Did things used to be better?

[Daniel Ross]

For some years now I have been sort of a Luddite. Occasionally I get into arguments about this with people, and hit a wall when they accuse me of dreaming of a non-existant pre industrial romantic ideal. So I was wondering can anyone here provide some evidence that things used to be better?

My views on this, as many views on complex matters can be, have been cobbled together somewhat haphazardly from experiences, evidence and various intuitions.

It began just over 5 years ago when I began an undergraduate course at a supposedly fine British university. It was maybe the most obvious time ever to be a Luddite. In the space of a few months filesharing and social networking had gone from being the preserve of a few nerds to being totally ubiquitous. 5 years prior a laptop had been a rare luxury for an undergraduate; affordable only to the rich for writing their essays on. Now it was very much essential. I watched those around me spend a great deal of their waking lives in their bedrooms, downloading films, clicking aimlessly on facebook, playing video games, and watching anonymously hardcore pornography; all of this was an easy alternative to talking to people they didn't really know. Facebook became the new social reality, breeding a new kind of vanity and self consciousness never before seem; literally 2-dimensional. I wondered how many similar revolutions had gone before,  which I had not been present to witness.

I read a few Kurt Vonnegut essays, and suddenly I was seeing the world through a Luddite's eyes; half convinced (which is a long way to be convinced of such a radical idea) that society could not cure itself of its ills until it returned to a more basic, primitive way of life.

But is there any evidence? you need evidence; one to prove to others that you are right; but more importantly to not actually be wrong yourself! Are these just the broodings of a dissaffected boy; or the naiive romanticisms of an idealist? Part of me blames not technology but the pathological agencies that wield it.

Or have I got it all wrong? is progress simply gruelling and problematic; afterall technology is an attempt by humans to solve problems. You see a problem and solve it. Thats natural. Thats right. Perhaps.

[Paul Kingsnorth]

Incidentally, I agree that Ludda looks great. I don't doubt you'll get a lot of interest. There are far more people who want to do something like this than there are places to do it in - here in the UK at least. Perhaps we can change that.

[Andy Sheridan]

Hi Paul,

Is the charge of anthropomorphism a response to what I have written? If so, would it be possible to elaborate on this?

I do agree that there was unlikely an ideal time in history that was free from domination. Although there was certainly a time when humans were kept more 'in balance' with nature than today due to the lack of ubiquity in our control of natural systems. Prieur is probably also correct pointing to the diversity of human tribal groups, now and throughout history, meaning that we can't tar them all with the same brush of benignity in social and environmental relations. (I still haven't finished reading this essay as yet, btw).

Similarly to Wolfbird, I would argue that the rabbit as an invasive species within certain ecosystems is a product of human efforts to control reality, just as the Himalayan Balsam and Rhododendron, which I spend a considerable amount of time eradicating from the woodlands and country parks around Greater Manchester, is a destructive product of human efforts to shape the world to fit our desires. As you are aware, all these species have their niche in particular ecosystems, where they do live in balance, or equilibrium, with their environment, if you wish to use a more dynamic term.

Incidentally, I was following the rabbit example on from Vera's post. However this does further expand the case for the relationship between order and chaos that I have been stating.

Also, just as there are animals that live in balance in their native environment, so there are some humans groups who do also.

I agree that domination exists within other species of the animal kingdom, and this can clearly have an impact upon those who end up worse off. And I also feel that we humans being are less exceptional than we give ourselves credit for. Although I do think we have a greater awareness of being than other animals, even if this awareness is distorted most of the time. This is one of our own unique adaptations, just as birds have wings that enable them to fly without the use of destructive machines. It is this distorted awareness of ours that gives rise to our egocentrism and anthropocentrism. Yet I believe we have the capacity to see the world with much greater clarity, and this corresponds with a dissolution of our egocentric and anthropocentric beliefs. If we can learn to surrender, we can return to our original nature; the pure natural awareness of being, unclouded by dualistic beliefs of self and reality... ultimate freedom...

As for the future, all I can say is that I honestly do not know how it will turn out. I definitely think that things are going to get much worse. I don't think civilisation as it stands will continue, and I don't really want it to. I would love for a shift in our culture to take place, one that breaks down the divide between humans and the rest of nature, and which values individual autonomy combined with community over collective control.

I like the consideration of symbiotic relationships, Wolfbird. As of yet, this is not something I have contemplated in much detail, in terms of the ideas that I have laid out. This is something I definitely must consider further!

Anyways, I'm tired now and, as much as I'd love to expand further on some of those last paragraphs, my powers of thought are starting to fail me. So, with that, I bid you all good night :o)

[Paul Kingsnorth]

Hi Andy,

Well, it wasn't a 'charge', just an observation! You wrote of 'the more perverse forms of domination that we see played out between humans, or between humans the rest of nature' and I'm not sure this is true. I don't think humans are any more perverse or dominant than anything else. We have just managed to take our domination to another level. If rabbits had invented the car, the vaccine and the nuclear bomb they may have created just as unfair and unequal a world as ours, or a worse one.

The thing is that when we claim humans as worse than other creatures, it's a perverse form of anthropomorphism: it singles us out as unique. In some areas we clearly are, but I think our dominance, our aggression and our will to power is a function of being a predatory animal on a tough planet. It's what successful species have to do to survive. This, perhaps, is the serpent in the garden. There was a never a peaceful paradise, because in order to survive in a food chain you can't afford to be peaceful - or at least, if you are peaceful you have to be small, cunning and very good at hiding. Jeffers is quite good on this:

What but the wolf’s tooth whittled so fine
The fleet limbs of the antelope?
What but fear winged the birds, and hunger
Jewelled with such eyes the great goshawk’s head?
Violence has been the sire of all the world’s values.

Who would remember Helen’s face
Lacking the terrible halo of spears?
Who formed Christ but Herod and Caesar,
The cruel and bloody victories of Caesar?
Violence, the bloody sire of all the world’s values.

Bleak, but with a fair bit of truth in it. As for the rabbits - yes, you're quite right on this, and so is wolfbird. It was the Normans who brought the rabbits here. They're not 'native.' But the rabbits are just doing what they do - they are only 'in balance' in their 'natural' environment because a lot of them get killed off by disease there, or eaten. Similarly the himalayan balsam, or the sycamore or the rhododendron. Give them a predator-free environment and they take it over, all for themselves. Just as we have done.

I used to be quite into the kind of 'conservation' that seeks to get rid of 'invasive species' but now I'm less sure. This seems to me now to be a kind of conservatism: an attempt to preserve ecosystems at the point where humans came to like them. Similarly, the search for a peaceful past, with lots of contentment and no domination, seems to be a search for a world that has never been. Change has always been the only constant.

I'm quite conservative myself in some ways. Part of me is afraid of change, part of me welcomes it. But it's coming anyway, whatever I think. We can't get rid of that balsam now (and I rather like it anyway) anymore than we can get rid of climate change or the dominance within ourselves. Which is not to say we can't minimise these things, or understand them, or work with or around them. But they are part of what makes the world what it is. Much of our challenge now is to come to terms with all sorts of change we don't want or like.

[Daniel Ross]

Is there any chance people can be a bit more succinct?

Paul I'm not a primitivist. I am more like what Ran Prieur calls in his essay a "historical primitivist". We can look at the past though, and speculate with reasons that things in some respects at least, may have been better. I'm not sure what you mean by "life on earth is exceptionally harsh". Exceptional to what? strikes me as a bit pessimistic.

All this said I am not advocating we start to emulate the past. But as a historian, you can surely recognise that looking at the past can be indispensably instructive to understanding our situation.

I'm not sure if its not a useful question to ask either. I've just started reading the "Red Tory" by Philip Blond. He starts with the supposition, actually things really did used to be better. It seems a fairly relevant question to me at this point.

Wolfbird going back to your pessimism about what we can do. 100 years ago the Kaisers ruled Germany. 150 years ago womens suffrage was inconceivable to many in Britain. We don't know what will happen- but it seems to me winning the argument is a good first step...

p.s. everyones saying antropomorphic- are we meaning antropocentric?

[Paul Kingsnorth]

Hi Dan,

Yes, anthropocentric, of course. Silly me.

As a historian, the past fascinates me. Yes, I believe much of it used to be better. I'm not yet 40, but I can remember a time when things I valued in the country I live in were, in my view, better than they are now. 100 years ago, many things were better. Other things were worse. it's tricky.

I'm currently deep in the Anglo-Saxon age, for a book I'm doing. The warrior romantic within me would much rather have lived in those times, harsh though they were. But that's projection, to some degree. I can never know what it was like to experience that. I have spent time with hunter gatherers in today's world. An amazing life: hard, but deeply connected to the land, to their tribe, to their ancestors. An incredible thing, and in many ways much better than the atomised consumer desert that we have created. But I can't get there: the barriers are huge. I have to be here, now, much as I dislike much of it.

I suppose what we can do is look at some aspects of some pasts that we think were good, ask where they went and then ask if we can get them back. That usually, in my view, takes us via the problem of capitalism to the problem of industrialism itself. I don't know what to do about this. The trouble is - most people think it's great. They'd rather sit round a telly than a fire. Until we can't make tellies anymore, I don't know how to change that.

Succinctly: I spend a lot of my time thinking about how things used to be better in many ways. Write books about it too, and how to bring some of them back. I think small victories are possible. But the Machine is the problem ...

[Andy Sheridan]

Ah, anthropocentric! That exaplains my confusion. Still, I don't think of my ideas as anthropocenric. Although some of them may still be unconsciously tinged by anthropocentric assumptions in some way.

It's not that I consider humans as more perverse, but the levels of control. As in the saying, 'condemn the act, not the person'. Maybe, perversion is the wrong term. Instead, 'extreme' may have been more acceptable. Although I have thought in the past that many forms of complex technology are a perversion of nature.

What you have expressed, Paul, about this type of behaviour of humans as being a function of our survival instinct, is very much in line with my own view. I have long regarded the human ego as synonymous with our survival instinct. It occurred to me a few years back that the process of the evolution of life on this planet, leading to the emergence of a being capable of destroying or consuming the planet itself, whether human or nuclear bomb weilding rabbits, may well have been inevitable from the start. In other words, where we are today, on the brink of climate chaos at the hands of the human species, may well have been inevitable from the moment life first appeared on this planet all those billions of years ago.

Like the analogy of the flame I used previously, the very nature of life has been to maintain its own existence through the consumption of its environment. Life has also been driven to continually transcend the constraints that had previously been imposed upon its survival, through evolution. This has led to evermore complex forms of life, that live within an evermore complex and resilient web of life, and ultimately to one of the most complex systems in existence, the human brain. This drive

to survive, to consume, and to overcome limits has continued to find expression through the human ego, which seems to obsessed with the need to gain evermore control over, and bring its conception of order to, the reality in which it finds itself. Which, as I have stated many times now, results in the very problems we were trying to escape from in the first place. We might think of ourselves as smart, and as possessing the gift of free will, however I don't think we are as free as we give ourselves credit for. This world we have created is the product of our will to survive, of the human ego that is driven by overblown fears and desires that themselves derive from our illusory dualistic perceptions of reality; the dichotomy of self and other, life and death, society and nature, order and chaos etc. This world we have created, a world out of balance, is a product of nature itself, through the survival instinct that has been passed onto us from all our ancestor, leading back to the first single celled organisms that colonised the oceans. Life can only exist as a result of a paradox of creation and destruction; its very existence means that it holds the seeds of its own destruction.

Of course, it's only a theory. It's quite possible that, even if the chaos ahead brought about the end of all human beings, life might well continue into long afterwards, as it has done following previous mass extinctions. Although, as James Lovelock has pointed out, its uncertain that life will be able to revive itself this time, as the sun is much hotter than it was previously. Who knows?

Yes, I have wondered about the conservation of native species through the eradication of invasive species. Nature is dynamic and always in flux, and When looked at from geological time, the idea of 'native' species is called into question. This is particularly the case in the UK and other parts of the northern hemisphere, where following the end of the last glacial period the land was quickly colonised by species from other parts of the world through the gradual process of succession. And why

should some types of colonisation be differentiated from others and accepted as right or wrong; i.e. the difference between a plant whose seed was brought in the faeces of a migratory bird and, say, the sweet chestnut tree brought over by the Romans?

I guess it's yet another expression of the human ego's need for control over its reality, but this time from the other extreme. Rather than attempting to shape the world into something new, it is attempting to prevent the flow of change that is an integral and necessary aspect of nature. Although, on the other hand, there is the idea of a 'climax community' where particular ecosystems have reached their equilibrium, which is threatened by the invasion of such species as balsam and rhododendron, that out-compete many of the other species that had once contributed to the equilibrium of that particular community. Balsam, for example, crowds out many of our 'native' wildflowers, a number of which are key species in the survival of other native species such as certain butterflies, which are important pollinators. And as the knock on effect takes place, equilibrium is lost, and and the resilience of that particular community is weakened as biodiversity crumbles. And as the the resilience of these smaller scale ecosystems is weakened, so the resilience of the global ecosystem is weakened, making it more susceptible to the effects of climate change.

I do believe we can overcome the dominance within ourselves. This has been the project of many buddhists, hindus, taoist, christian mystics, and the like, for thousands of years. Whether this will ever become a more widescale endeavour is another question.

This takes me onto the ideas put forward by Wolfbird. Wolfbird, what you have said in relation to the 'mapping, overlaid upon reality' is also in agreement with my own views. In fact I use a very similar term to describe the same phenomenon: 'a mind-made model of reality'. From birth we gradually build up our subjective models of the world, which consist of perceptions, ideas, concepts, beliefs and the stories composed of these elements, and we become attached to models which we have come to believe as truth. These mind-made models, which are like 'bubbles' that we walk around with, correspond to what the buddhists describe as the 'relative' aspect of reality, in comparison to 'absolute' or 'ultimate reality', beyond the confines of the human mind. Our 'bubbles' of reality have a tendency to come into conflict with the 'ultimate reality' beyond them, as well as with others whose bubbles are different from our own.

Wolfbird, what you have described in relation to a diverse mutually beneficial agrarian system is very much similar to the ideas of permaculture. As Bill Mollison put it, you don't have a slug problem in your garden, but a duck deficiency! Of course, I'm sure you, and other here, are aware of Permaculture. Personally, I do think this must form an important part of a viable future. My wish for the the world, for a shift in our culture, involves people turning back to the land and using and reclaiming their food sovereignty, using systems such as this. A significant decentralisation of the production of food (as well as all the other materials and 'commodities' we need to survive). This doesn't necessarily mean the end for larger scale farmers, but that we no longer depend on them they way we presently do; i.e. We don't keep all our eggs in one basket.

Yes, I watched that BBC program about the birth of civilisation at the weekend too! Very interesting. I don't have TV either. Just watch the stuff that interests me, usually documentaries such as this, via the internet.

I'd love to see how the Celts and other peoples of these Islands lived a couple of millenia back. It is now thought that the Celts, as part of the Indo-European family, had much more in common with the ancient Vedic cultures of India than the romantic ideas commonly handed down to us. There are apparently many parallels between them.

Sorry if this has not been overly concise, Daniel, it's quite hard to achieve, especially with so many ideas flying around, and people to respond to! I was going to expand further on a few points, but I decided not to in the end, conscious of how much I'd already written!

[Andy Sheridan]

Also another good iplayer documentary on at the moment:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00vspkd/David_Attenboroughs_F...

[PHIL FOGGITT]

Just spotted your comments Paul and Daniel and my thoughts broadly coincidebr />
When I was younger (and to some extent still now) I used to hope there would be some cataclysmic event that brought down the economy and the capitalist system- partly because I felt I react better to crises. So much of life now has become tame, tedious, repetitive and predictable. We are creating uniformity everywhere, eliminating real "individuals" and replacing with clones and ugly people. I agree with you about life in past ages-- yes, there was pain, illness etc but at least people were in touch with a genuine reality- now we pretend to live--( and of course TV involves watching others pretending to be real..!)
I think we are desperate now for quality, genuine variety, simplicity and just to be in contact with untainted nature
I agree about TV also-- in the 70's (I think) a book came out called 4 Arguments for the Elimination of TV- Jerry Mander-- this was years ahead of its time but I see he has since started writing in a similar vein about the Internet.... I believe its the most radical thing most of us can easily do- elminate the TV in our lives and encourage others to do the same
And while you're at it- if you haven't read it- get David Edward's "Free to be Human" which points out how warped a reality we have come to acccept, cortsey of the capitalist machine.
But as regards what we can practically do to change the broader situation I personally feel the need to create an alternative reality in the form of a community living as simple a life as possible-although I value an intelectual outlet such as DM, I also need to be rooted in the soil- in the form of growing food, making compost etc.... ie it may not be the perfect solution- but surely the first step is not to be part of the problem..
I also was optimistic about an organisation called Parrallel Community which was formed a couple of years ago- but has since failed to develop in any particularly constructive way- to my thinking. But I think this is the right approach- if we can't change people or the broad concensus (and I have certainly done my bit over the years towards this end- with EcologyP, Green Party, FoE etc)then perhaps we should just go about creating a parralel reality and hope others will in time, see the light also.







Paul Kingsnorth said:

Hi Dan,

Yes, anthropocentric, of course. Silly me.

As a historian, the past fascinates me. Yes, I believe much of it used to be better. I'm not yet 40, but I can remember a time when things I valued in the country I live in were, in my view, better than they are now. 100 years ago, many things were better. Other things were worse. it's tricky.

I'm currently deep in the Anglo-Saxon age, for a book I'm doing. The warrior romantic within me would much rather have lived in those times, harsh though they were. But that's projection, to some degree. I can never know what it was like to experience that. I have spent time with hunter gatherers in today's world. An amazing life: hard, but deeply connected to the land, to their tribe, to their ancestors. An incredible thing, and in many ways much better than the atomised consumer desert that we have created. But I can't get there: the barriers are huge. I have to be here, now, much as I dislike much of it.

I suppose what we can do is look at some aspects of some pasts that we think were good, ask where they went and then ask if we can get them back. That usually, in my view, takes us via the problem of capitalism to the problem of industrialism itself. I don't know what to do about this. The trouble is - most people think it's great. They'd rather sit round a telly than a fire. Until we can't make tellies anymore, I don't know how to change that.

Succinctly: I spend a lot of my time thinking about how things used to be better in many ways. Write books about it too, and how to bring some of them back. I think small victories are possible. But the Machine is the problem ...

[Glenn "Lee" Howden]

@ Phil Foggitt

I like your parallel reality idea. Of course I would, I've been living in one for a long time.

[Andy Sheridan]

Yes, I also like the idea of a 'parallel reality'. This is something I have considered as the way forward also. I guess it's already underway with the number of intentional communities that have sprung up all over the place, such as tinkers bubble, or Ludda, which Vera is a part of. Definitely a difficult thing to do though, as such a community has to fit itself into a system that is ulimately as odds with it, placing upon it planning constraints, taxing, and other invasive procedures.

But I do think this is the way forwards. More action form the grass roots, with people reclaiming power and responsibility for themselves. I feel that eventually, once there is enough momentum, people will need to begin a form of civil disobedience whereby we begin to completely turn our backs on the system, toward these autonomous parallel realities, driven by new stories. It seems to me that this is the best way to create this culture shift that we all yearn for. Of course, the system won't let us do this without a fight, but would need to stand strong, like Gandhi did, and if there are enough people standing together on this, there is ultimately little we can do. This seems to me to be the best kind of revolution. Not a sudden violent destruction of the system, but a turning away from it en masse.

It is my belief that the reality out their in the world is a reflection of the reality within the human mind, because ultimately, there is no such dichotomy. The way to overcome the false, negative beliefs and emotions of our inner world is to face them and to realise that they have no power over us, that it was us who had given them power in the first place. And I feel this is this same for the outer world of systems and institutions of inequality and injustice. We need to realise that these phenomena are ultimately illusory, and in many ways a product of our imagination and beliefs. They seem to have power over us, but in reality it is we who give them power through conformity, apathy and fear.

You know, money is not real. It exists nowhere but in the imagination of the human mind. Just as in wolfbird's description of the model of a tree, as a brown stick with a green blob on it created in childhood, that we carry through the rest of our lives as the model for all phenomena that match it, only money has even less reality. Money, and the debt that goes with it, does not exists anywhere except in the collective beliefs of the masses, and yet the world is suffering from something that does not exist. I read a little more of Ran Prieur's website, which Paul posted, and he said that he liked the idea in Fight Club, of blowing up all the financial headquarters in order to reset the debt record. However, this simply would not need to happen. All we have to do, it so stop believing in it's false reality, en masse.

Of course such institions would not go without a fight, just as the emotions and false beliefs within us will not be tamed without first becoming more inflamed, sometimes even through an intense cathartic process. However, if we hold strong, then I think it is possible to find freedom from them. This, I believe, is what Gandhi did. I know, the results in India did not meet his ideal expectations, however he did, together with the people of India, overcome the most powerful empire in the world at that time.

[vera]

Been thinking of other examples of the retraction of technology. I think the rejection of usury/interest in the middle ages is one. And the Amish do it routinely... try a technology, then reject it if it harms the community, or put a fence around it (as in "can use neighbor's phone but not own one"). I think it used to be part of human communities, to evaluate their techniques and technologies on a regular basis.

Paul said a while back, that our cleverness and tech ability has outrun our ability to control it... I am not interested in controlling it. I am interested in using our cleverness and tech ability differently. As it keeps popping up within this discussion, as long as the Machine keeps cranking and clanking, we are stuck in more of the same. Or as wolfbird put it, what's to stop some bully psycho from invading and wrecking the whole thing (i.e. a good community)? In other words, the problem of power. Unless we deal with it, nothing we dream about will have a chance.

Paul wrote that our dominance, aggression, and will to power is part and parcel of a successful species... well, yes, but so is cooperation, and gentleness and will to symbiosis. I am concerned that folks often conflate the problem of violence (there will always be some as long as we need to eat others to live), and domination -- in the sense I and Mumford and others use domination -- which arose in recent history of sapiens and can be done away with. I think this domination is a systems problem.

Andy, I do not see any evidence that domination is a "human nature" problem that can be eradicated by religious practices, esp. religious practices of religions rooted in domination, such as the ones you cite. Not that I am knocking personal growth, but... well, I am always running into people who claim if we meditate enough we'll be able to build another world. Where the eff is the evidence for that?

There is a sort-of-primitivist community trying to form in England. I will write about it on my blog soon. To put down roots on a land somewhere not too far from Bristol.

[Paul Kingsnorth]

I'd be interested to see any reliable evidence (not supposition) that dominance 'arose in the recent history of sapiens.' Not saying this is not the case, but proving something like that is an enormous ask.

As is 'doing away with it', from here. I am very sceptical. Would like it to be true, but have not seen anything to convince me that it is.