be honest with yourself, else everything you do will be a lie.
Posted by: Robbinson | July 14, 2005 at 07:28 AM
Boring.
Just what was your point?
Posted by: Jake B | July 14, 2005 at 02:02 PM
You're right about a lot of things (I loved the analogy of the dangers of childhood) and that as a civilization, as a species, it's time for us to grow up. But eco-villages are not the answer, they're not even a very new or original idea. I watched Dancing Rabbit on the DumbBox last night and saw them tolling around all over the place in their new 4x4 Extended Cab Ford Pickup. And they're the type of people leading the 'sustainability' movement.
What is missed in your discussion
I think what is missed in your discussion is the same thing that all 'positive-thinker-types' gloss over ... that change is very very painful. Painful, in this future, as in deadly. Consider this idea ... that if a fundamental shift is coming, isn't it true that any truly radical shift precludes the possibility that large numbers of people will survive it ? After all, if it's not that dangerous, then the same people that brought us to the point we are at now, will continue to be with us into the future. If they're still here, nothing really changes does it ? By definition, it's not a hard crash unless lots of people die. Conversely, if there is a hard crash isn't it likely that the people who survive will be quite different than those who do not ? After all, such a Crisis will act as a genetic and behavioral sieve which weeds out people on the basis of personality traits, intelligence and physical hardiness. Since many of the characteristics that would come to play in deterimine survivability are genetic in nature, it could be argued that people on the other side of the Crisis will be GENETICALLY different than the current population. I think you never contemplated (or refuse to acknowledge) that is possible that the people on the other side of the Crisis, in our future, will be UNIQUE at such a fundamental level.
My last argument is that it is only hubris that makes you think that you ALREADY have the answer to a Crisis that has not appeared as yet (although is clearly coming). You're a very smart guy with some great ideas, but when the butterfly is born, the caterpillar dies.
You're just another caterpillar thinking he is going to be in charge of choosing the wing color for all (future) butterflies.
I think not. :)
Posted by: M | July 14, 2005 at 05:29 PM
Wonderful article, Steven. Thank you.
It is good to be reminded that our current way of life us unsustainable. (For everyone in the world to live in the current style of North America, we would need five Earths or more, for the metals and soils, for the water and the lumber. And North America is itself tottering on the brink of infrastructure failure: we may recall here the depletion of the topsoils and the drawing-down of the Ogallala aquifer; and we may note that in the last 3 or so years, the price of petroleum has gone up 2 or 3 times, even in a geophysical regime that temporarily allows production to expand a little before its inevitable and disastrous contraction in coming decades; and we may note, from reputable sources including the _Washingron Post_, that the grid failure of 2003-08-14 came close to being repeated with a Milton, Ontario switching accident on 2005-05-27. The issues of grid reliability and fossil-fuel depletion I analyze in my grim 'Utopia 2184', in the 'Literary' section of my http://www.metascientia.com.)
Lifeboats, or seed pods for a new civilization growing up in the decay of the old, are exactly what we need now, as Steven points out.
It may now be asked, 'Is there any precedent for such a seed-pod movement?' Well, yes. We can find a precedent in the Roman world of the 400s and 500s, when the last Emperor had left the throne and the Goths and Vandals controlled Italy. (Goths and Vandals! Those names convey dread, even in the popular speech of the 21st century.) The monasteries helped keep ideas and culture alive. For more on this, one can consult the Rule of Benedict (that's Saint Benedict of Nursia).
Coincidentally, Benedict is remembered in traditional Christendom right around this time of year: his feast day is 11 July.
I'm not saying that medieval monasticism provides an exact parallel to what Steven incisively argues is needed now. But I do claim that we find here an APPROXIMATE parallel, a historical movement worth studying. Benedict's short, simple, plain Rule, instantly locatable on numerous Benedictine Web sites with Google, is an easy place to begin.
Posted by: Toomas (Tom) Karmo | July 14, 2005 at 05:29 PM
M, I don't think it's hubris to know the answer to this crisis as phrased. It seems pretty obvious, more or less as Steve has it. To use a crisp example, the solution to death is not to die. Of course, that doesn't make it any less difficult.
What you say about change being painful is probably the most important point in the world. You're right that it's missing from the discussion, but really it's missing from practically every discussion like this. The reality is just too absurd. Obviously things are bad, but that doesn't mean I want off the boat.
I can at least speak for myself, and I am in complete ideological agreement with the whole civilization must end business, but I know what makes me comfortable, and what makes me comfortable are the things I have grown up with. There's really not going to be any "revelation" except when looking at the larger context metaphorically. For the people on the ground, there will be a whole lot of suffering, and then they will die, and maybe their children will grow up to a brighter future.
Posted by: Josh | July 15, 2005 at 09:38 AM
A lot of great comments. Let me offer a handful of responses.
I certainly agree that the change is going to be very painful, and that the coming period of crisis in fact hinges on a substantial "die off", to use a rather crass biological term. However I decided not to emphasize these points because I wished to suggest a more hopeful tone for this piece.
In regard to the potential held by the ecovillage movement, I absolutely believe that it is the only valid preparation we can undertake to face a prolonged period of crisis about which we cannot predict the details beforehand. Only the ecovillage concept aims at maximum self-sufficiency and flexibility...not to mention that this movement furthermore seeks to reawaken certain specific ideological and moral "antidotes" to the destructive qualities ingrained in modern civilization. Yes, many intentional communities are rather "rinky-dink", "flakey" or what have you, but many are quite developed and sophisticated (which is why I worried about the Morgan Spurlock show on FX). And since the path of deconsumption is a difficult one, almost all of them make their steps gradually, if true sustainability is their aim (although obviously that is not the focus of ALL such communities).
I personally think it's interesting that the analogy to the fall of the Roman empire was recognized. The concept of the cyclical nature of history holds that all events repeat themselves (in their essential nature) through time, but differ widely in their scale. According to this belief therefore, what happened to the empire of Rome was further destined to happen the the Empire of humankind on a global scale--which is the largest scale possible within our realm of being. (This understanding of cyclic analogy underscores many "apocalyptic" predictions in various traditions.) And because I am personally convinced that this concept of the cyclic nature of things is avalid one, I agree with the recognition in many of these traditional "forecasts" that the scale of what we face signifies that it is the end of a great Cycle...which means the beginning of a new, and vastly different, one.
Thus, in my mind, I couple this emergence of a new Cycle with the suddenly-appearing urge worldwide to embrace the ecovillage movement, and since the ecovillage movement further appears to represent a kind of "holistic revolution" I feel drawn to believe that perhaps an unseen influence is at work sowing the seeds for the next era....
And whether that is so or not, I nonetheless feel the intentional community movement provides a vastly superior alternative to our current society, even if those villages prove to be just as doomed as modern mega-cities.
And just one more note...there is something very interesting to me about how the ecovillage movement seems to separate out the people who are both consciously aware of what is happening to our world AND show an ableness to "walk the walk" in seeking a response. As a process of selection of the "elect" is often mentioned in regard to the termination of Cycles, this condition piques my interest quite a bit....
Posted by: Steven Lagavulin | July 15, 2005 at 12:14 PM
I like this, it gives lot's of food for thought but I want to twist the analogy of the maturing of the human race a little bit. I think that a maturing process is only needed for our culture, not the entire species. - William Kotke calls it Empire Culture and while there have been plenty of other cultures in the past it is the only culture visible to us these days. I definitely would challenge the idea that it is the pinnacle of human existence to date (quite the opposite in fact).
I think our culture is a very immature culture, even though it is a highly developed one. If we say that different cultures are different types of people (changing the metaphor from the entire species as developing human) then our culture is the equivalent of the successful white male. He has developed a seemingly complete and complex life but in terms of personal development is still an adolescent, which is why he crashes round the world pissing everybody off. I’m thinking here of the type who is the boss at home and the boss at work and most of the people they encounter don't let them know when they have done something wrong. Without this sort of feedback they become increasingly arrogant and then eventually stupid.
I believe that most of the white men I know are like this to one degree or another (I’m a white male myself in case you’re wondering). Basically what has happened is that they have acquired a certain amount of power and it has corrupted them to the point where they can't see themselves in a realistic way anymore. People will argue that self-delusion is a natural human tendency and it is, but with power and the insulation from reality that comes with it the delusional state can be taken to a whole knew level - which our head int eh sand attitude to environmental degradation surely proves.
Our Culture’s power (and it’s insulating properties) come from mining the earth’s resources, especially oil and people in the third world. It is becoming increasingly difficult to maintain the delusion that this is causing harm but a high enough proportion of the population still perceives that they have gained from it for the delusion to win out up to now. If we were to take the power (oil) out of the system the culture would face a crisis and might grow up. Of course we all know that the older a person is the harder it is to get them to change. In reality I think our culture is so old (but not mature of course) and so besotted with its power that it is incapable of change and instead will become bewildered and angry like the residents of a poorly run retirement village near you. If we do see the culture mature it will as you suggest be the child and not the father who learns the lessons.
And if the child is to learn a new way to live it will be from other’s who are already mature. In this scenario these cultures are represented by people who have no need for material gain but instead focus their lives on things like spiritual enlightenment (I’m having trouble finding an example of this type of person since their aren’t any close to hand:-) We’ve got a lot to learn from the indigenous cultures of the world who are already fully mature in terms of their ability to live without destroying the planet. Unfortunately our culture is still in the adolescent state of thinking we already know everything and that everyone else should just shut up and listen to us. The prospects are grim.
Posted by: Aaron | July 16, 2005 at 11:39 PM
article written by a weak animal that is facing a crisis but is afraid and/or unable to evolve beyond its primate-type instincts and un-natural "cultured" stereotypes.
the word "animal" is used not to offend, but to accent it's (author's) difference from us, sapient animals, who want and try to build our own world to our liking, compared to regular animals, who just try to survive and procreate within given Nature (with capital "N", of course)
the word "weak" is used not to offend, but to characterize the author. His longing for " the elimination of hierarchical desires, encouraging non-violent relationships " (by non-intrusive lecturing, no doubt) betrays his chances=0 to survive if exposed to Nature
for it's Eat or Be Eaten - that is life, nature, "Life" and "Nature". And the strongest get females and survive. And among gregarious animals the fate of weak is ...
and no amount of whining going to change that. it's Nature with capital "N", whether you like it or not
Posted by: Igor | July 20, 2005 at 11:21 PM
CORRECTION:
in the previous post, in the 2nd line the word "un-natural" should be read as "un-Natural".
thanx
Posted by: Igor | July 21, 2005 at 04:29 PM
In response to this and many warm writings before it:
It may be that many of the social advances that we most cherish today, such as universal human rights, freedom of religion, women's rights, racial equality, etc., have arisen in the past couple of hundred years because of the wealth generated by a near-sighted consumption of the planet's resources. I believe if the scourges of peak oil, resource shortages, and environmental degradation force humanity to abandon its teeming cities and unsustainable technology-created lifestyles, and splinter into millions of small villages (communities), instead of a spiritual cleansing and rebirth, our species will experience a reversion to the horrors of the uncivilized world.
We may see the return of the genetic drive to replace the socioeconomic drive of today: imagine a return of the old societies where women were second-class citizens, wars were fought for slaves, blind prejudice and religiosity being the rule, one human life (the individual) completely worthless and powerless.
Even today, small communities are characterized by a close-knit relationship between its members, a warm and supportive superfamily, and rugged independence, but also pettiness, xenophobia, and paranoiac ignorance. However, small communities of the future of depleted energy resources will be naturally extreme versions of those today. Without communication with the outside world at large, or the influence of other humans outside their community, with loss of outsiders (their ideas and their genes), and a host of other reasons, I feel that the community-based future will not as it is idealized today. I personally fear its return, as the ideals and philosophies that we all cherish may very quickly be lost: as the generations advance in this hypothetical future, our present respect of diversity, freedom of thought, and the sanctity of all life may be seen as increasingly irrelevant.
Just as knowledge of peak oil left many of us in an intellectual and personal quandary, these thoughts presented above may, if understood, threaten to do it again to some who adjusted to that knowledge by looking forward to a return to community-based living. Out of diversity of ideas is born wisdom: it seems most likely that the world will revert to low-energy agrarianism with its community-based way of life, and I do not know if enough of our advances, social or technological, will be accessible to enable us to continue enjoying the ideas of liberty and freedom.
Posted by: Ahmed Fasih | July 22, 2005 at 03:51 PM
I don't know what do you do when you open your fridge and discover that you are low on "resources"...
probably you decide it is time for "cleansing" and "rebirth" and "starting to live in harmony" with whatever resources are left in "Nature" (ie your fridge)
as for me, I just go out and get more "resources".
so we are low on oil. big deal! let's go thermonuclear, etc. that's the progress.
may be we can overcome nature's limitations through technology. may be we cannot. but let's give it a try. 'cause the other option - lame "harmony with Nature" is what we humans did for eons, up to a couple centuries ago. what's the point to do it again?
most probably original earth resources would be consumed. so what?
FIRST - it is the law of your beloved "Nature" that EVERYTHING has its end. (death for living things). even if not because of us, the planet WILL be destroyed, anyway. due to "natural" cause.
SECOND - if we manage to pull that technology thing, we will re-create planet with all its biosphere. actually every tree-hugger will get his very own planet. promise.
Posted by: Igor | July 22, 2005 at 10:36 PM
Wow Steve, that amazing piece of writing really blew me away. After reading continously about the coming peak oil repercussions for the first time, over a two day period I experienced total shock, then horror and depression, followed by panic and indecision as to a proper response. So your perspective was extremely helpful to me, as it probably will be to many others. It deserves more readers.
I've been irked by The Great God Consumerism for years; now I'm looking forward to going back (ooh what a great slogan, lol).
Cheers
Posted by: po | July 26, 2005 at 02:57 AM
I think you are correct in most of your thoughts. But I do believe that what we are about to experience will be horrific beyond what most can immagine. We will be set back a few hundred years, and it will be the survivalist types who will set up the new society as most will have met there demise
Posted by: Tom | April 27, 2006 at 01:49 AM
Very interesting to read all the above comments. I can't claim to be able to predict the future, except to say that it seems likely we've all missed a great many relevant 'modifiers' that will make much of the discussion above moot. I'll list a few of them: if civilization collapses, there will be an astonishing amount of chemical waste in multi-thousands of locations that will eventually find its way into the local environment (and water). Nuclear power plants will have no one to tend to them. What happens? Meltdowns? Multi-Chernobyls? Areas uninhabitable for decades or longer? How about gasoline/petroleum storage in tanks underground. I personally know someone in local government that was involved in locating leaks and problems associated with these storage tanks. There are thousands of them, and they will, I assure you, leak like crazy eventually. Pesticides and herbicides in storage. Where will they end up? The 9/ll tragedy opened our eyes to another issue: the toxic content of buildings, and how they can spread and cause terrible problems for humans in contact with dust et al. How about weaponry? Like the old storage area and the Rocky Mountain Arsenal, finally cleaned up fairly recently. What happens to these materials? Gas lines...as they burst and vent, do cities literally go up in smoke? Katrina showed us that a bit of water plus local toxins make a toxic soup of water that can flood enormous areas. Animals pass on disease. If we rely on wild or domestic animals without the resources to combat disease, what then? They are supreme vectors for death. Oh, how about all the biological weaponry...anthrax stored in the thousands of gallons, with other horrific (smallpox, ebola etc.) sitting around in hidden labs. If that gets loose? Then what? If we manage to mess up the ozone again, then uva and uvb damage could wreak havoc on us and plant life. I could go on and on...my point is not to be just a doomsayer, but to show that much of our thinking is incredibly narrow. I've not seen any evidence that post-catastrophic collapse would lead to any behavior other than survival and brutishness. I doubt most small eco-villages would survive the plunder of marauding groups very long; if they did, they would be using the same tactics to survive themselves. We have a stunning amount of dangerous 'stuff' hanging around this world; at present, it is 'mildly' under control. With the controls lifted, I can't imagine the result. We are in for a difficult future. Whatever we can do now to mitigate it we must do, if only for our children. We owe it to them. Yes, it will involve rethinking and clearly new relationships to the environment and each other. The how to on that is beyond my own imagination. I understand the various philosophical stances, but humans are, by and large, still about where they were eighty or ninety thousand years ago. That does not bode well for us. I'm open to ideas that can address these multi-faceted problems. Mayhaps a quasi Asimovian Foundation? I don't know. What do you think of these issues?
Posted by: Steve | August 06, 2006 at 05:22 PM
Could an army of the ignorant and humble undermine the excesses of power and privilege? Could civilization, as we know it be defeated by the force of humanity?
Posted by: Fool e | August 23, 2006 at 02:03 AM
I realize most of these comments are a year old, but to address the recent ones: Steve, just when you think it's bad, it's worse. Add in all the manure lagoons, the secret caches of weapons, landfills with plastic liners that will eventually leak, and all of those oil wells that will flare uncontrollably with no one to put them out after the wars....
Fool e:, Look up a book "The Greening of America" by Charles Reich. This was the original 'dropping out' book which does a clear job of explaining how every hour we work makes at least twice that much in profit for 'The Corporate Complex'.
Steve L, the term I like is "Net Creativity", which gives even humans a purpose to work toward, rather than just existing. We CAN contribute to the universe, we just have to WANT to....
Posted by: auntiegrav | September 04, 2006 at 11:54 AM
We need to remember that civilisations have died before, albeit not before on a global scale. But there are lessons for the dark ages to come.
It is true that 3/4 of the world's population is currently alive through dependence on fossil fuels. Remove that source of energy and you will remove those people. Life expectancy that has risen to 67 years world wide (from 28 years at the start of the 20th century) will fall to about 21 years at the close of the 21st.
But such things have happened before on a regional scale. In post-Mycenaean Greece the population decline in the Peloponesse was 90%. In the Dark Age between the Bronze and Iron Age every city from Troy to Gaza burned. Literacy disappeared in large parts of the world. Such things will happen again.
But history also teaches us how dark ages can be minimised. People need to engage in the following 6 strategies if they wish to minimise the Darkness and the suffering that is coming.
1. Build community as if your life depended upon it - it does. People not living in communities will suffer the most.
2. Avoid dependency upon complex systems - simplify your life. In the dark ages it was those who could sustain themselves in simplicity who survive the best.
3. Cultivate and maximise your creativity. Creativity improves your adaptive capacity. Creativity is needed in every sphere - artistic, cultural, technological, economic, social, political and scientfic.
4. In a dark age, militant ignorance (aka "evil") spreads. Just look at the USA at the moment. One cannot fight against militant ignorance with another of the same - one needs non-violent wisdom. Look at what St Columba did for the Scots, Picts, British and Northumbrians in our last Dark Age.
5. Preserve knowledge. In a dark age knowledge gets replaced by superstition and it takes a thousand years in some cases to recover what was lost (look at our case - we went back to thinking the Earth was flat for god saes!)
6. Practice an Earth based (not a heaven based) spirituality that is inclusive of all differences. In a dark age warring fundamentalisms spread (again look at the USA), and we need a spiritual practice and a faith that includes all current faiths.
Do these 6 things and your descendents just might survive. Don't and look at the case of the Ik in Uganda (See Colin Turnbull) for how our future will be.
Warm regards to all
Posted by: John Croft | October 26, 2006 at 02:23 PM
A comparative study of the coming dark age shows there are six things we can do now to minimise and shorten the darkness
1. Build community - your life depends upon it
2. Simplify your life - avoid depending on human complexity
3. Cultivate creativity on a massive scale
4. Practice non-violence in every aspect of your community life
5. Preserve knowledge
6. Build a new inclusive spirituality that is Earth based.
Do those six things in your homes and communities and you may stand a chance of survival. Don't and you will perish!
Good luck in your efforts
John
Posted by: John Croft, Perth, Australia | April 07, 2007 at 05:49 AM
I have to say, you did a really nice job on explaining something that can be really tricky at times. It is nice to see someone that be able to break such a tricky topic down and make it easy to understand.
Well Done!
Posted by: law of attraction group | May 20, 2008 at 04:46 AM
Gloom and doom. Technology will save us if we elect leaders with brains. The sun imparts more BTUs of energy to the earth each day than all the oil we have ever burned. All we have to do is start to see *it* as the same way we see oil... a free natural resource. If you take the trillion dollars we're throwing at the war in Iraq and gave it to solar research, you'd have cheap, efficient solar panels on every rooftop in America, feeding batteries hooked up to a huge electrical grid.
The only lasting answer is harnessing the sun - and the things it affects - winds, tides, plants, algae, etc.
Posted by: Vilhem Black | June 04, 2008 at 08:36 PM
Brief points Mostly very good comments here.
1. The problem is not going to be energy, but food. Harness all the BTU's in solar energy and there will still not be fertilizer to grow enough food for all the people
2. Without food, anarchy will be inevitable. No way will people stand in queues like the Ethiopians some years ago, calmly waiting for food to arrive and many dying just where they stood. This time around hungry masses will desert the cities and flood the countryside - ecovillages a key target - in desperate search for ANYTHING to eat, sources of food to include the ecovillagers.
3. The comparison with monasteries after Rome fell does not take into regard that a) monasteries were soon seen as sanctuaries, not subject to plunder (on a general scale) and b) there was no mass starvation with no recourse to a recovery later. Neither will apply to the ecovillages during the die-off
4. The principle of carrying 'the seeds of civilisation' in (isolated) communities is the way to go, but its implementation is going to be a tough task to accomplish with any hope of success.
Before we reach a new - hopefully different - state of civilisation we will again pass through a phase of tribalism; starting with those 'tribes' that manage to survive the cataclysm through correct planning and preparation.
Wishing you all well.
Posted by: daan joubert | June 07, 2008 at 04:42 AM