The Illusion of Security
by Jason GodeskyIn the years since 9/11, a quote from Benjamin Franklin has enjoyed renewed popularity in certain circles: “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” The loss of civil liberties and freedoms suffered by the United States’ citizenry under the second Bush regime, though significant, remain small when compared to the freedoms lost 10,000 years ago when our forebears (memetically, if not genetically) took up civilization. As we have already seen, fear of an uncertain future drove the development of hierarchy and the adoption of agriculture–two inextricably bound phenomena which may even be better seen as different aspects of the same process. We have already explored how competitive feasting gave some measure of security by essentially creating a second network of reciprocity between groups, just as had previously existed within groups. But I also mentioned trade as another elite activity which provided group security, and that point deserves further elaboration.
In this, I’ll essentially be synopsizing one of the sources in the biblography for “The Chicken & the Egg,” Hirth’s 1992 paper, “Interregional exchange as elite behavior: an evolutionary perspective,” published in Chase & Chase’s volume, Mesoamerican Elites: An Archaeological Assessment.
As I mentioned in the previous article, transporting food over significant distances was generally difficult in the ancient world. The Roman Empire exercised sufficient control to feed the Eastern Empire with grain from Egypt, and the West from Britain, but this was a feat of administrative and logistical prowess which even the Romans could not sustain forever. Their inability to contain such Herculean feats was one of the primary reasons for the end of the Western Empire.
More generally, one had to be relatively close to one’s food. Every city was surrounded by a hinterland that fed that city; this was the ancient city-state, whether that city-state be Greek or Teotihuacani. The Roman Empire itself was primarily a patch-work of various civitates.
As Hirth points out, every agricultural society faces a dilemna of whether to specialize to create a greater surplus, or diversify to offset the danger of a bad harvest. It is a classic dilemna in economics, and the classic answer has always been trade; I specialize in A, you specialize in B, and if we trade, then we can both have more of A and B.
But trading food was difficult. Most foods spoil, so they can’t be taken very far. They’re heavy, and the profits are not usually very high. It is generally more economical to trade light-weight, expensive luxury items. We have significant evidence that, prior to the Neolithic Revolution, trans-continental trade of lightweight luxury items occurred both in North America and Europe, if not elsewhere.
But if trading food is difficult, why does trade help anything? Because trading food is difficult–not impossible. The trade of luxury items and prestige goods helped create a marked upper-class: those who controlled this exotic trade with other groups. These would be the same “Big Men” who emerged in competitive feasting. Such goods helped demarcate their power and status, and were major assets in reinforcing their power. Like the kings of medieval Europe who would universally condemn peasant revolts, even against their enemies, the Big Men knew when to stick together. They needed one another for the trade on which their power and position relied, and if one of their primary trading partners fell on hard times, they could marshal their resources to rescue their ailing neighbors in the most ancient form of foreign aid.
So we have a clearer picture of the late Mesolithic coming together. The end of the Pleistocene fluctuates the climate, alternating between times of plenty and times of want. While starvation is rare and it would be a stretch to call the bad times “famine,” some years are undeniably harder than others.
In such uncertain times, “Big Men” emerge, providing some level of stability. In fat years, their lavish potlatches and mokas increase their own prestige and indebt neighboring groups–providing insurance against the hard years that will follow. These Big Men further bolster their position within the group, and cultivate a reciprocity network beyond the group, by using their power and influence to engage in long-distance trade. As a last resort, when all other possibilities are gone, they can call on neighboring Big Men to provide food.
These late Mesolithic foragers spend more and more time cultivating at more intensive levels, to produce enough food for the escalating competition of the Big Men’s feasts. It is hard, and they must sacrifice the freedom and liesure of their former life, but at least they have some security. Eventually, those Big Men have sufficient influence to make their followers stop thinking of themselves as hunters who farm, and begin thinking of themselves as farmers who hunt.
Big Men become chiefs, chiefs become kings, populations explode and civilization moves inexorably from that beginning to the present crisis.
But, as Benjamin Franklin said, “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” Agriculture is a hard life, as we have already seen. Malnutrition and disease followed almost immediately; war, tyranny and poverty followed inexorably. By relying solely on domesticated crops, intensive agriculture becomes the only subsistence technology that is truly susceptible to real famine. The safety the Big Men offered was illusory; in fact, that ancient bargain put us in a more precarious position than we had ever known–or will likely ever know again.
Ten thousand years ago, our ancestors traded the bulk of that very real freedom that is our species’ birthright, for a little temporary safety. If there is an original sin, a fall of man, that was it. From that day to this, we have not deserved–nor have we had–either one.
While the cultivation of food (and its resulting inequalities) certainly is the proximate cause of all the problems humanity faces, I posit that the ultimate cause is the ability of humanity to think abstractly, to disconnect from the world. Without being able to think abstractly, to think “How can I take advantage of this situation?” humanity would never have been able to begin cultivating food in the first place.
After all, in Genesis, agriculture (and pain in childbirth!) was the punishment for eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, or the ability to think abstractly. Just as Quinn illustrates in his ‘Hands of Gods’ reading.
So it isn’t enough to become primitivists, living in the woods, hunting and gathering–we must truly become a Pleistocene animal without the ability to think, if Homo Sapiens as a species is going to continue to exist.
Comment by Geoff — 30 November 2005 @ 12:20 AM
But really, wasn’t it hands that’s the problem?
Wasn’t it the opposable thumb … bifocal eyes … et cetera ad infinitum?
Lots of Pleistocene cultures showed a very rich inner life of abstract thought, and no sign of such destructiveness, such as at Lasceaux. Modern hunter-gatherers have abstract bodies of thought that put St. Augustine to shame.
“The problem” has to be in that set of things possessed by all the problematic cultures, and not possessed by all the healthy ones. Abstract thought, like the opposable thumb and bifocal eyes, is possessed by them all–problematic and healthy alike.
So, it is enough to become primitivists, living in the woods, hunting and gathering. It’s always been enough, and it’s all there will ever be. To stop thinking abstractly is to stop being human–it’s something we possessed, in all likelihood, for millions of years, and something we won’t be able to lose any time soon by any other means than extinction. I won’t damn the species to extinction because one culture made a monumental blunder.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 30 November 2005 @ 1:10 AM
Geoff,
I’ve got some stuff in another thread re: intelligence. Hell, instead of linking like a sensible person, I’ll repost it.
The idea of ‘consciousness’ as something distinct and new and spiffy is most likely a complete illusion. It’s the time meme that leads to our behavior, not ‘abstract thinking’. (at least in my opinion)
Best
Bill Maxwell
Comment by Bill Maxwell — 30 November 2005 @ 2:42 AM
Jason,
quote: “The problem” has to be in that set of things possessed by all the problematic cultures, and not possessed by all the healthy ones. Abstract thought, like the opposable thumb and bifocal eyes, is possessed by them all–problematic and healthy alike.
That supposes that all hunter-gatherer societies are healthy ones. But, biodiversity began to decrease once humanity developed abstract thought, as humanity used the ‘takeover’ method of expansion. This artifical diversion of photosynetic capabilities left less room for other species. With abstract thought, humanity learned how to use and create fire, instead of being afraid of it. Along with using the furs of other animals as clothing, this use of fire enabled a naked, mostly hairless primate to travel outside of the natural habitat of homo sapiens (say, within 20 degrees of the equator, I am guessing) to start diverting the use of photosynthesis towards their own use. Granted, at this point the growth and diversion of photosynthesis was minimal, but a 40,000 year-long exponential growth has to start very small. So the Lasceuax community had already started down the path of ecological takeover and photosynthetic diversion, simply by living in France, a habitat not truly suitable for them.
Power also manifested itself with the ability of abstract thought; Big men in tribes larger than a small 12 person band could begin to command a surplus, even temporarily. So, surpluses and the resulting food race did not begin with agriculture, nor did the beginnings of inequality. They were certainly minimal compared to their effects in society today, but minimal does not mean insignificant. The development of agriculture magnified the power in commanding a surplus, but agriculture did not start the power/takeover paradigm, it continued and increased an existing structure of an abstractly-thinking species. Agriculture could not even have begun before it did—it had to wait for a warming period during the ice-age. So hunter-gatherers could not develop agriculture until then — not because they were ‘healthy societies’, but because the environment couldn’t support agriculture. The environment could permit the takeover of habitat that was not suitable for a naked, hairless, fireless homo sapiens; it was only suitable for a fire-using, fur wearing, abstract thinking homo sapiens.
Just because modern hunter gatherers ARE hunter gatherers doesn’t mean they wouldn’t choose or be forced into another culture—say of totalitarian agriculture—if the need or opportunity arose.
Bill,
Thanks for that post on intelligence; I haven’t yet read all the threads here at anthropik, and I had’t come across that thread yet. I will check it out. I don’t have a response to the time meme yet; I’ll do my research first.
I do ask for patience with me, someone who is unfamiliar with the anthropological- and other- language used. The jargon is intimidating, as it is intended to be. Whole ‘nother subject of course, but the jargon is designed to deter those not in the ‘know’ from entering the discussion—an aspect of the power of language. And, sorry for the length of this ‘comment’ and forgive me if this subject has already been discussed at length on another thread.
By the way–I am not really advocating the abandonment of abstract thought, and I do like the notion of a hunter-gatherer tribe. However, our species may be damned nonetheless if we continue to use takeover as a legitimate solution to our problems.
Comment by Geoff — 30 November 2005 @ 10:07 PM
Geoff,
I doubt the thread will help you too much in your current debate since it’s on shamanism.
While Jason is excellent at sourcing and science, what I try to do is make certain concepts more accessible — to remove the ‘jargon’ so to speak.
What I’m challenging in your premise is simple: the idea that ‘abstract thought’ or a type of ‘consciousness’ unique to humans actually exists.
I’m arguing that the answer is no. Humans share the same level of mental processing with a large number of species, specifically the ability to recognize and act on a set of patterns. Like many other species (parrots, for example, or chimpanzees), we’ve accessed a subset of those patterns to learn how to communicate our ideas without having to pass them on genetically.
So what makes humans different than other animals? Well, one set of patterns we recognize is ‘time’. The ability to order things A to B to C is a very powerful tool, especially when it comes to tracking food. A variation on this theme, the ’storytelling gene’, was covered in the book ‘Story of B’ by Daniel Quinn.
The crux of this whole point is that since the ’storytelling gene’ or ‘time meme’ or whatever you want to call it is just a part of level of thinking (instead of being unique), it is very likely it will be discovered again by another species! Then, if you are correct, that other species will become the evil destructive force we Takers have become.
I, however, don’t see this as necessarily happening. See, the idea that we are alone / superior / Takers is just another story, albeit one that gets a good running start in certain ecological situations.
Out here in Los Angeles, the story took another direction. The people who emigrated to this place thought “This place is great! How can I keep it as abundant as it is all the time?” They permacultured the environment, using controlled burning and the deliberate seeding of certain plants to keep an indefinitely sustainable system that was not only beneficial to man but to a whole host of other species. When the Spaniards got here, they wrote in their journals how surprised they were to find such a ‘park land’; it was so well tended it must have been a gift from God.
It wasn’t a gift from God. It was a gift from the people who lived here.
Make sense?
Best
Bill Maxwell
Comment by Bill Maxwell — 1 December 2005 @ 5:30 AM
Second Bill’s point. If humans were unique in their ability to think then we’d, by definion, be really stupid. Evolution doesn’t create things whole cloth. It makes small adaptations that can add up. All mammals have the same brain sturctures that we do, but ours is proporionately the largest. Which makes it no more unique than an elephant’s trunk, and perhaps less unique than that. We all have noses, the elephant’s claim to fame is that it has a very large nose.
As for abstract thought. If we suddenly out of the blue developed that 10,000 years ago, then there would have been some sort of change in our genome. An alteration of our brain to some degree. We see no alteration of our genetic structures more substantial than background drift. Which indicates that if we have abstract thought now, we’ve had it since at least the last large scale change in our species. So approximately one million years or more. And yet it took us that long to use it to commit a very complicated form of suicide. If civilization is all we can do with our intelligence than we must quite stupid to have taken so long.
Beyond which, say you’re right. Nothing we can do about it, we’ve got it now. Unless your proposing something a bit more radical than anyone here is really considering?
Comment by Benjamin Shender — 1 December 2005 @ 10:45 AM
But, biodiversity began to decrease once humanity developed abstract thought, as humanity used the ‘takeover’ method of expansion.
Reasoning from a faulty premise. The “overkill theory,” as discussed in the latest thesis (#17) is quite flawed. Humans had an impact, just like any new alpha predator has an impact. But humans spread at a time of massive ecological change, and introduced more change just by moving around. To pin all of that on humans is simply wrong.
So the Lasceuax community had already started down the path of ecological takeover and photosynthetic diversion, simply by living in France, a habitat not truly suitable for them.
Right, and no animal without abstract thought ever moves out of its niche. Like elephants. They evolved in Africa, and NEVER would migrate to such a different climate as India…
Fact is, animals move into new niches all the time. They take time to adapt, as we did, but eventually find their place. So no, I reject the notion that abstract thought made humans somehow innately bad for the very same behavior as any other animal, which we describe as morally neutral.
Power also manifested itself with the ability of abstract thought; Big men in tribes larger than a small 12 person band could begin to command a surplus, even temporarily.?
No, power manifested itself with the ability to gather a surplus–which followed the first signs of abstract thought by 30,000 years.
So, surpluses and the resulting food race did not begin with agriculture, nor did the beginnings of inequality.
Yes they did. Your contention otherwise is based on faulty theory and incorrect evidence.
So hunter-gatherers could not develop agriculture until then — not because they were ‘healthy societies’, but because the environment couldn’t support agriculture.
Then why did so many hunter-gatherers resist civilization even unto death? I’m a cultural materialist, and I accept that if something like agriculture becomes possible, somebody’s going to try it. I fail to see the relevance, though. Your reasoning is like saying, “Your precious ‘athletes’ aren’t really healthy, they just haven’t contracted the plague yet!” Well … yes. Any healthy society can become unhealthy if you radically alter that society. I didn’t say anything in the foregoing about how societies become unhealthy, I merely pointed out the characteristics.
Whole ‘nother subject of course, but the jargon is designed to deter those not in the ‘know’ from entering the discussion—an aspect of the power of language.
No, it’s not. The jargon is intended to ease communication among those who do know. For two anthropologists to try to discuss anthropology without jargon becomes very, very painful. “This is a Big Man society,” for instance, has to become, “This is a society where some charismatic individuals manage to get a lot of influence because they’re charismatic and know how to set up this whole, intricate system of loans and such, but they don’t have any real, formal power, just a lot of respect and influence.” Imagine a whole paper written like that, where you had to expand everything to 100 times its length, when everybody you’re talking to has already come across this pattern a hundred times before, and you can just say “Big Man.” Jargon is meant to ease communication. There’s no intention of intimidating anyone, but if you’re not one of the people who speak the language, like any other language, you won’t understand.
Beyond which, say you’re right. Nothing we can do about it, we’ve got it now. Unless your proposing something a bit more radical than anyone here is really considering?
Never read Zerzan, Ben? Once I’ve finished the Thirty Theses, I’ve been thinking I’m going to start a big stink with a nice, long article refuting “The Case Against Art.” I’ll warn you all before I go ahead and fire the opening shots of the Primitivist Civil War.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 1 December 2005 @ 12:08 PM
I just meant that if abstract thought innately made people civilized and humans have abstract thought then the only way to get away from civilization would be to end humanity.
But nope, I haven’t read Zerzan. I believe that someone indicated that doing so would rot my soul or something like that.
Comment by Benjamin Shender — 1 December 2005 @ 1:24 PM
“Zerzan! Happy Zerzan! King of the wild frontier…”
(Sung to the old Disney tune of ‘Davy Crocket’)
Yeah… that should get me banned.
Comment by Bill Maxwell — 1 December 2005 @ 1:37 PM
I said I’m not a Zerzan fan, didn’t I?
Comment by Jason Godesky — 1 December 2005 @ 2:34 PM
Yup. In technicolor. I’ve never even read the man & the impression I get from postings here and Ishcon make me not really want to pick him up.
But the tune’s catchy, right?
Comment by Bill Maxwell — 1 December 2005 @ 2:44 PM
Now I feel bad for predjudicing everybody.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 1 December 2005 @ 3:19 PM
Bill,
Thanks for the information on a Time meme. I’m surprised you haven’t read Zerzan, since you seem to agree with him on the time meme concept. Nice closing salutation, by the way.
Benjamin,
I think actually humans are stupid. To me, it seems like the only reasonable interpretation of the history of civilization. It probably is an ages-long form of species suicide. Really, I think you would like Zerzan too!
Geoff
Comment by Geoff — 1 December 2005 @ 11:13 PM
Civilization is more easily interpreted as such:
Beavers are great swimmers. They live, work, and sleep near, in, and on the water. They are brought up to live in the water, and are never comfortable away. But come a great flood, even the river that was their home will sweep them away.
Humans are no more stupid than any other species. But we evolved certain ways and means. These ways and means served us well throughout the Pleistocene. The world changed just suficently that our old methods no longer served us, and we were swept away by a systemic positive feedback loop. There was no foolishness, ill will, or suicidal desire involved. The flood took us and we’ve been trying to get back to where we were ever since. Why do you think that every philosophy, religion, and government has been trying to obtain societal features that are innate to tribalism for 5,000 years? We’ve been trying, but have lacked the data to do it conciously. Nature would do it eventually itself, and is about to. This is also when we’ve finaly gathered sufficent data together to know what to do.
I am reading some of Zerzan now. It’ll be a while before I say much about him though. I read slowly, and make judgements slower.
Comment by Benjamin Shender — 2 December 2005 @ 12:09 AM
But Beavers do not always build where they will certainly be subject to flood, otherwise they would eventually become extinct. Humans, however, have been doing the equivalent of building where there will absolutely be a flood in the future. It’s not necessarily a suicidal desire, but it is suicidal.
The difference between you and I is that I still believe that humans actually selected the time meme (a fall from homo sapiens natural state resulting in our alienation from nature); this helped us short term but not long term. You state that humans evolved these abilities that have directed us down the path we are on. Therein lies the crux of our disagreement. Maybe someday I will abandon my belief; maybe someday you will abandon your conception that ‘we evolved certain ways and means.’
Geoff
Comment by Geoff — 2 December 2005 @ 12:52 AM
Geoff, time isn’t separate from nature! The circadian rhythms are a natural part of any life-form, there’s seasons, days, months and even the Mayans recognized a 20,000 year cycle in the spin of our galaxy!
In fact, as long as you take a cyclical look at time, rather than a linear one, you can create a sustainable story forever.
I’ll close with a question. Through observation of time, one would naturally assume a circular way of thought. What, in your opinion, would be the next step towards making the pattern linear, rather than circular?
Best
Bill Maxwell
Comment by Bill Maxwell — 2 December 2005 @ 1:20 AM
Bill,
I know time is a part of nature; what gave you the idea that I didn’t? Perhaps I am trying to use the concept of ‘time meme’ for my own purposes of defining ‘abstract thought’ or a fall, without fully understanding the concept of a time meme.
As for what would make the pattern linear rather than circular, I think it would involve a recognition of one’s eventual death, thinking that that would be ‘the end’ of existence, rather than a natural pattern of a life cycle. Thinking in terms of an individual, and being greedy to extend that individuals’ ‘linear life’ would derail the natural circular pattern of time.
Thanks,
Geoff
Comment by Geoff — 2 December 2005 @ 1:41 AM
Such a counter is irrelevant. Humans have only put themselves in harms way the once. We have not yet evolved a instinct to avoid civilization because it’s only happened the once. Beyond that, I’m not entirely sure we have not. Is there not an increasing and absurdly high mental illness rate?
Correct. I see no alienation from nature. In fact, I do not see how such a thing is possible or conceivable. Humans evolved certain methods of dealing with other humans, the world, etc. And for most of our history these served us well. When the situation change it ceased to serve us. This is no different than any other species. When the climate changes some old adaptations cease to function. Nature eliminates these mal-adaptions.
Time exists in so far as decisions change reality. This creates the illusion of time as a stream. But this remains only an illusion. It is a helpful delusion. At least as helpful as the delusion that by pushing keys on a hunk of plastic I have acheived communication. The reality is only that I’ve dispatched electrons coded into symbols. Any communication is up to the reader’s ability to decode those symbols of reality and incorporate them into their own reality. Time does not exist in that the universe has no watch. But time exists as every molecule in existance makes a choice, and those choices alter the current reality into the future reality. It is a convient model, nothing more. I might have to write a post on time now.
Comment by Benjamin Shender — 2 December 2005 @ 3:02 AM
Hey Geoff!
The quote that got me started was:
It’s argued in Story of B (and I happen to agree with the premise) that the time meme / storytelling ‘gene’ (or whatever you want to call it) is the reason why we are genus homo to begin with. It started with the first hominid and staid with us all the way to now.
The ability to figure out a chain of events led us to find greater protein sources. Greater protein sources meant bigger brains. Bigger brains led to the capacity for more interesting stories / understanding of time. Homo sapiens sapiens, from its inception to the present has had pretty much the same brain size and yet was only truly destructive in one corner of the world (the Sumerian side) for an appreciable amount of time (10K years).
But off to your answer, so you think fear of death may have lead to the destructive pattern? My follow-up to that would be to question when humans gained ‘individual’ thoughts. We evolved as tribes and individuality as we perceive it most likely only arose after civilizations destroyed our sense of tribal identity.
A man alone in the pre-civ world, after all, a dead man.
However, on an off note, I’ve often championed death as a partial reason for the current evolution of civ. For example, something both the Aztecs and the Sumerians shared was that they had been driven out of their homeland by others. They were forced into untenable swampland (where they were in real danger of starving, simply by being unfamiliar with the land). They both survived by finding a plant (grass in both cases) and taking up agriculture. They also became violently convinced that they were the chosen of G-d and had the right to inflict G-d’s will on their neighbors.
So, the potential pattern seen by two separate civs was: population driven out from attack by fellow humans, forced into potential death by ecology, coming back with a large grudge.
That’s my 2 cents. Back to you.
Best
Bill Maxwell
Comment by Anonymous — 2 December 2005 @ 4:47 AM
Bill,
After a few days of thought, I’m going to float another theory. The Fall that created power wasn’t abstract thought or cognition, or necessarily even language.
Here is a variation on the “There is no I in team” concept: There is no I in tribe, but there is an I in Ego. When the concept of a self apart from the tribe as a unit originated, this selfishness of an individual tribal member manifested itself as power or influence over other tribal members, leading to a Big man’s surplus, leading to agriculture. Humanity is not evil, but selfish egotism (power/hierarchy) IS evil. This selfishness enabled early humanity to consider other means of extending one’s influence and power, and so began the ability to forcefully take resources belonging to other humans and other species.
Of course, this supposes that individuality preceded civilization.
Yeah, it’s all philosophy backed by not a whit of science. But why this theory appeals to me is that it seems evident around us: humanity may not be alienated from nature (although Benjamin’s Cedarville State Forest piece notes that civilization is alienated from nature), but humanity IS alienated from it’s own social needs: witness our incessant, ego-driven competitions, our non-stop quest for MORE, our lack of connection to other people in a meaningful, spiritual social network. If we can stop feeding our egos, if we can stop seeking power, we might be able to remake a society out of the ash heep of civilization.
Geoff
Comment by Geoff — 6 December 2005 @ 1:12 AM
Hey Geoff –
Your theory drops us right back into the ‘humans are broken’ mindset… and I still don’t buy that.
Big Men came about as a result of communities growing larger… simple as that. As groups reach and pass Dunbar’s Number (the rule of 150), they cease to be able to cognitively understand and keep up with the ‘infinite iterations’ of interpersonal relationships of the whole group. Once that happens, it is really easy to objectify other people. Not because there’s something wrong with you, or because of some evil, but simply because you brain has cognitive limitations and defense mechanisms to prevent overload
Janene
Comment by Janene — 6 December 2005 @ 9:38 AM
Check out Paul Radin’s Primitive Man as Philosopher. Radin relies too much on the Winnebago, I think, but if nothing else it seems to conclusively prove that at least several Native American tribes had the idea of individuality and egoism, without falling into social networks dominated by power relationships.
I’ll grant you, it seems like it makes sense. Then again, so does Hobbes’ “nasty, brutish and short” bellum omnium contra omnes. That doesn’t necessarily make it true.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 6 December 2005 @ 10:30 AM
Geoff,
Thanks for the response! In some ways I agree with you and I think I can point out where that dichotomy began: 10,000 years ago in Sumeria. I wrote some about it here and mythologized it into a story here.
The theory, in miniature, runs like this. Every once in a while, ecologies and situations arise that let people make the choice to take up the harsh life of agriculture. In some cases, we can even see that the choice was (somewhat) forced on them, as their people were driven into semi-hostile environments where they had to take up something to survive.
Now, agriculture comes along with a whole host of memes “We’re great” “We’re chosen of God” “We need to inflict / give this to everyone else” “Our way is the right way” blah, blah, blah.
However, it also comes with the contradiction of observing that nature works differently than what agriculturalists are imposing on it. How we storytellers resolve that dichotomy is the key to each civilization.
Usually, that dichotomy is never fully resolved. When nature finally catches up with the civilization’s excesses, the people are forced to revert back to tribal ways.
The “Taker meme” (our current culture out of Sumeria) is the exception to this rule. It has survived through several collapses more or less intact to spread across the world.
I believe that the key to this was the food. It’s status as a medicine and a food plant made it a bona-fide miracle, provable again and again that it was truly sent by the gods. With this physical proof, the Takers marched forward.
Now, with apologies for taking this long, here’s where the individuality comes in. Why are we so heavily favored by the gods, the first Takers asked. Perhaps it is because we are like the gods. Perhaps we are the children of the gods. We are gods.
Each one a god. Each one greater than a tribal whole which disintegrates in front of the Leviathan that is civilization. That’s the Taker meme, that distinguishes it from the Aztec, the Chinese, hell, just about everyone.
I think it’s a natural result of agriculture, if the hosting civ lasts long enough. Hell, I’m sure people will probably point to a couple of individualistic agriculturistic societies that didn’t make it. I’d be interested in making a comparative study.
I also have the suspicion that China would have faded away long ago, had the West not been there. Had it not been invaded and forcibly annexed into the Sumerian meme, I think even with the contamination, it probably would have made it only to the next glaciation period and then gone quietly away.
So that’s my two cents. It’s the man=god thing that’s screwed us up nicely.
Best
Bill Maxwell
Comment by Bill Maxwell — 6 December 2005 @ 5:27 PM