Exnihilo2 wrote:A more genuine way of being human would not involve the destruction of both humanity and the earth via the aforementioned industrial daemons. That is not to say that technology should be scrapped per se; merely that mankind needs to hold itself accountable for the consequences of its choices, instead of pretending that there are no consequences.
I agree that we shouldn’t pretend that there are no consequences. But how are we supposed to hold ourselves accountable? Should people go to jail? Should people adopt earth religions? Should people advocate technologies that are not profitable (and will have minimal effect on global temperature)? It seems that the political solution always involves wealth redistribution of some sort.
I understand that there are cynical and nihilistic people, and that they latch onto Titanic as a metaphor to exemplify their cynicism about Western Civilization. But as such it is an ironic and disingenuous metaphor. Rather than being a critique of West. Civ., it serves instead as a symbol of the sinking hopes of people who are still to this day reaping the benefits of a society that they perpetually imagine to be sinking. You are correct to point out the parallel to the Tower of Babel myth, which is an even more nonsensical techno-hubris metaphor. Diversity of language isn’t a curse. It didn’t stop us from building ever higher structures. The fear of Heavenly judgment for aspiring to great heights—or crossing great depths—is characteristic of a certain type of person: pessimistic, cynical, nihilistic. It is not our endeavors or our society which are nihilistic, it is the people who are easily discouraged and prone to see failure despite millions of counter-examples of success (i.e. all the literal buildings and ships we’ve built since). If this one building and this one ship can be metaphors for some people, then the millions of other buildings/ships can be metaphors for everyone else. Going by sheer numbers, rather than symbolic scariness, I think the latter group has the most accurate metaphors. Bad news always gets the biggest headlines, but this doesn’t mean the headlines are an accurate picture of reality.Exnihilo2 wrote:A ship is an isolated container of the civilization that generates it, so that it may easily be said to represent that culture. In this particular case, Titanic the “unsinkable ship” was supposed to represent the technological and cultural zenith of Western Civilization; that it foundered on an unseen catastrophe (almost like a floating Tower of Babel) has always been seen as an apt metaphor (or even prophecy) for the collision of Western Civilization with the unseen catastrophe of World War I. In ways which are too numerous to mention, that war was a shattering event for Western Civilization, in that many of the cultural pillars of that society were demolished as much as was the physical landscape of Europe. A good exposition of this can be found in the book Verdun: The Death of Glory. Much of the optimism and faith in progress that existed in Europe were permanently lost, and in a sense Western Civilization has been little more than a foundering hulk adrift on nihilistic seas ever since.
While it’s true that many great civilizations have ended, and our own dependency upon technology makes us vulnerable, it is also true that the alternative lifestyle has suffered far more (though not as noticeable) defeats. Civilizations suffer setbacks, and yet we have more civilization than ever. Meanwhile, tribal, nomadic, primitive lifestyles have shown no corresponding resilience, for their numbers continually dwindle (even while humanity’s population has exploded). Clearly, one type of human lifestyle has succeeded over the other, despite the string catastrophes and setbacks. The failures and setbacks of civilization may look more dramatic to us—and they do make bigger headlines--but this is only because headlines are things that civilizations create. There are relatively fewer survivors around to mourn the loss of all the individual primitive cultures that have failed in less dramatic ways. So despite our amazing success, we are left with an impression of failure because, ironically, human culture has survived with enough continuity to repeat these tales of disaster in the form of convenient, simplistic metaphors. It’s as if the Titanic is itself delivering the newspapers which carry the headline of its own sinking.Exnihilo2 wrote:We are living in a climactic epoch that is considered unusually mild and stable. Prior to 1830 there was a long period of climactic instability stretching back to the Black Death that led to many periods of famine and pestilence and what can only be called “de-civilization.” There are also other periods of widespread catastrophe that are known both historically and archaeologically such as that which ended the Minoan civilization and severely affected Egypt and the Near East at the same time. And going back 250MYA, the Permian mass-extinction is generally understood as one of the most complete in the history of life on earth, and was triggered by a shift in earth’s temperature of about 10 degrees Celsius over thousands of years. I think prolonged comfort has brought a failure of imagination about the potential for catastrophe and our vulnerability to it. For instance, you may not be aware that thanks to our industrial efficiency there is currently 3 days of food on store shelves and in transit at any one time. Anything (such as a pandemic or broad natural disaster) that interrupted the chain of production and distribution for longer than that could lead to a complete collapse of the socioeconomic system. Elements of our civilization would no doubt continue, but to say that our civilization would survive is like saying that Minoan civilization or Roman civilization has survived to the present day. From the point of view of those societies, those social orders were destroyed.
Far from a failure of imagination for the scope of catastrophe, I’m acutely aware of it. No earth-bound culture will survive in the end. No amount of conservation or earth-worship or holding ourselves accountable will prevent the extinction of humankind. The only thing that will preserve us beyond the fate of our planet is an acceleration of technology and a colonization of the galaxy. Thus, it is not merely ironic to worry about technology as the problem of human survival, it is a self-destructive fear that will lead to our extinction. We have to overcome the earth if we want to survive. Worrying about global warming and driving hybrid cars really is polishing the brass on the Titanic. The earth is a sinking ship, no matter how shiny we make it. We need more lifeboats, not fewer ships.
The Titanic is a better metaphor for nature, than for civilization. For all their heart-warming naivete, the Na’vi could not stop a comet from hitting their planet. Hopefully, we’ll soon be able to destroy one of these interplanetary icebergs. And if not, hopefully we’ll have spread beyond this single ship.
Exnihilo2 wrote:Actually I would take issue with the idea that alienation and cynicism are caused by naivete. Instead I would posit that they are separate but related cultural developments that depend upon the fundamental structure of society. In the case of alienation, it is a consequence of the replacement of relatively sedentary rural societies with many degrees of relatedness experienced by individuals within the community. We are talking about the end of communities of real persons and their replacement by communities of abstract, isolated individuals and deconstructed nuclear families. Where once your neighbor was a family with a longstanding relationship to your family, so that they would probably treat your offspring with a desirable degree of protection and guidance if needed; now that same neighbor is unknown to you and presented to your children as an example of “stranger danger” to be avoided. Alienation is nothing more than feeling a) threatened by the average member of society and b) disconnected from them in terms of accountability (in either direction). When we are all strangers, no one will step up and say “that is wrong,” they will simply obey the herd.
I think we idealize the “good old days” because we have the fortune of not having lived them. Anyone who thinks that rural life was sedentary has never worked on a farm. Backbreaking labor from dawn to dusk doesn’t allow for this wonderful interpersonal relationships that you might imagine it produces. I grew up in the woods, performing survival tasks with my family and neighbors (cutting down trees for firewood, collecting water from the spring, hunting, farming, building shelter, raising livestock, etc.). My family is now split up, and I have no relationship with those neighbors. Sure, this is anecdotal evidence. But I think the evidence for the opposite conclusion is even flimsier. It is an idealization like the “noble savage.” Many people of primitive cultures lived degrading, arduous lives of back breaking labor (often slave labor), in which women and children were second-class “citizens,” and life was short, nasty, and painful.
If you do not know your neighbors, that’s your fault (or your choice, depending on how you look at it). I’m friends with the neighbors who are cool, and shun that neighbors who are assholes. Thankfully, in this society, I have that choice. I can form communities with like-minded individuals (like fans of SRD), instead of being forced into communities of people with whom I have little in common. Our relationships are no longer forced upon us by the necessity of survival tasks, but instead created by choice and common interests, whether it’s the Boy Scouts, Little League, church, fan clubs, advocacy groups, etc. Rather than alienation, our society provides us freedom from relationships of necessity, and allows us opportunity to shape our social lives according to our interests and passions. We’re not yoked to the same plow with people we don’t like. It’s ironic that you consider our current society as more conducive to “going along with the herd.” Never before in our history have people (especially those who feel like “misfits” or “outcasts”) been able to reach out beyond their neighborhoods to form niche groups with like-minded “misfits.” Gay people used to be stoned to death. Now we’re debating their right to marry. Black people used to be slaves, now one is running this society of “alienation.” Women used to be property, now we consider it a crisis if they make a few pennies on the dollar less than men. Clearly, there was greater alienation of whole races and an entire gender before our modern society produced the luxury that allowed people to view their (relatively) minor misfortunes as some sort of Fall from an agrarian Eden in the idealized past.
Though my life isn’t lollipops and rainbows, I wouldn’t characterize it as “alienated and cynical.” And I’d wager that despite the forced dependency upon people who happen to be living near them, many people in primitive societies still felt alienation and cynicism (when they weren’t worrying about the many dangers which gave them a 35 year life expectancy and killed most of their children before the age of 2).
I don’t understand this “lack of accountability.” Please explain. How are we not accountable? What kind of change in the fundamental structure of society are you suggesting would lead to greater accountability? What is “more grounded?” I already have hope that social progress is not only possible, but in fact actual. Do you feel otherwise?Exnihilo2 wrote:Cynicism is founded on this protracted lack of accountability, in that the antisocial tendencies latent in any society are no longer impeded by the prevalence of personal accountability, and are instead allowed to accumulate for the advantages they give in the absence of social sanction. Ultimately the only cure is the cultivation of a more grounded form of social existence combined with the shared hope that social progress is possible.
I'll come back when I've found the cliffnotes version of this discussion 
) Well worth the time to read the previous posts, very informative. I just have a couple comments:
