The end of technological progress?

[ap.vanduijn]

Dear Anastassia, dear all, 

In BRE it was pointed out that homo sapiens has preserved the strategy of behaviour based on the genetic programme of positive and negative emotions inherited from large animals (G&M, 2000; p.216). You pointed out that technological progress started the moment when a sufficient number of humans were forced out of their natural ecosystem (i.e. "paradise niche"). This was a consequence of the genetic dissatisfaction of these humans with their new conditions where they had to work too much. Consequently technological progress has an obvious end, namely when the human needs that motivated this progress get satisfied and the motivation disappears (Werthmann et al., 2016; p.99). However, as Gregory Bateson pointed out one of the essential minimal characteristics of a system is that it shows self-correctiveness in the direction of homeostasis and/or in the direction of runaway (Bateson 1990; p.490). To me it seems that currently the system shows self-correctiveness in the direction of runaway. Therefore considering we are living outside of the ‘paradise niche’ and that our ecological rights to have a large individual territory is increasingly violated in modern densely populated societies I wonder how human needs can even get satisfied allowing the motivation for progress to end (Werthmann et al., 2016; p.95)? Especially since there seem to be many additional and growing causes for negative emotions including our deranged cellular milieu as a consequence of our lifestyle including a poor diet, poor water intake, poor exposure to sunlight, lack of fresh air, sedentary behaviour, insufficient rest and sleep and relentless emotional stress.  

Best regards,

Arie

[Anastassia Makarieva]

Dear Arie,

My view is as follows. Human needs remain unsatisfied, and you rightly point out, increasingly so. The BRE point is that technological progress can no longer satisfy them. It is in this sense that there has been an end to it.

Originally, technological progress has existed at the expense of an exponential growth -- everybody wanted to have a new device that saved them from hard labor. More and more of that. But at a certain point there were no longer such new devices delivered by the technological progress. So to speak, everybody (who can pay) has a car and a washing machine.

After this point, a technological regress started. To make people pay, other people began to produce less and less durable things. Because if they did not, nobody would buy their stuff. For example, the fridge in my kitchen is fifty years old. And it works fine. If all fridges were like that, and all people were like me, the fridge production industry would have quickly collapsed.

Now nobody knows where to invest money, because nothing delivers. And nothing delivers because nothing useful and new can be invented. Apart, of course, from the medicine -- as our genetic load increases, we become sicker and sicker and invest more and more into medicine. Soon all people will become doctors to some degree, because everybody will be ill.

In this situation progress, if it is to occur, will not be technological. It will come via conceptual understanding and thinking, and subsequent re-organization of the society, rather than, as before, via catering to the obvious and immediate human needs. That type of progress is over.

Best wishes,

Anastassia

четверг, 26 ноября 2020 г. в 16:14:41 UTC+3, ap.vanduijn:

[Anastassia Makarieva]

Dear colleagues,

In the context of discussing how to organize our society such that human inherent aspirations as a species are satisfied, I would like to bring to your attention two things.

The first one is a recently published book by Dr. Christian Klee, with whom Victor and I have corresponded for a long while discussing BRE.

The book is in German and discusses the immorality of the humanity as an obstacle for organizing a better world.

Und sagt nicht, ihr hättet nichts gewusst! Wie Unmoral unserer Zukunft bedroht by Dr. Christian Klee

https://www.amazon.de/s?k=christian+klee&i=stripbooks&__mk_de_DE=%C3%85M%C3%85%C5%BD%C3%95%C3%91&crid=6MJUO90KAX1R&sprefix=christian+Klee%2Cstripbooks%2C233&ref=nb_sb_ss_i_1_14

Chapter 4 is considering mankind’s immorality concerning biosphere and climate change. Subchapter 4.1.4 refers to  the findings oft the BR-concept as to be the only real measure to apply against the looming climate disaster.

The second one is a collection of ideas presented by Prof. Wilhelm Vossenkuhl, emeritus professor of philosophy, the Munich Ludwig-Maximilian´s University (LMU) on a virtual seminar held by German colleagues in Munich "Water for All and for Everything?!". A few comments of mine follow.

1.       We do not want to live in a world in which the goods of nature are used, without real needs, for mass consumption, and the water is wasted in factory farming (washing away manure with drinking water; water consumption for sugar beets, contamination of groundwater through fracking, etc.).
To bring up another issue: Even if combustion engines may soon no longer be on the roads, the average temperature may rise anyway in a few decades by 2 degrees Celsius. CO2 is not primarily and above all not solely to be blamed for Climate change (nitrous oxide, methane from factory farming). The awareness of the causes of climate change is certainly important. But advertising and promotion of e-mobility gives the impression that with buying an e-car the world already be saved. The Federal Government promotes with its funding policy to this superstition.

2.       We should learn to understand nature in its intrinsic value. We pride ourselves on knowing the laws of nature, but we do not understand nature by itself. Scientism, which is already taught in school, prevents us from understanding nature because it seems that it is enough to understand chemistry, physics and biology. Understanding nature cannot be gained by natural science nor by nostalgic feelings for beautiful landscapes (caravanning). It requires understanding gained by quiet touching, looking and observing, as Goethe described it in his "Metamorphosis of Plants". At all schools plant and animal sciences must be taught by walking into nature. With physics and chemistry the understanding of nature is only formally scientifically promoted. There is much talk in advertising about our senses, but we do not care for them (sight, hearing, smell, taste, touch), therefore they wither (with effective tutoring through the Internet). Advertising gives the impression that our senses serve primarily for sexual purposes. Sexism is a mostly well hidden advertising medium.

3.       There is much talk of sealing the soil, but it sealing goes on, unlimited (e.g., by huilding up industrial plants and supermarkets on the edge of the towns and villages). Floods are the result. Homeowners pave the few square meters of their front gardens (misunderstood as rock gardens) to park their cars.

4.       Often (new) ethics is demanded for something that just goes wrong or has already gone wrong, as if there were no moral standards yet. This is like calling for (new) traffic rules when one has taken the right of way from another and caused an accident. Since ancient times moral standards have been formulated. The call for ethics is very often hypocritical and moralistic (for instance "everybody to nourish himself vegan, in order to end the mass animal husbandry"). Behind moralistic demands is often a narrow idea of the cause of damage, but mostly a self-satisfied, self-righteous attitude or resentment (those who are envied are belittled). Moralism is a very bad morality because it puts others in duty, but not oneself. Moralism is encouraged by the sense of entitlement. There is talk of human rights, rarely of human duties. If rights are not matched by duties, they promote egoism and self-righteousness.

5.       We want (we should) live in a world in which we serve both nature and people, and care for us and all with whom we live. The justice that we should respect is a duty that we have. We should do what we owe ourselves, our own nature and the entire nature. In order to understand all this, we need - first of all - not sciences, but an alert conscience. The care for us and others is a responsibility for the future.

AM's comments:

" Understanding nature cannot be gained by natural science nor by nostalgic feelings for beautiful landscapes (caravanning). It requires understanding gained by quiet touching, looking and observing, as Goethe described it in his "Metamorphosis of Plants"."

I learnt from Victor that nature and science are not separable. When science is separated from nature, it ceases to be science. So I somewhat disagree with the above commentary. Natural science is the only way we humans can understand nature and engrain this knowledge into our culture. "Quiet touching, looking and observing" is absolutely necessary but not enough. Moreover, for most people there is very little to observe. They live in an urban environment where a few trees could sometimes count as a local forest.

"At all schools plant and animal sciences must be taught by walking into nature."

Victor's first book about birds was by D.N. Kaigorodov https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dmitri_Nikiforowitsch_Kaigorodow a prominent Russian scholar of nature who was also a passionate popularizer of its importance. Kaigorodov, drawing ideas from a German scholar F. Jungles championed a school course in biology/ecology where kids studied natural conglomerates like river, pond, forest, meadow in their integrity, via excursions into those areas. It was officially established for some time, but then criticized and dismissed. I see urbanization as one of the obvious reasons. There are no ponds and rivers for everybody, it is a sad fact. We need to take into account that if all people go to excursions to a forest now, this forest will cease to exist as a regulatory system.

"Behind moralistic demands is often a narrow idea of the cause of damage, but mostly a self-satisfied, self-righteous attitude or resentment (those who are envied are belittled). Moralism is a very bad morality because it puts others in duty, but not oneself. Moralism is encouraged by the sense of entitlement" 

I agree with this 100%. But this is what became clear to me as I grew older. For young people some sharpness in opinions may not have anything bad behind it. They are honestly radical.

On the other hand, I would also like to say that one of the sad features of our time is that reasonable and brave thoughts can be heard from emeritus professors mostly. Indeed, they are independent. Young people today have to comply strictly to the mainstream. Because otherwise they will not even have money to pay their publication fees.

Best wishes,

Anastassia

четверг, 26 ноября 2020 г. в 16:57:44 UTC+3, Anastassia Makarieva:

[Arie Pieter van Duijn]

Dear Anastassia,

First of all thank you for sharing your view. Following your last messages I have continued to develop my ideas with regards to the problems of global civilization and its intimate links to human health and the health of the biosphere. Besides the insights of you and Victor, I'm trying to link this together using the cybernetic theories of Ashby and Bateson. In case of the latter in particular how a loss of flexibility (incl. the degradation of BRE) is impacting human health and civilization/the technosphere as a whole.

In the meantime I have a question with regards to Ross Ashby's 'Law of Requisite Variety'. This law says that "the more information that a system can process by increasing variety, the more the system can cope with information at the boundary between two loosely coupled systems, and the greater overall control it has." I immediately related this to the biodiversity of ecological systems and BRE. However, in BRE (p.77-78) you are pretty clear that "an increase in species diversity does not enhance stability of local ecosystems." I have to say that I find stability an awkward concept. For example, I don't think that when Edward Wilson, that you refer to in the same section, refers to a stable local environment he means the same thing as you when you mention stability. So I'm a bit confused with regards to the use of stability in that particular section. For now my interest is in BRE only. You wrote: "low population numbers and, consequently, higher species diversity, can be sustained only in a mild environment that can be maintained by the biota in a stable state with only small fluctuations, e.g. the tropics." However, when I try to understand this, it sounds a little bit like a chicken or the egg situation. To me it seems that despite comparatively high annual values of net radiation at the Earth's surface, the tropical environment is mild because of the successful BRE. John Naughton paraphrased Ashby in an online blog by writing "if a system is to be able to deal successfully with the diversity of challenges that its environment produces, then it needs to have a repertoire of responses which is (at least) as nuanced as the problems thrown up by the environment." So my question is, could it be that the tropical environment is only mild because the tropical ecological communities have in their high species biodiversity a sizable "repertoire of responses" that under normal circumstances helps them to exercise greater control and thus to maintain such a mild environment? 

Best regards,

Arie

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Biotic Regulation of the Environment" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to biotic-regulat...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/biotic-regulation/cccfd62b-d097-4f80-b82b-5f49d5c7007en%40googlegroups.com.

--

Arie Pieter
M +31 (0)6 22 06 69 72
Skype ap_vanduijn

"Ambulator nascitur, non fit" (Thoreau 1854)