We're Sick

As a society, we stopped producing food decades ago.  Most of our families left their farms to go join the urban masses sometime in the last century.  That's when our disease took hold.  While we still learn as kids that that the food we eat comes from farms, that's about as far as our understanding goes.  We've lost the knowledge and understanding of what makes a farm -- or anything in the natural world -- really work.  We don't care about something we don't understand.

When we see on the evening news that the US is wracked with (climate change induced) drought, we might think "that's too bad for those poor farmers".  We might even suffer a moment's consternation as we realize that food prices will be going up.  We have no fear of starvation though.  Food will still come from somewhere (from the store of course!).  We "know" but we no longer understand how important the natural world is, because we think we've left it behind.   We've got more important issues to occupy our thoughts, like Miley Cyrus' butt.

The fact is that we are a part of the natural world, in the same way that your big toe is part of you.  We cannot separate ourselves from it any more than your toe can cut himself free from a life in your stinky shoes to embark on a new life of leisure at some sandy tropical beach.  We think of nature as a separate entity;  something we may enjoy on weekends when we venture out from our man-made environs.  We don't need it anymore, so we're cutting ourselves loose, heading out into our brave new world.

If we truly understood ourselves to be a part of nature, we wouldn't just shrug our shoulders at the news that our oil addiction just killed the Gulf of Mexico, shortly before we go to visit the gas station yet again.  We wouldn't brush off news that endocrine-disrupting chemicals are now making their way out of fracked groundwater and into our drinking water, right before we fire up the furnace to keep our home warm and toasty with "clean burning" natural gas.

If we truly understood that nature's health is our health, anyone suggesting something as absurd as this or this would be treated like a knife wielding intruder smashing his way into our children's bedroom.  Why?   Because both of them will ultimately accomplish the same thing.

The Last Nomads and the Culture of Fear

Please read this powerful and thought provoking article by permaculturist Toby Hemenway on our society vs. the nomadic societies we've destroyed.  His thoughts closely echo my own.

We also stopped at Little Bighorn on our move from Washington in 2008, and it struck me how recently this battle and the associated genocide had occurred.   The house we now live in was built before the battle, on land also taken from natives who treated it far more respectfully and appropriately than we have.

In a short 150 years, our "domesticated" masses have destroyed the freest people on the planet.  We're well on our way to destroying the possibility of anyone ever living in freedom again (I'll laugh at anyone who proclaims the US to be "The Land of the Free"), or living at all for that matter.

Those of us who accept the status quo, and who follow the default course that our society has laid out for us are guilty of the most heinous crimes imaginable, though most refuse to recognize it.   The worst evil imaginable is little more than the product of our own ignorance and complacency.

Turning Down the Volume

I've lately been listening to Mary Roach's book "Stiff" on my daily commute, a fascinating (and often stomach churning) book about all things cadaver-related.    One chapter covers the history of attempts to resuscitate cadavers and heads (freshly guillotined!).   The next moves to attempts by surgeons to transplant living heads (on animals thus far, though I'm not yet finished with the book).

One comment in particular caught my ear.   She mentions that people in sensory deprivation chambers invariably hallucinate and ultimately go mad (relating to the fact that a detached brain, if kept alive, would most likely suffer a degree of sensory deprivation with similar consequences).

Another book on my recent list (Pandora's Seed, by Spencer Wells) discusses the rise in mental health issues in modern society, to the point that mental health issues are expected to be the second leading cause of death in the US by 2020.

Could widespread sensory deprivation be the cause of our mental health issues?   Absolutely.

We already know that our immune systems "go mad" when they're deprived of frequent exposure to irritants and pathogens, resulting in a massive increase in allergies and autoimmune disorders, to the point that many children now risk sudden death from the exposure of a single drop of peanut oil or milk on their skin.  Researchers have discovered that Amish children, who frequently live on farms with livestock and often go barefoot in the summer (both likely sources of exposure to pathogenic bacteria), have very low allergy rates.  Coincidence?

So how are our lives like sensory deprivation chambers?   Consider the life of any human before the industrial revolution (or better yet, before the advent of agriculture), and contrast that with our daily lives now.   The pre-industrial human spent the majority of their time outdoors, directly experiencing everything from extreme temperatures to wind, rain, and all the weather that we nowadays just view from the comfort of our climate controlled car/home/workplace.

Their daily activities were highly varied.  They used their hands, not machines.  They hunted and gathered wide varieties of food (leading to better nutrition -- human stature dropped significantly once we became farmers), travelling through all sorts of terrain.  They built their own homes.  Schooled their own children.  They did everything that you and I now pay others to do for us, either directly or otherwise.  Nowadays, most of us repeatedly perform a single specialized task for which we receive money, typically performed within a climate controlled building while sitting still.  It's boring.

So to relieve the boredom, we go home, sit, and turn on the TV, computer, or game console.  We don't make our own entertainment, as pre-industrial man would've done.  We've outsourced damn near everything.

The net effect of trying to avoid physical work and make ourselves comfortable is that we've turned down the volume on life -- moving ever closer to the point of complete sensory deprivation.  The compartmentalization of our lives and careers has deprived us of varied and essential experiences. It's no wonder that both our bodies and minds are going nuts.

Get rid of the fossil fuels, and I suspect these ills of modern society will go with them.

Art and Beauty

As a decidedly left-brained type, I’d have to say I’d often had trouble relating to artists and their work.  So much art seems foolish and impractical, or a weak attempt to relive the glory-days of a high school art class.  The deeper meaning or message that others proclaim to see often appears like a case of “The Emperor’s New Clothes” to me. Despite this clear handicap, I’m drawn towards beauty, as most people are . Traditional societies have all integrated art into their lives in ways that seem both meaningful and appropriate. The tribes of the Pacific Northwest apparently had lots of time left over after finding things to eat. They took art to an amazing level, adorning everything from their houses and canoes to their clothing and household utensils. I think that much of my aversion to "art" is a result of the separation of art and functionality that has come about as a result of industrialized manufacture. Anything which can be made, can be sold at a lower cost if there’s no artistic input. In the rare cases where a good is manufactured with some artistic beauty, the beauty is cheapened when it was clearly created by a machine, and is exactly like to 500,000,000 other items which were made in the same factory.

Functional beauty can come in many forms. It doesn’t need to be the elaborate ornamentation of a victorian house or an Eastlake-era piece of furniture, though I’m fond of both. I’ve heard beauty described as “the elimination of the unnecessary”, which I like.

An old Herreshoff designed sailboat comes to mind as an embodiment of beauty without adornment.  Beauty is, as they say, "In the eye of the beholder".  

Some of my perception of beauty no doubt draws from an aversion to objects which use fossil fuels.

The modern Bayliner "Fly-Bridge" type power boat is about the aesthetic opposite of the Herreshoff in my opinion.  I delight in referring to these as "self dumpers", in reference to what is likely to happen as their typically overweight crew all migrate to the fly-bridge at the top of the boat, making it a little too top-heavy. But I digress...

In the pre-industrialized world, where most all goods were made by craftspeople, beauty was an important element of any trade. It differentiated your work from that of the competition. As industrialization wanes, I’m looking forward to seeing the return of art and beauty re-integrated into the items we make and use each day.

The Market Economy

I think I've found a new model for those who rail on about our draconian EPA (and thus garner loads of corporate campaign contributions along with the admiration of the Koch brothers).   It's a land where market forces rule, and externalized costs are not a concern for business.   The pursuit of wealth and industry is the pinnacle of societal achievement there.   Though we can't live there, we rush to support them in their efforts, and we are clearly the beneficiaries of their amazing work ethic.  Look for the "Made in..." label on the next item you buy at the store.   Just don't look behind the curtain.

The Trap is Set

There's a reason I keep Dmitry Orlov on the blogroll to the right.  His most recent post on the "Sixth Stage of Collapse" is an excellent example, and expresses my current thoughts on our situation quite well.  Also quite prescient is the comment on Orlov's entry from Thomas Reis regarding the costs of decommissioning Germany's 28 nuclear plants (search for "Reis" once you're on Orlov's blog).  It's becoming ever more apparent that we have created a trap for ourselves from which we may not escape.

Food for Thought

Please read the following excerpt, written by someone you already know:

"A technological advance that appears not to threaten freedom often turns out to threaten it very seriously later on. For example, consider motorized transport. A walking man formerly could go where he pleased, go at his own pace without observing any traffic regulations, and was independent of technological support-systems. 

When motor vehicles were introduced they appeared to increase man's freedom. They took no freedom away from the walking man, no one had to have an automobile if he didn't want one, and anyone who did choose to buy an automobile could travel much faster than the walking man. But the introduction of motorized transport soon changed society in such a way as to restrict greatly man's freedom of locomotion. 

When automobiles became numerous, it became necessary to regulate their use extensively. In a car, especially in densely populated areas, one cannot just go where one likes at one's own pace one's movement is governed by the flow of traffic and by various traffic laws. One is tied down by various obligations: license requirements, driver test, renewing registration, insurance, maintenance required for safety, monthly payments on purchase price. 

Moreover, the use of motorized transport is no longer optional. Since the introduction of motorized transport the arrangement of our cities has changed in such a way that the majority of people no longer live within walking distance of their place of employment, shopping areas and recreational opportunities, so that they HAVE TO depend on the automobile for transportation. Or else they must use public transportation, in which case they have even less control over their own movement than when driving a car. 

Even the walker's freedom is now greatly restricted. In the city he continually has to stop and wait for traffic lights that are designed mainly to serve auto traffic. In the country, motor traffic makes it dangerous and unpleasant to walk along the highway. (Note the important point we have illustrated with the case of motorized transport: When a new item of technology is introduced as an option that an individual can accept or not as he chooses, it does not necessarily REMAIN optional. In many cases the new technology changes society in such a way that people eventually find themselves FORCED to use it.)"

Another excerpt of his that I found quite interesting:

"The conservatives are fools:  They whine about the decay of traditional values, yet they enthusiastically support technological progress and economic growth. Apparently it never occurs to them that you can't make rapid, drastic changes in the technology and the economy of a society with out causing rapid changes in all other aspects of the society as well, and that such rapid changes inevitably break down traditional values."

He actually saves most of his vitriol for "Leftists" (which I find somewhat less interesting!), but much of which contains some element of truth. 

The author has an IQ of 167, was admitted to Harvard at 16, and completed his graduate work at the University of Michigan, where he received his PhD in Mathematics.  One of his professors noted, "It's not enough to say he was smart".  Another professor commenting on his thesis, noted, "I would guess that maybe 10 or 12 men in the country understood or appreciated it".   He was the youngest professor ever hired by UC Berkely, though he didn't remain there long.   Though you already know him, I would guess you've never written a word he wrote.

Both of these excerpts are taken from what you probably know of as "The Unibomber Manifesto", published by the NY Times and written by the now infamous Ted Kaczynski.  While I wouldn't condone his means of obtaining fame, there is clearly some unique insight in his writing, which I would encourage anyone to check out.  

According to his Wiki page, Ted's bombing campaign was inspired by destruction which he found unbearable.  In his words:

"The best place, to me, was the largest remnant of this plateau that dates from the tertiary age. It's kind of rolling country, not flat, and when you get to the edge of it you find these ravines that cut very steeply in to cliff-like drop-offs and there was even a waterfall there. It was about a two days hike from my cabin. That was the best spot until the summer of 1983. That summer there were too many people around my cabin so I decided I needed some peace. I went back to the plateau and when I got there I found they had put a road right through the middle of it... You just can't imagine how upset I was. It was from that point on I decided that, rather than trying to acquire further wilderness skills, I would work on getting back at the system. Revenge."

I've often found that whenever someone does something extraordinary (or extraordinarily bad, in this case), there's often more to the story.  Kaczynski's story is no exception.   A blog written by his brother notes that Ted was subjected to knowingly harmful psychological experiments during his time at Harvard (believed to have been initiated by the CIA), and offers some potential insight into the actions which landed him at the federal penitentiary with 8 life sentences.