John Zerzan On "progress"; social pessimism vs. technological optimism of Project Virgle
Paul D. Fernhout
comments by me on it.
From: "Enemy of the State: Interview with John Zerzan" by Derrick Jensen
http://www.altpr.org/apr12/zerzan.html
http://sacredlands.org/enemyofthestate_zerzan.htm
====================
"""
Q: More broadly, what has progress meant in practice?
Zerzan: Progress has meant the looming spectre of the complete
dehumanization of the individual and the catastrophe of ecological collapse.
I think there are fewer people who believe in it now than ever, but probably
there are still many who perceive it as inevitable. We're certainly
conditioned on all sides to accept that, and we're held hostage to it, too.
The idea now is to have everybody dependent on technology in an increasingly
immiserated sense. In terms of human health, it means increasing dependence
on technologies, but what we're supposed to forget is that the technologies
created these problems in the first place. Not just cancers caused by
chemicals. Nearly all diseases are diseases either of civilization,
alienation, or gross habitat destruction.
Q: I have Crohn's Disease, which is virtually unheard of in
nonindustrialized nations, only becoming common as these nations
industrialize. In all literal truth industrial civilization is eating away
at my guts.
Zerzan: I think people are really starting to understand how hollow the
progress myth has been. Maybe that's too sanguine. But the fruits of it are
too hard to miss. In fact the system doesn't talk so much about progress
anymore.
Q: What new word has replaced it?
Zerzan: Inertia. This is it. Deal with it, or else get screwed. You don't
hear so much now about the American Dream, or the glorious new tomorrow. Now
it's a global race for the bottom as transnationals compete to see which can
most exploit workers, most degrade the environment. That competition thing
works on the personal level, too. If you don't plug into computers you won't
get a job. That's progress.
Q: Where does that leave us?
Zerzan: I'm optimistic, because never before has our whole lifestyle been
revealed as much for what it is.
...
Q: Some say that the 60s were the last big burst, the last gasp, and from
then on it's been downhill.
Zerzan: I sometimes think of it that way, like it was the Big Bang, and
everything's been cooling ever since. Or like an earthquake, followed by
aftershocks. I was in San Francisco in 76 and 77 during the punk explosion,
and that was very exciting, but there was no sense this was going to
kickstart a new round of change. We hoped so, but didn't think so. But I
think we're coming to a big one, something much bigger than the 60s. Not
only because we have to, if we are to survive, but also because back then we
had a tremendously high level of illusion. Much of our idealism was
misplaced, and we believed it wouldn't take that much to effect significant
change. We had a certainly unwarranted faith in institutions, and we didn't
think things through far enough. We weren't grounded enough, tied tightly
enough to reality. Now if that revolutionary energy comes back it's going to
be far more total.
...
I recently saw a quote by Exene Cervenka, the lead singer in the band X, in
which she said, "I've killed way more people than Kaczynski, because I've
been paying a lot of taxes in the last fifteen years, and he hasn't." I was
really struck by what an effective point that is. It reminds us we're all
implicated.
[Related: "Americans' refusal to look in the mirror presages our own demise"
http://www.altpr.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=737
]
...
Q: What do you want from your work and your life?
Zerzan: I would like to see a face to face community, an intimate existence,
where relations are not based on power, and thus not on division of labor. I
would like to see an intact natural world, and I would like to live as a
fully human being. I would like that for the people around me.
Q: Once again, how do we get there from here?
Zerzan: I have no idea. It might be something as simple as everybody just
staying home from work. F*ck it. Withdraw your energy. The system can't last
without us. It needs to suck our energy. If people stop responding to the
system, it's doomed.
Q: But if we stop responding, if we really decide not to go along, aren't we
doomed also, because the system will destroy us?
Zerzan: Right. It's not so easy. If it were that simple, people would just
stay home, because it's such a drag to go through these miserable routines
in an increasingly empty culture. But a question we always have to keep in
mind is this: we're doomed, but in which way are we more doomed? I recently
gave a talk at the University of Oregon in which I spoke on a lot of these
topics. Near the end I said, "I know that a call for this sort of
overturning of the system sounds ridiculous, but the only thing I can think
of that's even more ridiculous is to just let the system keep on going."
"""
============================
Zerzan's main optimism as a self-described "anarchist" is ironically in
people becoming more pessimistic. :-)
Maybe space habitation and similar advanced technologies used on Earth
(recycling, 3D printing, robotics) can help change that sentiment? Even the
social possibilities of new forms of social organization mediated in part by
computer networks like Debian, Wikipedia, or Meetup? In "Here Comes
Everybody", Clay Shirky suggest the latest innovation with services like
Meetup is to reconnect people locally as opposed to an older notion of
cyberspace as a purely seperate entity. An interview with Clay Shirky:
http://www.well.com/conf/inkwell.vue/topics/328/Clay-Shirky-Here-Comes-Everybody-page01.html
There seems to be a central conflict in at least US society (or maybe just
me? :-) to reconcile social pessimism (especially with the ongoing Iraq war)
with technological optimism of ideas like Project Virgle. Or even the
technological optimism implicit simply in Google itself, without which we
could not find so much interesting information on so many topics (whether
society or technology).
I feel reconciling social pessimism and technological optimism might be the
defining question of the 21st Century.
And, from the technology side, will it take more technology, less
technology, different technology, or all three in different circumstances?
I feel thinking about this question in a space settlement context opens up
the possibility for more creative solutions.
On reflecting on the recent thread "Capitalist, Please Read" as well as
Daniel Quinn's "Beyond Civilization", I have to admit in the end that like
Mike (or even indirectly Quinn) implies, the best thing about space
habitation is not trying one new alternative (even a gift economy which I
like), but having the possibility to try many of them (even permutations of
capitalism and rationing as "Silent" advocates).
And there is also the benefit of working on a larger canvas of the space in
the solar system, where the failure of one type of civilization with one set
of assumptions mixed with horrendous weapons (nukes and plagues) probably
does not bring down everybody else.
--Paul Fernhout
Paul D. Fernhout
> I feel reconciling social pessimism and technological optimism might be the
> defining question of the 21st Century.
While I still think that is true, just as a counterpoint to this idea, in
this book:
"Blessed Unrest: How the Largest Movement in the World Came into Being and
Why No One Saw It Coming"
http://www.blessedunrest.com/
http://books.google.com/books?id=S75R90V1IlUC
http://www.amazon.com/Blessed-Unrest-Largest-Movement-Coming/dp/0670038520
Paul Hawken suggests almost the opposite is more true. He suggests that
while the technological facts look bad, there are lots of reasons for social
optimism (a million groups working in uncoordinated ways to make the Earth
more sustainable and realize a vision of social justice). But he suggests
this big movement is still pretty invisible to most because it is coming
from the grassroots in so many different directions.
As Hawken puts it in the beginning of the book:
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/5/15/16245/1159
"When asked at colleges if I am pessimistic or optimistic about the future,
my answer is always the same: If you look at the science that describes what
is happening on earth today and aren't pessimistic, you don't have the
correct data. If you meet the people in this unnamed movement and aren't
optimistic, you haven't got a heart."
Some larger context for that idea:
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/5/15/16245/1159
"""
Over the past fifteen years I have given nearly one thousand talks about the
environment, and every time I have done so I have felt like a tightrope
performer struggling to maintain perfect balance. To be sure, people are
curious to know what is happening to their world, but no speaker wants to
leave an auditorium depressed, however dark and frightening a tomorrow is
predicted by the science that studies the rate of environmental loss. To be
sanguine about the future, however, requires a plausible basis for
constructive action: you cannot describe possibilities for that future
unless the present problem is accurately defined. Bridging the chasm between
the two was always a challenge, but audiences kindly ignored my intellectual
vertigo and over time provided a rare perspective instead. After every
speech a smaller crowd would gather to talk, ask questions, and exchange
business cards. ... Over the course of years the number of cards mounted
into the thousands, and whenever I glanced at them, I came back to one
question: Did anyone truly appreciate how many groups and organizations were
engaged in progressive causes? At first, this was a matter of curiosity on
my part, but it slowly grew into a hunch that something larger was afoot, a
significant social movement that was eluding the radar of mainstream
culture. ... I soon realized that my initial estimate of 100,000
organizations was off by at least a factor of ten, and I now believe there
are over one -- and maybe even two -- million organizations working toward
ecological sustainability and social justice. ... I sought a name for the
movement, but none exists. I met people who wanted to structure or organize
it -- a difficult task, since it would easily be the most complex
association of human beings ever assembled. ... What does meet the eye is
compelling: coherent, organic, self-organized congregations involving tens
of millions of people dedicated to change. When asked at colleges if I am
pessimistic or optimistic about the future, my answer is always the same: If
you look at the science that describes what is happening on earth today and
aren't pessimistic, you don't have the correct data. If you meet the people
in this unnamed movement and aren't optimistic, you haven't got a heart.
What I see are ordinary and some net-so-ordinary individuals willing to
confront despair, power, and incalculable odds in an attempt to restore some
semblance of grace, justice, and beauty to this world. ... This is the story
of what is going *right* on this planet, narratives of imagination and
conviction, not defeatist accounts about the limits. Wrong is an addictive,
repetitive story; Right is where the movement is. ... Inspiration is not
garnered from the recitation of what is flawed; it resides, rather, in
humanity's willingness to restore, redress, reform, rebuild, recover,
reimagine, and reconsider. "Consider" (con sidere) means "with the stars";
reconsider means to rejoin the movement and cycle of heaven and life.
"""
"Blessed Unrest" reminds me of the 1981 book "Small is Possible" by George
McRobie
http://www.amazon.com/Small-Possible-George-McRobie/dp/0060906944
which was a followup to the 1974 "Small is Beautiful" by E.F. Schumacher --
but on a much larger scale and covering many more issues.
Hawken's new book is not exactly technologically pessimistic (I haven't read
it all yet though), except in the sense most of the problems being addressed
stem from the use of technology, including the technology of social control.
So clearly, it is pessimistic about technology as it is, not technology as
it could be (or is becoming).
Anyway, so there are both optimistic and pessimistic trends we can focus on
in either the social or the technological sphere.
Might Project Virgle realization (including on-Earth benefits of space
technology) require connecting the social optimists with the technological
optimists somehow? :-)
And if instead we put the social pessimists and the technological pessimists
together (the trend in the USA's current leadership?), then we might really
be in worse trouble. :-(
Anyway, I don't mean to say either Zerzan or Hawken are completely right or
wrong -- they are essentially two complementary perspectives on the same
thing. Zerzan questions both society and technology, but says: "Now if that
revolutionary energy comes back it's going to be far more total." Hawken
suggests that energy is growing for change and is already here in a big way,
but is still off the mainstream radar.
Both are somewhat pessimistic about a technological fix by itself by
expanding business as usual. Though from his past writings, Paul Hawken
seems optimistic about the potential for greener technologies if we focus
R&D on actually developing and deploying them, after changing the way we
look at what "capital" means. See his other book "Natural Capitalism":
http://www.natcap.org/
"In this groundbreaking blueprint for a new economy, three leading business
visionaries explain how the world is on the verge of a new industrial
revolution-one that promises to transform our fundamental notions about
commerce and its role in shaping our future. Natural Capitalism describes a
future in which business and environmental interests increasingly overlap,
and in which businesses can better satisfy their customers' needs, increase
profits, and help solve environmental problems all at the same time.
Natural capital refers to the natural resources and ecosystem services that
make possible all economic activity, indeed all life. These services are of
immense economic value; some are literally priceless, since they have no
known substitutes. Yet current business practices typically fail to take
into account the value of these assets-which is rising with their scarcity.
As a result, natural capital is being degraded and liquidated by the
wasteful use of such resources as energy, materials, water, fiber, and
topsoil. The first of natural capitalism's four interlinked principles,
therefore, is radically increased resource productivity. Implementing just
this first principle can significantly improve a firm's bottom line, and can
also help finance the other three. They are: redesigning industry on
biological models with closed loops and zero waste; shifting from the sale
of goods (for example, light bulbs) to the provision of services
(illumination); and reinvesting in the natural capital that is the basis of
future prosperity."
Those ideas are very compatible with space habitation design principles for
closed-cycle life support systems and self-extension and self-replication.
But I get the feeling that neither Zerzan or Hawken perhaps grasps the full
implications of the technological dimension from a broader "Singularity"
perspective (beyond simply being greener). It's in a sense the difference
between "doing more with less", and "doing more with more". :-) As I
mentioned previously, I'd expect that with increasing technology, over time
the amount of effort required for universal abundance is shrinking, and the
amount of free time people are willing to give away would be growing. At
some point those two curves cross, and after that point in time, universal
abundance through a post-scarcity economy (however it is organized in
detail) is very possible, even if it is not done beforehand for other
reasons. And opportunities grow from there (including ones beyond the
"market"). So those trends eventually make possible a free Project Virgle.
So, it is both the cultural evolution towards increasing charity and
compassion and freedom (Hawken's trends) as well as the improvements in
automation (Moravec, Kurzweil, Vinge, and so on to various
singularity-related ideas) that make an abundant future for all more and
more possible. A tremendously abundant future possibly -- depending on what
our values are in implementing it.
And those points were all made back to some degree in 1964 by "The Ad Hoc
Committee on the Triple Revolution":
http://www.educationanddemocracy.org/FSCfiles/C_CC2a_TripleRevolution.htm
"""
This statement is written in the recognition that mankind is at a historic
conjuncture which demands a fundamental reexamination of existing values and
institutions. At this time three separate and mutually reinforcing
revolutions are taking place: The Cybernation Revolution ... The Weaponry
Revolution ... The Human Rights Revolution ...
"""
It is interesting to me to see all these authors in the past and present
essentially saying things which are converging.
Anyway, so I see this as the background landscape of social trend with which
any meaningful support for a Project Virgle will appear. Project Virgle (or
OpenVirgle, or Space Habitations in general) needs to fit into this
landscape and make sense in it for it to gather the most interest and
support, and also for it to produce the best result IMHO. And I hope it can
eventually gain broad support, if space habitation is considered in the
context of how it also makes the Earth a more sustainable and more just
place to be. NASA has often used that justification for more resources.
While I think space settlement is best pursued as a hobby for its own sake,
I still think it makes something of a difference if one sees that hobby as
fitting into making the world a better place as opposed to pure escapism.
It's always nice to have good reasons for stuff we want to do anyway. :-)
So, all this is towards reconceptualizing what "progress" means intertwined
in a Project Virgle context.
--Paul Fernhout
http://www.openvirgle.net/