Showing posts with label anarchism. Show all posts

Saturday, 23 April 2022

Time for Change, Part 3: Without Hierarchies?

Webbwood Falls
about 2 hours drive
east of Kincardine

This is the third of several posts that I would have preferred to publish all at once, were it not for the extreme length of such a piece. It will make more sense if you go back and read the whole series, starting with the first one, if you have not already done so. To briefly and inadequately summarize, I'll just say that overpopulation and overconsumption (and their consequences) are the most serious problems that we face. Overpopulation is going to take decades to solve, while overconsumption could be addressed quite quickly if certain obstacles could be gotten out of the way. By reducing our level of consumption, we could reduce our impact on the planet and give ourselves time to reduce our population.

The blame for overconsumption can be laid squarely at the feet of capitalism, with its insatiable hunger to accumulate wealth, its inescapable need for endless growth, its inability to tackle any problem that can't be solved by making a profit and its endless blaring marketing machine which convinces us that we must consume, consume, consume. It is important to note that the majority of that consumption is done by a minority of people, the top ten to twenty percent of the richest people in the world. Sadly (from my viewpoint), I am part of that group and I suspect that many of my readers are as well, even though we wouldn't call ourselves "rich".

In a previous post where I looked at the problems with industrialization, I had promised to have a more detailed look at our financial systems and our governments.

In this new series I am finally doing that. In Part 1 we looked at our financial system and saw that money is a tool that facilitates the accumulation of wealth by the rich, and a mechanism by which they control the rest of us. It does this by making it possible to keep score in the complex game that is our economy, and pretty much guarantees that the wealthy win. Unfortunately, our financial system creates money as debt, which must be paid back with interest. In order to do that, the economy must continually grow, or it will collapse. At the same time, the inevitable consequence of continued growth on a finite planet is also collapse.

In Part 2 I discussed the problems with hierarchies, especially with governments that have been co-opted by capitalism. The point being that overconsumption is our most pressing problem and hierarchies and capitalism are potent, and mutually reinforcing, agents of overconsumption.

So, I think I've made it clear that we can do without money and capitalism, but can we really do without hierarchies? I'll break that question into several parts today.

1) Are human beings naturally hierarchical? Are we doomed to drift back into hierarchical organizations even if we successfully get rid of today's hierarchies?

2) Are there viable alternatives? That is, are hierarchies necessary when we organize ourselves into large groups and take on large projects, or are there others ways?

3) Given the strengths of today's hierarchies and their success at propaganda, is there any hope that we can get rid of them?

We are repeatedly told that the answer to these questions is yes, no and no, respectively. But if we look a little closer, I think we will find different answers (no, yes and yes). Part of what will lead us to those answers is that, in order to reduce consumption to a sustainable level, we need to only do things that are really necessary—that actually provide the necessities of life to the human race. My definition of necessities is probably wider than yours, but it definitely doesn't include helping hierarchies grow and become more powerful, or helping capitalists accumulate wealth.

OK, question 1. Are humans naturally hierarchical?

In an earlier post I said that for most of our pre-history people lived in egalitarian hunter gatherer bands, and that we have evolved to be best suited to similar circumstances. One of my readers (Stephen Kurtz) objected, pointing out that people are naturally hierarchical—an assertion that he found to be obviously correct, but which just didn't sound right to me, based on my personal experience of living with other human beings. I have to thank Stephen, since his comment motivated me to do some reading that resolved this seeming contradiction. It seems that, yes, people do have innate drives to dominate and to submit, in varying degrees. So we can easily fall into the trap of hierarchical organization, with a few of those who prefer to dominate making it to the top, and the rest of us stuck underneath them. How then does one explain all those egalitarian societies in our past? And even a few remaining at present.

Well, it seems that we also have a strong innate resentment of being dominated. In small bands of people, where there is only room for one leader, most people realize that they cannot reasonably hope to be that person. If they let an upstart take over and run things, they will be stuck submitting to him for the rest of their lives, or they will have to leave the band. That is exactly what happens among gorillas, chimpanzees and bonobos, our nearest relatives. And it was probably our "original" state, as well, if you look far enough back.

Graeber and Wengrow, in The Dawn of Everything spend a lot of time trying to avoid the question of whether our original state was hierarchical or egalitarian. I am not nearly so worried about this—I think you can argue that at one time our distant ancestors did live in primitive hierarchies like our primate relatives. But this was before we were fully human, and it was only when we found another, more egalitarian, way of living that we really became fully human.

At some point in our past, our ancestors realized that it was possible to prevent upstarts from taking over (with careful vigilance and suitable tactics to control them), and thus to live in an egalitarian society. You didn't get to dominate, but at least you didn't have to submit, and it seems that for most of us this was preferable. Over time, techniques for controlling upstarts were finely honed. These include ridicule, criticism, ostracism, and murder. Once such a system is functioning smoothly, it discourages would be upstarts from acting on their deviant impulses. And it provides a much less stressful social environment for people to live in.

I should note here that from most of the reading I've done on this subject I was left with the impression that these egalitarian bands lived pretty much in isolation. It has recently been suggested to me by a reliable source (thanks, Helga Ingeborg Vierich), that this wasn't so. She says, "bands, in fact, are temporary camping groups, part of a much larger community that shares the same dialect or language, numbering in the many hundreds, or even thousands, of people. Most of these people know each other, or at least know of each other through their individual social networks of friends and family. And camping parties do change in membership from camp to camp and so they rarely consist of the same households over the course of the year." This is supported by what I've read of the Anishinabek in colonial times (Cecil King's book on Jean-Baptiste Assiginack).

Living and evolving in small egalitarian groups fine-tuned our empathy, our communication skills, our tendency toward altruism and our dislike of being dominated. All these thing are innate characteristics of human beings today. So it seems very likely that we could indeed learn to live in non-hierarchical societies again, if given the opportunity. And there is little reason to think we would subsequently backslide into hierarchies. Especially if we keep alive the memories of how bad it was for most of us to live in hierarchical societies.

There will, of course, be an initial learning curve for things like consensus decision making. But excellent training materials and skilled trainers already exist, so this should not be an insurmountable obstacle.

In my recent post on money, I commented on differences in attitude towards the contributions of skilled/successful people in egalitarian societies and in our modern society. Such people in egalitarian communities see their contributions as part of their responsibility to support their community. It is just what human beings do, to the extent of their abilities, without expecting to go on to accumulate wealth, fame or power, or to set themselves above their fellows.

This is strongly in contrast to our modern society where successful people are expected to accumulate wealth, and to use it to accumulate more, without necessarily benefiting their fellows at all.

I think a parallel can be drawn here with differences between leadership in egalitarian societies and hierarchical societies.

Of course, in an egalitarian society, much less in the way of leadership is needed, and what is needed can be much more informal. Still, people will look to individuals with talent, skills and experience in a particular area to provide guidance, mentoring and leadership in that area.

A leader in such societies is expected to be capable and successful "economically", but also generous, impartial, patient and in control of his temper, a good orator capable of winning over an audience and skilled at settling disputes. But never arrogant, parsimonious (cheap), mean, overbearing, boastful or aloof. Because a leader was expected to be generous and help the unfortunate in his community from his own resources, he was often the poorest person in that community. (The content of this paragraph was picked out of various places in Christopher Boehme's book, Hierarchy in The Forest))

To sum it up, in egalitarian societies, a leader's role is to benefit his society rather than himself. To borrow a term from the Zapatistas, you should "lead by obeying"—always keeping in mind the needs and the desires of the people you lead, rather than your own personal ambitions.

In hierarchies people seek leadership roles for several reasons: more pay, more power and control over their futures, increased upward mobility and so on. A leader in a "front line" position is a modern hierarchy is not in that different a situation from a leader in an egalitarian society, except that he has above him a hierarchy which has some expectations of him that have little or nothing to do with the welfare of those he leads. The job is to get the working people to do what those higher up want them to do. But you can't do that without winning the co-operation of your workers. So this is a balancing act, but many leaders are oblivious and lead with their gaze focused upward, often with amusing results.

Still, leaders are an absolute necessity in a hierarchy, lest the working class rise up and start seeing to their own needs, rather than the desires of those above them.

2) Are there viable alternatives to hierarchical organizations?

We are told that large groups, living in more complex ways, tackling large and complex projects, require hierarchies to successfully organize them. This seems a self serving opinion, since such hierarchies largely exist to perpetuate their own existence and growth, and funnel wealth up to those at the top.

I'll admit that co-ordination is required whenever people work together. To borrow from Michael Albert (of Participatory Economics fame), probably about 20% of the work done in a typical modern enterprise is co-ordination work. At present that labour is done by a special 20% of the people in the organization, who occupy all but the bottom-most layer of the organization's hierarchy. It could just as easily be shared out among all the employees, as 20% of their work, completely eliminating the upper tiers of the hierarchy.

If we do away with the co-ordinator and owner classes, allow the employees to manage themselves and share onerous duties equally among each other, things would actually work much better. Without any hierarchy at all.

Workers who have a grasp of how the organization works beyond their own immediate task can cope better with the inevitable unexpected situations that always come up. When "shit jobs" are shared equally among all workers, a good deal of resentment is eliminated. Workers who manage themselves gain a sense of empowerment, are more highly motivated, and can innovate more effectively than managers in a hierarchy, because of their intimate knowledge of affairs on the shop floor. All this works best when owners are eliminated and workers can decide how much of a surplus to aim for and what to do with it when they succeed in generating it. In many cases, workers will choose more leisure time rather than additional material rewards. And that will also contribute to reducing overconsumption.

That's in larger organizations. Reducing overconsumption will mean taking on fewer large endeavours, so there will be less need for large organizations. As I have already suggested, today's large organizations exist primarily to promote their own existence and growth, and facilitate the accumulation of wealth by their owners. They serve little other purpose. Most of what really needs to be done could be done by smaller groups and eliminate a bit chunk of consumption in the process. With the benefit of reducing the amount of co-ordination required.

Borrowing here from Microsolidarity, I would suggest the people naturally function as individuals, duos (two people), crews (3 to 8 people) and congregations (30 to 200 people). Above that there is the "crowd", which is the larger community in which the smaller groups are embedded. We evolved in bands that were very similar to "congregations", and within those bands smaller groups similar to "crews" took on tasks that were too big for one or two people. In both cases, it seems to me that we evolved, and still have, innate abilities to function well in these kinds of groups.

A congregation should be based in an actual geographical area and be made up of the people living there. Their primary concern should be securing the necessities of life for themselves, a situation where producers and consumers are the same people and regulating supply and demand is greatly simplified. The individuals, duos and crews within a congregation will provide the mechanisms for actually securing those necessities.

Capitalism has done its best over the last couple of centuries to eliminate crews and congregations, because those types of group open up the possibility of co-operation, mutual aid and self sufficiency, and make it hard for capitalist hierarchies to control people.

So, it seems clear to me that we could indeed eliminate large hierarchical organizations and a lot of the effort and consumption that goes into creating and maintaining them, and still have, through self management and community ownership, much of what those organizations officially claim to be trying to achieve. As Noam Chomsky said, if you cannot justify a power structure (hierarchy), it should be eliminated. As I would say, you will have a hell of a time justifying most power structures.

Am I missing any other important roles that hierarchies play or situations in which they are needed?

One possibility is the military. Currently the military is set up in a very hierarchical way, so much so that we have trouble imagining it could be otherwise. In fact, though, the best militaries come from societies with a very flat structure, and the worst from societies with very rigid hierarchical power structures. The chaos of war rewards initiative at the lowest levels, similar to the peace time organizations I was just talking about. Which should cast some serious doubt on our assumptions about the military.

And of course the other thing is that militaries are currently necessary because of the conflicts for land and resources that arise between our hierarchical organizations (countries, primarily). Eliminate them and conflicts should be much smaller and less frequent, probably not requiring formal standing armies at all. Smaller organizations, making decision that they themselves have to live with, should get into fewer conflicts.

Many people will tell your that hierarchical organizations are necessary to co-ordinate our response to disasters. This is supported by the disaster myth which would have us believe that the people on the ground in disasters are largely helpless. But, in fact, people do a pretty good job of helping themselves, especially if they have access to the resources they need. What hinders people helping themselves in disasters is a lack of such resources, primarily due to fiscally conservative politicians who will not spend money on planning ahead for disasters. Small groups doing their own planning and keenly aware that they will suffer personally from the effects of short range thinking, are much more likely to do a good job of planning ahead, setting aside resources and training their people to respond in disaster situations.

We currently have large regulatory hierarchies, which are needed to control the excesses of capitalism. When those making decisions are the same ones who will be affected by them, better decisions will be made. People who can organize themselves to survive climate change, biosphere disruption and resource depletion will plan so as to mitigate these things at present and avoid them in the future. With capitalism and oligarchies removed, the temptation to seek short term personal gain instead of planning for the long term should be significantly reduced.

Of course, some will scoff at all of this, saying that this is just communism, which didn't work in the twentieth century and won't work now. What I am talking about is anarcho-communism, or perhaps, eco-anarcho-communism would be a better term. The communist regimes of the twentieth century were authoritarian communitsts, and from that came their problems. They made the mistake of throwing out the old owner/co-ordinating classes (aristocracy and bureaucracy) who had been running their countries and then replacing them with a new co-ordinating class based on the "party". The new co-ordinators were no better than the old ones. Little changed for most people, who had no opportunity to self manage, and who gave the party the absolute minimum of co-operation that they could get away with. As you might expect, this didn't work very well. But it is a mistake to judge communism on how it worked in those cases.

In Russia, before the October Revolution, the workers had already set something close to anarcho-communism, but when Lenin and the Bolsheviks took over they soon eliminated that, and set up an authoritarian state that had little in common with the sort of communism that I am advocating.

In my next post we'll look at the answer to my third question—given the strengths of today's hierarchies and their success at propaganda, is there any hope that we can get rid of them?

During the last few months I've been reading a number of very interesting books and websites, which bear upon what we are discussing. Here is a list of those books, along with a few that I've read previously, but that also have been a help.

Debt, The First 5000 Years, by David Graeber

Hierarchy in the Forest: the evolution of egalitarian behavior, by Christopher Boehm

The Art of Not Being Governed, by James C. Scott

Against the Grain, a deep history of the earliest states, by James C. Scott

Living at the Edges of Capitalism: Adventures in Exile and Mutual Aid, by Andrej Grubacic

The Dawn of Everything, by David Graeber and David Wengrow

No Bosses: A New Economy for a Better World, by Michael Albert

Balancing Two Worlds: Jean-Baptiste Assiginack and the Odawa Nation, 1768-1866, by Cecil King

Review of Balancing Two Worlds, on the Manitoulin Expositor website.
Wikipedia article about Jean-Baptiste Assigninack
Buy Balancing Two Worlds, from the Ojibwe Cultural Foundation.

Websites

Economics from the Top Down: Hierarchy Zoom Bombed
Microsolidarity

Links to the rest of this series of posts:
Collapse, you say? / Time for Change

Collapse You Say? Part 1, Introduction, Tuesday, 30 June 2020
Collapse, you say? Part 2: Inputs and Outputs, Wednesday, 30 September 2020
Collapse, you say? Part 3: Inputs and Outputs continued, October 7, 2020 /li>
Collapse, you say? Part 4: growth, overshoot and dieoff, January 2, 2021
Collapse, you say? Part 5: Over Population, January 8, 2021
Collapse, you say? Part 6: Over Population and Overconsumption, Februrary 21, 2021
Collapse, you say? Part 7: Needs and Wants, Human Nature, Politics, March 8, 2021
Collapse, you say? Part 8: Factors which made industrialization possible, May 13 , 2021
Collapse, you say? Part 9: Unintended Consequences of Industrialization, May 20 , 2021
Collapse You Say? Part 10/Time for Change, Part 1: Money, January 5, 2022
Time for Change, Part 2: Hierarchies, Februray 16, 2022
Time for Change, Part 3: Without Hierarchies? April 23, 2022
Time for Change, Part 4: Conclusions June 22, 2022

Wednesday, 17 March 2021

What I've Been Reading, February 2021

Links

Bypass paywalls on popular online publications for free, by 7 Labs.
There is a lot of important information out there that is behind paywalls, many requiring expensive subscription to overcome.

Above the Fold

Usually I reserve this section for late breaking news. But this month I discovered a whole bunch of YouTube videos featuring David Gaeber, a notable anarchist scholar who passed away this past September. This isn't all of the videos I found, or even the best of them, it's just what I found time to watch.

Extinction and rebellion: the late David Graeber, by Peter Batt, YouTube
"David argues that the political elite is 'useless', and could be easily dislodged by a rebellion with even vague aims."
David Graeber - The Bully's Pulpit: On the Elementary Structure of Domination, by David Graeber, YouTube—AudibleAnarchist
"In this essay, Graeber links the psychological impulses of bullying—both of bullies and of passive observers of bullying—to structures of power inherent within hierarchical authority. He contends that from a young age, we are socialized to side with bullies and against victims, and we are socialized to see victims as either deserving their punishment or of having the same moral worth as the bullies themselves."
Where Did Money REALLY Come From? by David Graeber, YouTube—Deficit Owls
"Professor David Graeber, anthropologist and author of 'Debt: The First 5,000 Years,' discussing the history of money and credit. The economics profession tends to teach that money arose from barter. However, anthropologists have been searching for 200 years and found absolutely no evidence for this. "
Graeber and Wengrow on the Myth of the Stupid Savage, by David Graeber and David Wengrow, YouTube
Graeber and Wengrow on the Myth of the Stupid Savage, by David Graeber, Jourtnal du Mauss
"What if the kind of people we like to imagine so simple and innocent because they are free from rulers, governments, bureaucracies and ruling classes, were free not because they lack imagination, but because they are in fact more imaginative than us. We find it hard to imagine what a truly free society would look like; perhaps they do not have as much difficulty imagining what would be an arbitrary power and domination. Maybe they can not only imagine it, but also consciously organize their society in such a way that such things never happen."

Miscellaneous

Why Electric Bikes are More Dangerous than Motorcycles, by FortNine, YouTube
How to Defeat a Boston Dynamics Robot in How to Defeat a Boston Dynamics Robot in, by Samantha Cole, Vice—Motherboard
"It turns out that a flip through Spot's user manual reveals its weaknesses."
This may be a bit ahead of its time, but if police forces start using more robots, then all you revolutionaries out there will need to be aware of how to disable them.
Friends by Robin Dunbar review – how important are your pals? by Rachel Cooke, The Guardian
Jigsaw Puzzle Tips & Tricks , from the people at Puzzle Warehouse
We've been doing some jigsaw puzzle lately, and while I had reached most of these conclusion of jigsaw strategy myself, it's nice to see the experts agree.
What Meghan and Harry’s Oprah Interview Clarifies for Americans—and Maybe the British, Too, by Amy Davidson Sorkin, The New Yorker
"What happens inside the Royal Family—to hear Harry and Meghan tell it, in a conversation with Oprah—is brutal."
Why can't we dig deeper than 12.2 km into the Earth?, by Chris Seymour, Quora—Science Space
Goodbye Capitalism? How Collaboration Outperforms Competition, by Floris Koot, Collective Evolution
Collective Evolution seems to be selling quite a bit of "woo", but this article is worth a read, just it is putting across some different ideas.
Switchball I—How to Play!, by Floris Koot, Medium—Revolution
Again, interesting because it is genuinely different. It (and the previous arfticle) reads like the English is not the author's first language. But easy enough to understand, I think.

The Lights Went Out in Texas

The Texas Blackout Is the Story of a Disaster Foretold, by JEFFREY BALL, Texas Monthly
"In 1989, in 2003, and in 2011, the state experienced, to varying degrees, simultaneous shutdowns of power plants and parts of its natural gas–producing infrastructure, as significant swaths of both of those critical systems were incapacitated by arctic temperatures, triggering blackouts."
"Those in charge of Texas’s deregulated power sector were warned again and again that the electric grid was vulnerable."
Why wind turbines in New York keep working in bitter cold weather unlike the ones in Texas, by Rick Moriarty, syracuse.com
One of Texas' most prominent left-leaning economists knows exactly why its power grid failed, by Ayelet Sheffey, Business Insider
A Giant Flaw in Texas Blackouts: It Cut Power to Gas Supplies, by Rachel Adams-Heard, Javier Blas, and Mark Chediak, Bloomberg—Markets
"Power plants needed natural gas, but natural gas needed power. A vicious cycle left producers unable to supply gas in crisis."
The Lessons of the Texas Power Disaster: the entire nation’s energy delivery system needs an overhaul, by The Editorial Board, The New York Times
The Texas catastrophe and the case for socialism, by Tom Carter, World Socialist Website
""It is high time for the working class to say to the capitalist oligarchy:
Enough! Every time that we left you and your political accomplices in charge, the result was a total catastrophe. Every time we entrusted a social problem to you—like fighting the pandemic, maintaining the infrastructure in Texas, addressing climate change, or trying to make progress towards social equality—in every case, you failed to do anything but enrich yourselves. Your time is up! Now it is time for a different class to take the wheel.
Texas Freeze Illustrates a Failed Economic System, by Robert Freeman, Common Dreams
"A final flaw in conservative economic thinking is that adaptation to change is resisted unless the benefits can be captured by those who already hold power and wealth."

Structural Violence

Women Aren't Nags—We're Just Fed Up, by GEMMA HARTLEY, Harpers Bazaar
"Emotional labor is the unpaid job men still don't understand."
I found this on Facebook, read it, shared it and thought, yep, that's an example of structural violence against women. I was amazed that the men who commented were mainly apologists for the guy in the article. A guy who clearly didn't want to do his share of the relationship building work in his marriage.
Structural Violence, Wikipedia
Fragments of an Anarchist Anthropology, by David Graeber,
In this book, David Graeber introduced me to this idea of structural violence in relationships between the oppressed and their oppressors. The following quote is to be found on pages 72 and 73 of the book:

"Such a theoretical emphasis opens the way to a theory of the relation of power not with knowledge, but with ignorance and stupidity. Because violence, particularly structural violence, where all the power is on one side, creates ignorance. If you have the power to hit people over the head whenever you want, you don’t have to trouble yourself too much figuring out what they think is going on, and therefore, generally speaking, you don’t. Hence the sure-fire way to simplify social arrangements, to ignore the incredibly complex play of perspectives, passions, insights, desires, and mutual understandings that human life is really made of, is to make a rule and threaten to attack anyone who breaks it. This is why violence has always been the favored recourse of the stupid: it is the one form of stupidity to which it is almost impossible to come up with an intelligent response. It is also of course the basis of the state.

Contrary to popular belief, bureaucracies do not create stupidity. They are ways of managing situations that are already inherently stupid because they are, ultimately, based on the arbitrariness of force.

Ultimately this should lead to a theory of the relation of violence and the imagination. Why is it that the folks on the bottom (the victims of structural violence) are always imagining what it must be like for the folks on top (the beneficiaries of structural violence), but it almost never occurs to the folks on top to wonder what it might be like to be on the bottom? Human beings being the sympathetic creatures that they are this tends to become one of the main bastions of any system of inequality—the downtrodden actually care about their oppressors, at least, far more than their oppressors care about them—but this seems itself to be an effect of structural violence. "

Somewhere else (I haven't been about to find the quote), Graeber explains that a certain amount work is involved in any relationship that doesn't involve oppression, as those involved strive to understand each other. If you hear someone on one side of a relationship talking about how it is impossible to understand the other, it is a sure sign that they are "on top" and don't have to do the work because they can simply tell those on the other side to shut up and do what they are told. Those who are "on the bottom" develop, as a defense mechanism, a highly refined understanding on those who are above them. You see this between men and women, bosses and workers, masters and slaves, and so on.

Coronavirus

We Hate You Now—The Hardest Problem of The Aftertimes, by Quinn Norton, Medium—Surviving COVID-19
The Differences Between the Vaccines Matter, by Hilda Bastian, The Atlantic
"Yes, all of the COVID-19 vaccines are very good. No, they’re not all the same."
"'The idea that people can’t handle nuance,' Jha tweeted at the end of February, 'it’s paternalistic. And untrue.' I couldn’t agree more. The principle of treating people like adults is fundamental. We don’t need to exaggerate. Talking about the trade-offs between different medicines and vaccines is often complicated, but we do it all the time—and we can do it with COVID-19 vaccines too."

Capitalism, Communism, Anarchy

Anarchism in Practice Is Often Radically Boring Democracy, by David Flood, Medium—Sapiens
"Anarchists have been an easy scapegoat for violent events in recent months. But anarchism, as a political philosophy, is fundamentally about collective deliberation and responsibility."

The New Fascism, the Far-Right and Antifa

I hear a lot of well educated people saying that the people some of us are calling fascists don't meet all the criteria for being "real" fascists. Others have even accused us of calling anyone we disagree with a fascist. I predict that a few decades (maybe just a few years) from now those same people will be saying they wish they hadn't been quite so fussy with their definitions, and had acted sooner to oppose these "new fascists", even if they weren't identical to the fascists of the twentieth century.

The Economy of Evil, by Esha, historic.ly
"The Political Economy under Fascism should scare us. It is all too familiar."
The Capitol Rioters Aren’t Like Other Extremists, by Robert A. Pape and Keven Ruby, The Atlantic
"We analyzed 193 people arrested in connection with the January 6 riot—and found a new kind of American radicalism."
Antifa—The Anti-Fascist Handbook, by Mark Bray, MHP Books

Collapse

Overconsumption, Wikipedia
"Overconsumption is a situation where resource use has outpaced the sustainable capacity of the ecosystem. A prolonged pattern of overconsumption leads to environmental degradation and the eventual loss of resource bases."
Human Overpopulation, Wikipedia
"Human overpopulation (or particularly human population overshoot) refers to a human population being too large in a way that their society or environment cannot readily sustain them. It can be identified with regional human populations, but is generally discussed as an issue of world population. Overpopulation is caused by human population growth. In recent centuries, human population growth has become exponential, due to the green revolution and other changes in technology that reduce mortality. Experts concerned by overpopulation argue that overpopulation causes overconsumption and subsequently overshoot of natural resources. This leads to exceeding the carrying capacity of a geographical area (or Earth as a whole) and damages to the environment. Human overpopulation is often discussed as part of other population concerns such as demographic push, depopulation, or even ecological or societal collapse and human extinction."

Genetic Engineering

Before jumping to the erroneous conclusion that this section was paid for by Monsanto, stop for a moment and understand that organic agriculture/food is a multi-billion dollar per year industry that relies on fear to get people to buy its product. Millions of dollars are spent to convince you that non-organic food is dangerous. In fact both conventionally grown and organic foods are equally safe. Sadly neither method of agriculture is even remotely substainable.

Panic-free GMOs, A Grist Special Series by Nathanael Johnson
"It’s easy to get information about genetically modified food. There are the dubious anti-GM horror stories that recirculate through social networks. On the other side, there’s the dismissive sighing, eye-rolling, and hand patting of pro-GM partisans. But if you just want a level-headed assessment of the evidence in plain English, that’s in pretty short supply. Fortunately, you’ve found the trove."
A series of articles that does a pretty good job of presenting the facts about GMOs. I plan to include one article from this series here each month.
Golden apple or forbidden fruit? Following the money on GMOs, by Nathanael Johnson, Grist

Dancing on Graves

Rush Limbaugh Made America Worse, by Alex Shephard, The New Republic
"The racist, sexist radio host played a pivotal role in injecting cruelty and conspiracy into conservative mass media."
"He thrived on making people angrier and more alienated, on obscuring the truth, and rewarding meanness at every turn."

Debunking Resources

These are of such importance that I've decide to leave them here on an ongoing basis.

Debunking, Wikipedia
Pseudoscience, Wikipedia
List of topics characterized as pseudoscience, Wikipedia
Rational Wiki
Science Based Medecine
Quackwatch
Snopes, debunks or validates urban legends
Bad Astronomy
The Skeptics Society
The 8 Best Fact-Checking Sites for Finding Unbiased Truth, by Megan Ellis, MUO—Make Use Of
Pain Science, by Paul Ingraham
Techniques of Science Denial

Science

Do you find it implausible that Apollo 11 traveled over 250,000 miles through space and landed precisely in the right part of the moon's gravity well to achieve a stable orbit? (see linked video), by Viktor T. Toth, Quora—Science Space

Lacking an Owner's Manual

The human body"/mind/spirit doesn't come with an owner's manual, and we continually struggle to figure out how best to operate them.

Is the Western way of raising kids weird? by Kelly Oake, BBC—Weird West | Parenting
From sleeping in separate beds to their children to transporting them in prams, Western parents have some unusual ideas about how to raise them.
The key to thinking outside the Western box might be to remember that babies are not out to manipulate us, no matter how tempting it might be to see it that way at 3am. "What we really need with babies is to stop thinking about them as hard-to-please bosses," says Dutta. "They're helpless little beings that have come into this world, and we must look at them with empathy and compassion."

15 Mini Things That Can Instantly Make You Less Likable, by John Roe, medium—Mind Cafe

Refugees and Migration

Denmark’s “Zero Asylum” Plan Means Psychological Torture for Refugees, byCECÍLIA TÜMLER ANTON ÖSGÅRD, Jacobin Magazine

Poverty, Homeless People, Minimum Wage, UBI, Health Care, Affordable Housing

Monmouth Co. Girl, 9, Confesses To Virtual Class She's Starving, by Carly Baldwin, Patch
"Fulfill, the food bank of Monmouth and Ocean counties, stepped in after a third-grader started crying in the middle of a virtual class."

Education

Measuring in Education is a War Crime., by Floris Koot, Medium—Revolution
5 reasons why we need to measure way less, not more.

Humour

Mahna Mahna at 50: fascinating facts about the unforgettable Muppets song, by Jennifer Van Evra, CBC Radio
"The Muppets made it famous, but where did the song come from? Who performed it? And who is that fuzzy fella?"

Books

Fiction

I finally finished the Emberverse series this month, a total of 15 novels.

The Sea Peoples, by S. M. Stirling
The Sky Blue Wolves, by S. M. Stirling
Dark Knight Station: Origins, by Nathan Lowell
Winter of the Wolf, by Martha Hunt Handle
The Galaxy, and the Ground Within: Wayfarers 4, by Becky Chambers

Non-Fiction

Still reading A People's History of the United States. Still highly recommended.

Monday, 8 March 2021

Collapse you Say? Part 7, Needs and Wants, Human Nature, Politics

Reflection
Tree on the South Pier
Kincardine Harbour

In my last post we looked at two major problems facing mankind: overpopulation and overconsumption. I used the I=PAT equation (Impact=Population X Affluence X Technology) as a framework to hang this discussion on.

For a long lived species such as ours, there is a lengthy delay between reducing the rate at which our population grows, and any actually reduction of the population. At best, if the demographic transition keeps spreading in the developing world, it will be many decades before our population stops growing. During that time our impact will exceed the carrying capacity of the planet by a much greater extent than it does at present. In all likelihood this will result in at least a parftial dieoff of the human population. We need to take action to mitigate such a dieoff. I believe we should still do everything we can to reduce population growth (excepting morally abhorrent things), but we also need to look elsewhere for something that can be done to reduce our impact in the short run.

Many have turned to technology as the most promising way to reduce our impact. Sadly, no real solutions have been forth coming. The oft promised "decoupling" hasn't happened, and there is good reason to think that it won't, ever. The only remaining alternative to reduce our impact would be to reduce consumption (affluence). And this would be especially effective if applied first to the richest segtments of our global society. It's clear that the people who are most seriously overconsuming don't want to change, but I believe that we must, and that we can, do so.

Before we can take a close look at what drives consumption, and the continuous growth of consumption, I think we need to look at several touchy subjects—human needs and wants, human nature, and politics. So that's what I'll be talking about today.

Needs and Wants

If we are proposing a reduction in consumption, it seems natural to talk about needs versus wants. The idea being that overconsumption results from people trying to satisfy desires that are not actually needs even in the most generous definition of the word. The resulting consumption being something which they can perfectly well do without.

Often when I hear discussion of this subject, it's part of a criticism of poor folks' money management skills, by someone who knows little or nothing of what it's like to be poor. What I want to do here is just the opposite—to criticize rich people, who are champion overconsumers and drive the rest of us to consume more in order to support their efforts to amass more wealth.

Figure 1, Consumption versus Income

I've included this diagram in several posts in this series, and I'll probably use it again in the future, because it is so central to our overconsumption problem. Keep in mind that all the people represented in this diagram—poor, rich and in between—have the same basic needs.

It seems to me that the bottom decile, maybe the bottom two, are not having even their most basic needs met—many are suffering from malnutrition and don't have access to clean water. They are in need of some help from the rest of us, and their situation is so dire that even a small amount of help would make a big difference. At the other end of the scale, it also seems clear that those in the top decile are overconsuming by a large amount, and that they could significantly reduce their consumption while still satisfying all their needs and even some of their wants.

We must realize that people legitimately do have many needs. These have often been portrayed in Maslow's Hierarchy of needs, illustrated as a pyramid:

Figure 2: Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs

I'd advise reading the Wikipedia article on this before taking it as gospel, as many refinements have been suggested since the mid-twentieth century when Maslow originally came out with this. It turns out that the pyramid representation isn't even his. Others have suggested this might be a better representation of our needs:

Figure 3: Alternative graphic to the Pyramid of Needs

I hear many people talking about needs as things like water, food, warmth, rest, and safety, while discounting needs higher on the pyramid as luxuries. But those higher needs are just as real, though perhaps of less concern in the very short run. In the long run, if they aren't met, it will cause problems just as certainly as not satisfying the more basic needs. It seems to me that the reason for having a society in the first place is to provide a way for people to satisfy all their needs. Any society that doesn't do so is failing in a major way. Note that I didn't say society should provide peoples' needs, but rather provide a way for them to provide their own needs.

People have a very strong need to be part of a community that function of the basis of mutual aid, where we can contribute by helping others and be sure that we will get help when we need it. This provides for the needs on top three levels of the pyramid as well as the bottom two. And satisfying the needs on the higher levels of the pyramid can often be done without increasing the consumption of material goods, or our impact on the planet.

But in the developed world, especially in North America, where physiological needs are often very well met, our society is failing to provide for those higher needs. Individualism is over emphasized, and we are left with a feeling that we are missing something. Capitalistic marketing efforts take advantage of this, generating artificial desires for consumer goods and services. These should be viewed not as needs or wants, but as things that are being forced on us for the benefit of others.

Human Nature

A little thought brings me to the conclusion that when we are talking about needs and wants, we are really discussing human nature. Very frequently, I am told that you can't change human nature and that some aspects of this unchangeable nature are the source of both our population and consumption problems.

I don't agree—humans can adapt to live in many different cultures, and much of what people see as aspects of human nature are actually adaptations to the culture we are living in. If we were living in a different culture, those adaptations would be different and people looking at us would get different ideas about what human nature really is.

As I said in my last post, I don't see that the amount of food available to people directly determines population growth rates, especially reductions in growth. It seems that various cultural and economic factors determine the desired family size and are currently causing a decrease in the growth rate, albeit not quickly enough.

It's the same with overconsumption—greed, materialism, toxic individualism and so forth are adaptations to modern consumer culture. Basic human nature is not the main reason for growing consumption, at least not in the straight forward way that many people imagine.

If I was asked to identify the essential, underlying elements of human nature, I would point to our adaptability and our skill at working together co-operatively.

At some point early in our evolution as human beings, our ancestors developed a resistance to primate-style sexual and political dominance and took up communistic and assertively egalitarian social arrangements. The term usually applied to this lifestyle is primitive communism. We lived like this for most of the 2 million years since we became recognizably human.

If you grew up in a highly individualistic modern society, this must seem odd. Why would our ancestors have chosen such a lifestyle? There must have been some evolutionary advantage, but evolution works on individuals. That is, changes happen at the individual level, and changes that benefit the individual, so that they are are better able to survive and reproduce, will accumulate in the population. How could such a lifestyle do so? It was focused, after all, on the success of the group and actively discouraged single individuals from attaining a preferred position. That's what "assertively egalitarian" means.

Well, it turns out that this kind of an approach does lead to better outcomes for the individuals in the group as well as the group as a whole. Individual human beings do much better in groups based on mutual aid than we do as isolated individuals. Even if those idividuals are strong enough and capable enough to get by on their own. And in the course of living in this way for so long, we evolved strong skills in areas such as empathy, communication and co-operation which made the lifestyle work even better. We also came to need the closeness and comradery found in such groups. Knowing that we are needed and can rely on having our own needs met is important to human beings.

Someone, I am sure, will accuse me of romanticizing the life of hunter gatherers. I am well aware of the hardships of that life and have no desire to go back to it. Especially since there are few habitats left on this planet where hunting and gathering could be pursued successfully. Certainly not by eight billion people, probably not by more than a very few million.

Nor am I indulging in the "appeal to nature" fallacy. But there is something called an "environment of evolutionary adaptedness" where you consider the circumstances in which a species has evolved in order to generate hypotheses about what might be best for that species today. Of course, a hypothesis is only valid if it can be tested and proven correct. From what I've read, most of what I am saying here about human nature is part of the accepted scientific consensus.

Small, close knit, egalitarian communistic groups were our evolutionary environment. Outside of that environment, you may see dysfunction or evolutionary mismatch. Now, humans are nothing if not adaptable and we can survive in environments wildly different from those where we evolved, but that does not mean we will thrive. You see people behaving badly all the time, but I suspect that in most cases it's because they are struggling to adapt to bad situations. Which our society provides in abundance.

Politics

I believe our level of consumption, and of economic growth, has to do with the way our society is organized. To a large extent that amounts to economics and politics.

It is only fair, I suppose, to warn you up front about my own politics. I am what people these days are calling an "ancom", an anarcho-communist or anarchist-communist. Both of those words are likely to provoke a negative reaction, but bear with me. It is my opinion that these sort of political/economic relationship are best suited to human nature.

The primitive communism I mentioned in the last section was so successful that it wasn't until a few thousand years after we switched over from hunting-gathering to agriculture and about 1000 years after we started to live in cities that we began to create hierarchies and develop the concept of property. In the moment, this no doubt seemed like a reasonable response to the challenges of living together in larger groups. Especially to those at the tops of the hierarchies and in possession of the property. For everybody else, probably not so much. But by the time the disadvantages were clear, the lower classes were no longer in control of the situation.

It is my opinion that this is a dead end that humanity has pursued for the last few thousand years, and which has lead to many of the problems we are facing today. Eventually—soon it is to be hoped—we will give up on it and return to some form of anarcho-communism, the lifestyle to which we are best suited. I'll have more to say about that in my next post.

It is interesting to note that even inside the most capitalistic of enterprises, when people work together in teams they usually behave in a cooperative, egalitarian, one would almost say "communistic" way. I mention this from personal experience. For many years I worked as a "power maintenance electrician" for the grid company here in Ontario. We worked in small teams of tradesmen, and while our relationships with supervision and management were often fraught, the workers got along well for the most part and enjoyed working together.

I do know you've been taught that anarchists and communists are the worst sorts of people.

But is that really so? To quote the late David Graeber, an anthropologist and notable anarchist scholar, "Many people seem to think that anarchists are proponents of violence, chaos, and destruction, that they are against all forms of order and organization, or that they are crazed nihilists who just want to blow everything up. In reality, nothing could be further from the truth. Anarchists are simply people who believe human beings are capable of behaving in a reasonable fashion without having to be forced to. It is really a very simple notion. But it’s one that the rich and powerful have always found extremely dangerous."

That quote is from a short essay by Graeber that is really worth reading. You may find that you are already an anarchist without knowing it. Of course, many people today are libertarians, (capitalist-anarchists), which involves caring very little for one's fellow man, and a great deal for one's own success. That's why I think it is important to add communism into the mix.

Many people have the wrong idea about communism too, based on the 20th century totalitarian regimes who called themselves communists, but who, for the most part, never managed to achieve anything close to it.

The goal of a communistic society is to provide for the needs of all its members by having them work together, to the best of their abilities, to achieve that goal. From everyone according to their abilities, to everyone according to their needs. All this with no one being exploited or oppressed, and no one doing any exploiting or oppressing. Large scale productive properties are owned by the community and there is no private property (property owned for the purpose of making a profit). There is personal property—things like clothing, shoes, toothbrushes, etc., and depending on what the community decides is best, perhaps even things like tools, housing and garden plots. Anarcho-communism does this without a state, decisions being made by consensus among the members of the community.

While there certainly are "large A" anarchists who would advocate violent revolution to achieve these ends, I am "small a" anarchist. We just want to be left alone by the state so we can get on with developing the sort of society that we consider ideal.

I do realize that this will not be easy. It will involve a much more horizontal and direct type of democracy, with decisions made by consensus, which can be quite challenging if you've never done it before. The feminist movement has done a lot of work on teaching people how to succeed at this. There are all kinds of good books on consensus decision making and courses are available to help you get started at it or hone your already existing skills. It will also involve something closer to living and working communally than most people are accustomed to today. This can be a trial for those who didn't grow up doing it, but it can be learned, even by people from nuclear families or those who have spent much of their lives as isolated individuals. Both consensus decision making and community life can very rewarding.

Having covered these issues in some detail, I think I am finally ready to look at over-consumption, growth, capitalism and hierarchies in my next post.

I'll wrap up today's post with a comment on collapse, the subject of this series of posts. Both overpopulation and overconsumption are real problems, of such magnitute and severity that a successful solution is unlikely. It would be smart while working on such a solution to also be preparing for collapse, getting ready to adapt to what most of us will see as continually worsening conditions. The goods news is that reducing consumption at the personal level will also be a good start at adapting to collapse.

Links to the rest of this series of posts: Collapse, you say?

Collapse You Say? Part 1, Introduction, Tuesday, 30 June 2020
Collapse, you say? Part 2: Inputs and Outputs, Wednesday, 30 September 2020
Collapse, you say? Part 3: Inputs and Outputs continued, October 7, 2020
Collapse, you say? Part 4: growth, overshoot and dieoff, January 2, 2021
Collapse, you say? Part 5: Over Population, January 8, 2021
Collapse, you say? Part 6: Over Population and Overconsumption, Februrary 21, 2021
Collapse, you say? Part 7: Needs and Wants, Human Nature, Politics, March 8, 2021
Collapse, you say? Part 8: Factors which made industrialization possible, May 13 , 2021
Collapse, you say? Part 9: Unintended Consequences of Industrialization, May 20 , 2021
Collapse You Say? Part 10 / Time for Change, Part 1: Money, January 5, 2022
Time for Change, Part 2: Hierarchies, Februray 16, 2022
Time for Change, Part 3: Without Hierarchies? April 23, 2022
Time for Change, Part 4: Conclusions June 22, 2022

Wednesday, 23 September 2020

What I've Been Reading, August 2020