Thesis #30: The future will be what we make of it.
by Jason GodeskyIn his Occasional Discourse on the Negro Question, while arguing for the re-introduction of slavery, Thomas Carlyle played on Nietzsche’s term, “the gay science,” and gave us the derogatory title of economics: “the dismal science.” Caryle used that same term when writing about Malthus’ theories, calling them, “Dreary, stolid, dismal, without hope for this world or the next, is all that of the preventative check and the denial of the preventative check.” In The Collapse of Complex Societies, Tainter worried that his idea of complexity subject to diminishing marginal returns would make archaeology economics’ heir to the title. The idea that we are not in control of our own destiny is depressing to us. We rebel against determinism not because we can prove it is untrue, but because it frightens us to think of ourselves as mere cogs in a machine beyond our power. These theses may seem dismal in their predictions of inevitable collapse and a future created by deterministic, materialistic forces beyond our control. They should not be. This is, as another translation of Nietzsche’s original phrase would read, a “life-enhancing knowledge.” The greater moral of this story is not that our lives are bound by diminishing returns, but that the future will be what we make of it.
For millennia, civilizations have struggled to explain the misery their “superior” way of life creates, and across time and space that blame has been consistently heaped upon our flawed and sinful nature. In that view, our misery is not our fault; it is simply because we were made badly. This is a very dismal view. It is our nature to be miserable, and we cannot escape it. Yet, the many cultures that do live happily stand as a living testament against that excuse. They live well, and happily, and have so for millions of years. Their mere existence proves that humans are not flawed. We are not damned to destruction, or eternal unhappiness.
Collapse was not always inevitable. It is the consequence of agricultural life. When we decided to live in this way, only then did collapse become inevitable. The way we choose to live has consequences.
The first Inka’s father prophesied that after five kings, the ancestors would stop listening to his people, and their way of life would end. The Inka founded the empire in order to keep a flow of sacrifices, begging the ancestors to stop time, to cheat their fate. The fifth king–Atahualpa–was pulled from his litter at Cajamarca by Spanish conquistadors in 1532. Qin Shi Huang, the first emperor of China, followed a brutal policy that began the Chinese tradition of alchemy, in pursuit of an elixir of life so that he could cheat his own death. The Egyptian pharoahs used pyramids and buried boats and mummification in hopes that they would live forever. Again and again, among the autochthonous civilizations, we see an explicit desire in their very foundations to cheat the natural cycle of life and death–to become the one thing in all of history that lived forever, that took without ever giving back. We see echoes of that same sentiment in our own civilization today. We look at the earth around us as a resource to be exploited; taking care of it is, at best, an act of charity. Even in death, as a final act of spite, we seal ourselves in boxes and poison our bodies with chemicals to hold off as long as possible the moment when we will be forced to give something back to the community of life that fed us, gave us water and air to breathe, and supported every endeavor we ever undertook.
Such attempts are not without their consequences. The cycles of life cannot be cheated forever. The longer we do manage to hold that moment off, the more dire those consequences would be. Collapse is a special case of overshoot–and the more we overshoot, the more drastic the consequences. But we are not bound to an eternal cycle of complexity and collapse. Ever-escalating complexity must always end in collapse–that is the consequence of such unsustainable madness. But we are not inherently mad–and no one forces us down the road of ever-escalating complexity.
In fact, as we saw in the previous thesis, that road will be all but cut off. Complexity may be subject to diminishing returns, but many other things are not. The forager spectrum spans from the Inuit, to the !Kung, to the Kwakiutl, to the Pygmies. How much more diverse might the foragers of the future be? Will there be Huns thundering across the plains of Kansas, or an Iroquois-like Confederacy practicing permaculture across upstate New York?
The future promises us lives as humans were meant to live them–free, respected as persons, respected as peers, subject to none. It promises us a true community–something most of us have never really experienced. It promises a mind-boggling diversity of belief, tradition, culture and lifestyle.
For ten thousand years, we have been caught in a positive feedback loop of ever-escalating complexity. Our lives have been created by the consequences of our ancestors’ actions, and we have had little choice but to find our way within the ever-constricting confines of that destiny. That was the dismal reality of our parents, and their parents, and that is the dismal reality that has shaped us and brought us to this moment.
But now, collapse is upon us. It has already begun. The choice is ours, whether we will remain true to that culture that bore us and die with it, or whether we will choose to create a new future–a new culture. With collapse, the long curse visited upon us by our Neolithic ancestors finally ends, and we will become the first generation in ten millennia to truly claim its own destiny. Collapse will be the most horrific crisis any animal has ever faced, but with it also comes a great opportunity to claim our own future. The possibilities are limitless; the diversity of the future that awaits us is infinite.
There is a strikingly widespread astrology amongst many American tribes. The Milky Way is associated with the axis mundi, the world tree, the same mythological archetype as the Norse Yggdrasil, the Slavic Oak, or the Hindu banyan. The area about the North Star is considered “the Heart of the Sky,” or the door to the underworld. When the sun rises in the Milky Way on the winter solstice, it is said to climb the World Tree, to open the door of heaven, and begin a new age of the world. It was this atrological interpretation that laid the framework of the Inka’s prophecy, and the basis of the Mayan calendar. Interestingly, the Mayans predicted the end of this fourth world, and the beginning of the next, fifth world at precisely such an astrological event–in 2012.
By 2012, if peak oil, global warming or mass extinction will have any role in civilization’s collapse, it will be well underway. By 2012, we will likely be embroiled in world-wide recession and constant warfare. By 2012, the collapse of our globalized civilization should be undeniable–and those of us who wish to find a new way to live should be able to find that the beginning of collapse has left enough space for us to do just that. By 2012, curiously enough, the door of heaven may well be open for anyone who wishes to pass through it and create the future.
What we do after that, is up to us.
Jason,
Let me ask you if you have mentioned the rampant drug addiction problems in society anywhere. If you have just point me to the thesis or other post. (I have only read about half of the theses so far.)
The number of people addicted to drugs today is absolutely mind-boggling. It’s widespread at every social level. Crack, meth, heroin, coke, oxycontin, etc. The only difference is that the rich generally use more expensive drugs than the poor.
Would you say it’s due, at least in part, to the stresses of living in a hierarchical society? For the past 15 years or so, I have thought about drug use as society’s “canary in the coal mine” alerting us to the fact that things have gone horribly wrong in civilization: it’s just not very fulfilling. To quote Quinn:
At the same time I understand and appreciate that since time immemorial, in almost every culture, people have had a tradition of “getting a buzz on” at least once a week. Hell, I do so myself with a bottle of wine on Friday or Saturday night.
But the widespread daily addiction of today just astounds me.
Thoughts?
Comment by Peter — 22 January 2006 @ 1:25 PM
We are addicted to far, far more than just “illegal” drugs.
Comment by JCamasto — 22 January 2006 @ 1:33 PM
I appreciate that.
But let’s stick to the ones on the list.
(It’s funny that I didn’t even mention weed on my list.)
Comment by Peter — 22 January 2006 @ 1:35 PM
Hi, interesting about the Maya’s and 2012. I never heard of it and did some research now.
I heard before that scientists predicted that there would be so much solar activity in 2012 that all electric stuff would shortcurcuit because of high magneticism (already happened in 1857 -or in one of those years, I might not remember right- as well).
So now I read that the sun switches poles every 11 years (mayan knew this too) and that the poles on the earth switch too, but much less frequent.
Some scientists predict that the poles might switch on december 21, 2012.
The effects would be desastrous, last time it happened ,750000 years ago, it wiped out about 95% of all life on earth.
What do you think of this?
And how could we ever prepare for such an event?
A maya said that we all need to prepare for the switch to the fifth world in 2012. We need to work on our relationship with mother earth and work to be united against the dark sides on this earth. The fifth world would be the world of the element “ether”. Which is related to heaven. It would be a world of fusion. Good or bad, light or dark and other polarities would not exist anymore and all species would come to a higher level.
Some interesting sites I found on this topic (do you have some high to recommended ones?):
http://www.handpen.com/Bio/sun_freaks.html
scroll down a bit to read what he says about the mayan prediction (after the stuff about guatemala):
http://www.chiron-communications.com/communique%207-10.html
Comment by gunnix — 22 January 2006 @ 6:36 PM
I may be wrong on this, but I *think* I read that pole shifts occur over a period of 10,000 years, not overnight.
Comment by George — 22 January 2006 @ 8:25 PM
peter,
where are your statistics about drug use? im not sure illegal drugs are much of a problem in america. sure it’s a problem, but not very many people die from crack, speed, what have you. maybe 5,000 a year (which is in the age group of 18-?, in the lower ages, only like 20 or so kids die), last i checked. what constitues abuse and use?
more people die in car wrecks (40,000) than ODing on drugs.
now legal drugs…that’s a biggun.
Comment by Scott — 22 January 2006 @ 8:51 PM
It’s not the death rates, but the usage rates that I’m referring to. I don’t know what the rates are but according to the constant barrage of media reports, they are high. A week or two ago, NPR did a story on how Oxycontin is becoming the drug of choice among high schoolers from wealthy families. Apparently, it’s a status thing to be an oxy junkie because most people simply can’t afford it.
Comment by Peter — 22 January 2006 @ 10:56 PM
You should research the drug war and its true causes a little more, you might be surprised. For starters you can safely ignore the mainstream media, since their big-business partners have a vested interest in negative public perception of some drugs, and positive of others.
It is especially funny that you don’t include alcohol and tobacco, which are far more serious problems than any of the barely-used drugs you mentioned (it is a very small minority of people that shoot heroin or smoke crack, but alcohol abuse is rampant). You might be surprised to know that in a comprehensive study comparing 5 aspects of addictiveness, alcohol was rated worse than heroin, and nicotine was the worst (barely beating crack and smoked meth). If you think heroin addiction is somehow worse than alcholism, than you have listened to too much NPR (I have enough junky friends to not be talking out of my ass too). For one small example, opiates (heroin and oxycontin) cause no brain damage or organic tissue damage of any kind, whereas alcohol is one of the most destructive drugs known to man (except in moderation, of course). Look up W.R. Hearst and Dupont in relation to crimilization of marijuana, or the CIA and their heroin/cocaine smuggling operations for a taste of the real reasons for the drug war.
Addiction is a huge problem, but we need to look at addictive behavior in general and its roots. Separating this minor category of abused substances does more harm than good. In fact, I’d go so far as to say the commonly accepted drugs (sugar, caffeine, nicotine, alcohol, anti-depressants/anti-stress meds) are an even worse problem because people don’t acknowledge them as problems.
As far as poleshift goes, some people claim it is already underway, and started about 150 years ago
http://www.nerdshit.com/archive/2004/07/13/will_compasses_/
With sunspots and xflares, here is an article that explains their relationship
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2005/15sep_solarminexplodes.htm
Every 11 years the sunspot activity on the sun peaks (don’t know if that’s related to solar pole shift). These peaks are USUALLY associated with increased x-flares. One very unique such x-flare did short all the telegraph poles in the mid 1800’s. It could happen again, and it would be pretty nuts, but it does require certain rare circumstances (the “perfect storm”). I think I remember the 3 criterion the article I read listed (or where the article was), I know the first was that it had to be a pretty massive coronal ejection (a lot of charged particles), the second was that it had to hit Earth (which does happen, as evidenced by Northern and Southern lights), the hard part is that the charge of the magetic particles has to be reverse of the Earth’s magnetic field, otherwise we just get some very pretty lights that would probably be visible in Hawaii)
I’m going from memory there though, so feel free to correct or quibble.
Comment by limukala — 23 January 2006 @ 12:39 AM
limukala,
You’re right on all of the above. I should have included booze and cancer sticks. My point, which I didn’t make clearly, is that almost everyone I know has a need to dull the pain somehow. But where’s that pain coming from? Is the root cause knowing that we are basically pissing away our 60 or 70 years on this earth working like slaves to acquire crap we really don’t need? The specific drug, whether it be crack, coke, or a bottle Shiraz, is not really the issue.
Comment by Peter — 23 January 2006 @ 1:08 AM
I’ve never addressed the issue of drug use, since it’s all so ambiguous. You outlaw opium so you can arrest Chinese people, and marijuana so you can arrest Mexicans. You allow alcohol and cigarettes because they’re the drug of choice of white people. But what about food? Where do dandelions fit in all of this? Medicine-as-food, or food-as-medicine? Where are all the boundaries?
But Quinn addressed it, and I’m willing to just let his statements stand–it’s basically your stance, that all these things exist as a way to numb us to the unrelenting horror of hierarchical life.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 23 January 2006 @ 12:11 PM
Our addiction to TV, and it is an addiction by definition, is far worse than what’s on Peter’s list, except perhaps alcohol, which is massively pushed on TV.
And then again, we are petroleum junkies.
Comment by Rick — 23 January 2006 @ 3:34 PM
I cut off the cable back in the 1980s. Never regretted it. But since I’m a movie junkie I get my weekly fix via Netflix. I’m on the two DVD/week plan which ensures that I don’t waste more than 4 hours per week in front of the idiot box.
Comment by Peter — 23 January 2006 @ 3:48 PM
“Our addiction to TV, and it is an addiction by definition, is far worse than what’s on Peter’s list, except perhaps alcohol, which is massively pushed on TV.”
Hey, at least TV doesn’t melt your teeth away!
Comment by Peter — 23 January 2006 @ 3:51 PM
We now get tv for the first time in 4 years cause the stupid cable company doesn’t allow you to get internet w/o a basic cable package. Just blew there minds that someone didn’t want tv.
My favorite are the people that watch 8 hours of tv a day, fueled by gallons of soda and sickening amounts of fast food, chips and candy, and then say “I’ve tried everything to lose weight and it doesn’t work. The doctor says I have a thyroid problem.”
(I forgot to mention, this hypothetical person also smokes gpc menthols by the carton)
Comment by limukala — 23 January 2006 @ 6:47 PM
I’m not willing to completely separate out the twin idiot boxes of TV and Computer.
Comment by JCamasto — 23 January 2006 @ 7:48 PM
I think I have cable in this place. But wouldn’t you know it, the coaxial cable is about 5 inches too short to connect the TV to the outlet. So, I can’t be certain.
:o)
Comment by Peter — 23 January 2006 @ 8:07 PM
If you’re really curious they make longer cables.
Comment by Benjamin Shender — 23 January 2006 @ 9:14 PM
I’m thinking of getting the Monster Cable brand coaxial for $90 plus an extended warranty.
Comment by Peter — 23 January 2006 @ 9:21 PM
Hope there is enough space - I would like to live free.
Beginning to see how this complexity has me in it’s grip. I really appreciate your study and intelligence to put this together.
Comment by Rick Larson — 23 January 2006 @ 9:25 PM
Monster cable? In geek terms, that’s synonymous with “enormous rip-off sham piece of crap.” Don’t pay $90. Any cable will do the exact same job with the exact same quality. It’s a cable. There really is no difference.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 23 January 2006 @ 9:37 PM
Or you can go down to Staples and get an over-priced cable to do the same job for twenty dollars.
Rick, me too. But I think it is likely. Most people, given a crisis like this, wil flock to the cities. Not to mention that people will be moving towards the cities as the crisis develops. More expensive gas and cars will lead people to move closer to their work. At first this will most just be people moving anyway, they’ll put “close to work” higher on the list than it has been. But eventually people will begin moving because of this. Like hitting the rewind button on suburban sprawl. Maybe everyone should by city properties and sell them in five years.
But any way, for civilized people the forest is dangerous and the cities are safe.
Comment by Benjamin Shender — 23 January 2006 @ 9:37 PM
“Or you can go down to Staples and get an over-priced cable to do the same job for twenty dollars”
That was a joke. The extended warranty bit should have been the tip-off.
Comment by Peter — 23 January 2006 @ 9:47 PM
Good to hear. I was worried for a second.
Comment by Benjamin Shender — 23 January 2006 @ 9:53 PM
Of course it was a joke.
It was the first statistic that Peter backed up with a link or reference.
Comment by JCamasto — 23 January 2006 @ 9:59 PM
Jim! I’m sure if we ransaked the archives we’d find at least one other instance.
Comment by Benjamin Shender — 23 January 2006 @ 11:49 PM
Okay dudes, fill me in on where my guesstimates went off the rail?
First off, I never said that I had stats to back up my claim. I freely admitted that the numbers were my guesses based on personal observation.
So let’s recap since you guys are not interested in dropping the subject. I estimated that probably only 20% of married couples were happy. Let me explain what I mean by “happy”. By happy I mean that if these people had a chance to do it over again, they would marry the same person. Follow?
Now let’s move on to my figures.
I had assumed that the 50% of marriages which end in divorce are unhappy ones. Or does anyone here wish to argue that happily married couples divorce too?
Okay, so that leaves us with the 50% of total marrieds who remain married. I put forth that 20% of the grand total, or a whopping 40% of those who stay undivorced, do so because they are happy. In other words, I am also estimating that 60% of people who remain married to the bitter end are not happy. If they could do it over again they would either marry someone else or maybe not marry at all. But because they can’t get a “do over” they have decided to remain married for any number of reasons or combination of reasons such as:
1. the kids
2. the belief that they are too old to start over
3. simple inertia.
So let me know where my numbers are really off the mark.
Frankly, I think that if 40% of all long term marrieds are truly happy that’s a fantastic stat on behalf of the institution.
Comment by Peter — 24 January 2006 @ 12:27 AM
Ok, so your stats are a wild ass guess, right? That’s fine. Your numbers are probably fairly accurate. Although I do believe that your analysis as to why is missing some nuances. Marriage doesn’t cause unhappy people. Unrealistic expecations, a lack of understanding, increased stress at work, increase expense of living, etc all contribute to people being in crummy moods all around. So who gets taken out on? The spouse. Hence, divorce rates go up. It’s a systemic issue, not something inherent to marriage.
Comment by Benjamin Shender — 24 January 2006 @ 12:34 AM
“Marriage doesn’t cause unhappy people.”
Based on my personal experience with marriage, you are dead wrong here.
Comment by Peter — 24 January 2006 @ 12:52 AM
If marriage was the cause then there wouldn’t be happy marriages.
Comment by Benjamin Shender — 24 January 2006 @ 1:07 AM
“personal experience”
Comment by Peter — 24 January 2006 @ 1:12 AM
All of your stats are made up. You’re not citing any sources, studies or even polls. I have no idea if your stats are dead on, or way, WAY off, because you made them up. They’re “a wild ass guess.” That was my criticism. There’s no reason for anyone else to accept your statistics, since you have nothing to back them up except your guess. I could just as easily guess that 80% of marriages are happy, and neither one is any more authoritative than the other until one of us finds a study, a source, a poll or something to base this on. Otherwise, it’s just our personal, anecdotal feelings masquerading as statistical evidence.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 24 January 2006 @ 8:50 AM
Peter, have you learned nothing from the Sanctity of Marriage thread?
Comment by Giulianna Lamanna — 24 January 2006 @ 9:38 AM
For information on the failed Columbian Drug War, please visit this link and watch the hour long program by Free Will Productions. It is engoyable and enlightening.
Columbia - Cashing in on the Drug War Failure
Dave
Comment by Dave Smith — 25 January 2006 @ 11:01 AM
“All of your stats are made up.”
As I have stated umpteen times already they are based on my observations of all the married couples I have known over decades. They are also based on simply reading what the media reports on the status of marriage today.
For the last 3 decades or so, I have been on this great hunt to find long-term happily married couples. Why? Because I wanted positive role models that I could use to boost my own confidence in the institution. But they have turned out to be as scarce as hen’s teeth.
I have a lot of confidence in my estimates. If you happen to think they’re off, no worries.
The same skeptiscism often arises when I read statements along the lines of “150,000 years the average woman forager collected 14.275 ounces of chestnuts per day.” These stats are always presented with such dead certainty as to be utterly indisputable.
But hey, let’s agree to disagree on this one.
;o)
Comment by Peter — 26 January 2006 @ 1:49 PM
They’re still made up. That they’re an educated guess based on a convenience sample with no actual measurements made, and a selective reading of actual evidence, doesn’t make them any less made up.
Yes, you did admit that up-front. But you kept using them as if they meant something. They really don’t.
Such statements can be very relaible–or utterly made up. A good background in statistics, and it becomes really easy to pick out good stats from stuff people pull right out of their ass.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 26 January 2006 @ 1:56 PM
I’ll leave you with a final thought on the subject of marriage.
What’s the upside of a successful life-long marriage?
You get to spend your life with just one person.
What’s the downside of a successful life-long marriage?
You get to spend your life with just one person.
I think we’re trying awful hard to justify marriage as the ideal form for relationships, when it’s not. If I had the time, I could dig up a lot of citations for the position that men are just not hardwired for life-long monogamy (with the same women). But society forces them into this type of commitment for the sake of the offspring.
Over the years, I have known long-term married couples and people who have a series of medium-term relationships with different partners.
Who had the better life at the end of the day?
I don’t know.
Well, back to the grindstone.
Comment by Peter — 26 January 2006 @ 2:22 PM
“I could dig up a lot of citations for the position that men are just not hardwired for life-long monogamy (with the same women).”
Oooos! Before anyone jumps on me for being sexist here. I’ll state that maybe the same holds true for women–especially after 30 years of feminism.
Comment by Peter — 26 January 2006 @ 2:24 PM
I think that should be an option. But two people who have been creating each other for their entire lives are different from two people who have been creating each other for ten years.
But, this is a discussion for a different thread.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 26 January 2006 @ 3:18 PM
Have you seen The New World?
I saw it last night. Absolutely fantastic. Although it’s two and a half hours long, there wasn’t one dull spot in the entire film. I read somewhere that anthropologically it’s a very accurate representation of how the “Naturals” lived before the white man arrived. Knowing Malick’s prior wiork, I assume this to be true.
If you haven’t seen it go and do so while it’s on the big screen. I’m thinking of seeing it again this weekend.
Comment by Peter — 26 January 2006 @ 5:02 PM
I’ve heard mixed reviews, but I was leaning towards going to see it. Maybe I’ll rearrange my schedule for tonight.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 26 January 2006 @ 5:07 PM
Go. You won’t regret it.
Comment by Peter — 26 January 2006 @ 5:50 PM
Go see it tonight. If you don’t like it, just tell me, and I’ll refund your money (up to two tickets) via PayPal.
That’s how good it is.
Comment by Peter — 26 January 2006 @ 6:25 PM
After reading that final thesis I feel that I need to congratulate Jason on a thoroughly enjoyable and presumption-shattering work.
Its not often that you read something that makes you question your entire philosophy on life.
I have been researching Peak Oil and Climate Change for close to a year now, slowly taking on board the fact that my future is probably not as rosy as 99% of my age group would choose to believe. But what the hell could I do about it? I’m a second-year university student with no assets, a rapidly growing debt, and studying a course that could mean nothing 10 years from now.
So, after a recommendation I picked up a copy of ‘Ishmael’. Pretty mind-blowing concept, the idea that we have lived the wrong way since the beginning of agriculture. But the whole picture never really crystallised in my mind. The consequences of what I read in that book never really assembled in my mind as something I could practically do anything about. I was thinking along the lines of, so we screwed up somewhere along the line, so what? What can I do now?
It was only after I started reading the ‘Thirty Theses’ a few weeks ago that everything suddenly became a lot more clear to me. Now I have to do something about it. Jason has a way of writing that clearly and indisputably destroys your most closely-held beliefs in the space of a few short paragraphs.
For example, thesis 21 describes the ways in which our rice/corn/wheat diet is simply unhealthy. What with adverts constantly spouting out the health benefits of ‘whole grain’ products, and the fact that I’ve eaten them every day from whenever I can remember, it came as a shock to read that before 10,000 odd years ago, humans rarely if ever ate these foods. And to think these foods are filled with toxins also!
No wonder that people have been feeling crappy ever since! I immediately set about changing my diet, something that no amount of media-pushed nutritional advice had ever made me think of before.
Whereas the problems and paradoxes of our current lifestyle were once simply dull aches in the back of my unconscious mind, they now blow up in my face every time I see an advertisement on TV, every time I hear people debating politics, every time I hear a friend talk about their future plans.
Its all balanced on a thick layer of Mother Culture bullshit, and the only way out is to swim all the way to the bottom and out another side.
I now feel like I’ve reached the floor.
I don’t know if anyone else feels like they’ve been released somewhat after reading these theses. But knowing that this culture is a temporary aberration has made me lose so many of the worries that I had less than a month ago.
Worried about not quite fitting in? Worried about that insanely boring job you’ll have to get after University? Worried about the reasons behind oppression, poverty, war?
I think don’t worry, we were never adapted to live as we do now, none of this was meant to be!
What was once traumatic now seems like one big cosmic joke. I thank Anthropik (and Jason in particular) for allowing me to laugh at these things that I recently thought were stealing my future from before my eyes.
So now that I understand the construction of my cage, it is time to start finding ways to get out!
So thankyou so much for changing my life, and keep up the good work!
Comment by Sean Case — 4 February 2006 @ 8:51 PM
Great to hear, Sam. Thanks for posting that.
Comment by Devin — 5 February 2006 @ 2:44 AM
Wow. That says “Sean”.
Sorry.
Comment by Devin — 5 February 2006 @ 3:48 AM
If you were very powerful, what would you do with the knowledge of collapse?
I can imagine a bunch of rich world leaders buying islands to survive on and meanwhile killing the rest of humankind (with all the weapons they can buy) so that they’re all dead and they solved the problem of overpopulation… And then they can live piecefully as a bunch of hunter gatherers…
After all, anyone will use all the power they have to survive.
Comment by gunnix — 7 February 2006 @ 6:55 AM
Hey –
You mean like this?
Janene
Comment by Janene — 7 February 2006 @ 9:44 AM
It doesn’t end there, either. Most of the neocons live in similar style. I heard Leonardo di Caprio has a pretty good island picked out….
See, “A Seperate Peace“
Comment by Jason Godesky — 7 February 2006 @ 9:57 AM
Leonardo di Caprio is a neocon?
Comment by Giulianna Lamanna — 7 February 2006 @ 11:07 AM
Uhhh, no … but it’s a strategy not exclusive to neocons. Even actors are getting in on it.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 7 February 2006 @ 11:25 AM
I know. I was joking. ‘Cause you mentioned neocons and then you mentioned Leonardo diCaprio and… and… oh, forget it.
Comment by Giulianna Lamanna — 7 February 2006 @ 12:12 PM
I’ve now finished reading the last thesis. whow.
I felt an emptyness at the four or five years since reading Ishmael and had been left with only doubts and questions and “so what?”s.
I’ve found out this site a year or so ago while wandering around ishcon. It clarified some stuff much better. It became even clearer after reading “A Theory of Power”, which was enlighting though tough.
But the theses… The theses made everything much clearer. At least the first 15 or 20. It was quite clear from that point. Thank you for that.
I also think even in its rough form this document will be a great place to direct people to.
Comment by Quizzie — 25 February 2006 @ 3:04 PM
Thank you for writing these Jason. They are very lucid and well reasoned positions. While I find myself still in disagreement with you on certain minor details, I agree with the overarching concept. And it gives me hope. I have felt very clearly since my early teens that I was born when and where I was in order to help people survive. What they were to survive was never very clear to me. Your theses have made it clear. And as my previous comments indicate, I’ve been working in the direction you point for years now. Thank you for providing a clear framework and understanding that will help me to survive my next few years as a cog while continuing to pursue my humanity.
Comment by ChandraShakti — 26 February 2006 @ 1:16 PM
Thanks, Quizzie and Chandra. It’s good to know all that effort did some good.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 27 February 2006 @ 9:59 AM
Can you extend this for me ??? I will appreciate it a lot:
“and those of us who wish to find a new way to live should be able to find that the beginning of collapse has left enough space for us to do just that. By 2012, curiously enough, the door of heaven may well be open for anyone who wishes to pass through it and create the future.”
So, is it here where you say what must we do now? because, I don’t have enought to buy an island yet.
Thanks and Congratulations again.
Comment by Mario A. Grajales — 20 July 2006 @ 11:29 PM
I know the part of -. . . 2012 . . . door. . . heaven . . . - is a metaphorical one.
Isn’t it?
Comment by Mario A. Grajales — 20 July 2006 @ 11:32 PM
mmmm . . . honeymoon? Uh.
btw ¡CONGRATULATIONS! for your marriage. I already listened the podcast. How I did? . . . internet archieves.
Comment by Mario A. Grajales — 21 July 2006 @ 11:27 AM
You mentioned that almost everyone you know has a need to “dull the pain� somehow. You also ask where the pain comes from. Not to be superficial, but sometimes we have to stop our “paralysis by analysis,� stop searching for “the secret to life,� admit that we are all in some sort of pain, and start developing healthy, fulfilling, and productive actions and behaviors.
There are many disappointments and frustrations in life. Some people gravitate toward the quick fix, the easy way out, to the course of least resistance while others refuse to give in, focus on positive goals, and roll up their sleeves and get to work.
Habits, good and bad, and addictions seem to have a form of inertia or a life of their own. It sounds so very easy, but people have to get involved in positive habits and in a positive momentum rather than taking the easy way out and giving in to harmful addictions.
Most people are smart enough to know what is harmful and what is good for them. Surround yourself with good things (healthy eating habits, proper sleep, contact with positive friends and relatives, doing helpful things for others, expressing thankfulness for the things you have) and start eliminating actions and behaviors that you know are negative (staying out until 2AM on work nights, spending money on alcohol or drugs, surrounding yourself with people of questionable character, eating mainly junk food, focusing on partying rather than on self-improvement, etc).
A healthy or positive habit starts with one action. Take that first step and see how positive behaviors and thoughts feed on one another. Sit down and ask yourself what you can do to make your life more fulfilling and joyful. Then develop a plan of action and implement it. Stop making excuses and giving in to your weaknesses. Get off your lazy butt and do something positive for others and for yourself. You just might find out more healthy and good things about yourself than you ever gave yourself credit for. And you might even start to create some meaning in your life that is worth the time and the effort.
DenMan7
http://www.About-Alcohol-Addiction.com
Comment by Denny Soinski — 29 November 2006 @ 12:31 PM
The source of the pain is a lot more obvious than just that: we’re animals adapted to close-knit bands forced to make due with a mass society that reduces us to cogs, that we are incapable of truly understanding, and it’s incapable of understanding us. Square peg, round hole; nothing more than that.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 30 November 2006 @ 5:16 PM
Jason G. Nice work. i definitely don’t have time to read all of your theses, but i’ve skimmed them. I am not sure if it is a matter of symantics or not, but i rather dissagree with the technology bit though. while i agree that a form of technology, involving limited resources, space, energy, time, etc will have diminishing returns, i also believe that there is better technology ahead that is not based on these limits. up to this point, technology has backfired, and instead of making our lives easier, has made things more complex. not to mention the societies that we’ve constructed have heaped complexity upon complexity - and we have the ginormous governments, and codes to prove it. And as you said, this is not sustainable. But rather than collapse, per se, i envision more of a transition. while it has been sad that indiginous cultures have been wiped out, and diversity has been squelched a bit, one side-effect that i think will be seen is that communication is becoming something that it has never been before. and with that, the ‘us’ and ‘them’ paradigms will be made more and more obsolete. at the same time, technology, which is learning more and more about quantum nature will break down historic barriers, and create a society not bared by limited resources. the dynamic of separating out humanity, and fighting for resources will give way to a closer, more unified humanity, with a harmonic, abundant reality, rather than a chaotic, scarse reality. the only way to end “want” is to have it all. the only question left is whether or not we are adicted to wanting?
Comment by Eric Snyder — 7 December 2006 @ 2:43 PM
Why would the unintended consequences of technology suddenly cease, or the diminishing marginal returns curve on invention suddenly disappear? That sounds more like wishful thinking than anything else. Of course, that’s not to say that technology can’t be a great thing—so long as we bear in mind that it can never answer all our problems, and that there’s only so much of it we can have before it begins to go sour.
As for a unified humanity, I disagree. Humans don’t have the neurological capacity for mass society. It fundamentally defies our ability to handle it. If humanity is unified, then every human will be overwhelmed and stressed to the breaking point because of that. We forget what that kind of broad communication costs us: when we can communicate with everyone, then we can’t connect with anyone. Deep relationships cost us time and energy, and if we’re spending that time and energy to maintain many shallow connections, then that takes away from the deep connections we can form. The flip side of a unified humanity is the end of community, and even sanity. It’s the civilized ideal, yes, but it’s also madness that utterly neglects human needs. That’s hardly unexpected; after all, the chief problem is that we have such a hard time comprehending such a scale in the first place. So I think we’re in for the exact opposite trend: greater divisions. We need to remember that the other side of community isn’t just the intimacy of who’s in, but also the bulwark of who’s out. You can no more define a community simply by inclusion any more than you can see someone’s nose simply with light, without any shadow, or play a symphony without some amount of silence. Pure light is blindness; pure sound is white noise; pure unified humanity is insanity. To have a community requires both the intimacy of pre-conquest consciousness and the ugly side of tribalism.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 7 December 2006 @ 2:55 PM
Thank you for these theses. They have put together the final pieces of the grand puzzle together for me. I expect anything else in these fields will simply complement this knowledge.
Comment by Brandon Cheshire — 9 May 2007 @ 4:27 PM
Having read the Thirty Theses, I find some important points in them, but I don’t agree with them in their entirety. I agree that:
1. Peak oil, peak uranium and peak steel will ultimately make motor transportation and telecommunications impractical.
2. In combination with climate change, they will make agriculture more difficult and less productive.
3. The world population will have to shrink, especially in major cities, and then stay constant thereafter.
4. People will have to eat a lot less wheat, corn and rice.
5. People will have to rely more on locally made products, which may mean a lot fewer electronics.
6. Federal governments, multinational corporations and federated churches will lose much of their power, and many may have to split.
However, I don’t agree that all agriculture is unsustainable, or that foraging would necessarily bring us the greatest health, shortest work week or happiest life. Specialization of labour does have benefits, especially if your aptitudes aren’t well-rounded (e.g. you’re on the autism spectrum, as I am). There are things music simply could not have done without a place to plug in an electric guitar. And by the time everyone had re-learned how to safely and reliably get our food as hunter-gatherers, it’s entirely possible natural climate change (such as the start or end of an ice age, or even the effect of the sun’s expansion) would render that knowledge obsolete.
I expect that the “collapse” will be gradual and relatively orderly in many places, affecting the birth rate as much as the death rate; that we’ll still have towns (small by current standards) that are largely autonomous and isolated; that foraging will become an option, but not be the only or most popular one; that many professions will continue to exist but move to an apprentice system; that medicine will adapt to the lack of petrochemicals, but remain secular in many places; and that we’ll grow less productive but hardier crops (with techniques such as composting and crop rotation). There is a baby here, and I see no need to throw it out with the bathwater.
Comment by Chris — 22 August 2008 @ 9:25 PM
Hi Chris!
A couple small points I’d like to make:
First, make sure you aren’t confusing agriculture with all forms of cultivation, it’s been awhile since I’ve read “The 30″, but I don’t believe it takes cultivation as a whole to task. If memory serves, criticism is levelled pretty squarely at monocultures in annually disturbed fields.
Second, even though it may seem counterintuitive, the historical record seems pretty clear that the typical hunter/gatherer spent less overall time seeing to their needs than a typical agriculturalist or industrialist.
One last thing I’d like to add about “less productive but hardier crops”, especially in relation to “hunter/gatherers vs agriculturalists”, is that I’ve encouraged a very large patch of lamb’s quarters in my yard. It produces abundant greens thru the summer and requires almost no work from me (most of that work consists of harvesting and preparing it for meals). So, here is a plant that is at least as productive as the nearest domesticated equivalent (spinach) and also considerably hardier. Additionally, my cultivation efforts are minimal, providing a situation that feels more like foraging than gardening. I bring this up to illustrate that sometimes we set up situations in our minds that seem to require trade offs, and in doing so we miss win/win opportunities. I think this is something that we often overlook, and I think paying more attention to finding win/win opportunities could go a long way to helping us all rewild.
Comment by jhereg — 26 August 2008 @ 8:02 AM