Recent forest clearance in the Amazon basin has led to some unexpected discoveries. It had been thought that indigenous populations in the area had been limited in number and seperated into discrete family groups. However the forest clearance revealed large areas of archaeological remains. These had been spotted using satellite imagery on google earth, and were in the form of large regularly shaped ditched enclosures that suggested that the local population was far higher and much better organised than previously thought. What is also interesting is that carbon dating and pottery fragments have suggested that these societies were thriving 2000 years ago, and that high quality pottery use began far earlier than previously thought.
It is of further interest that these enclosures are very reminiscent of early bronze age european enclosures, and it appears that many of the burial practices may well have been similar with inhumation of cremated remains in burial jars. This is not to suggest that there is a common link at this period but it may suggest that the development of these ideas may have followed a parallel route, which combined with osteo-archaeology evidence from intact burials showing that the indigenous peoples were at least phenotypically similar to early europeans suggests a different migration path to that usually suggested for north american indigenous tribes which is that they are descended from mongolian/siberian types migrating across the Bering sea during an ice age.
It does make on wonder what the real migration paths were, and indeed whether intercontinental travel was established far earlier than previously postulated. Certainly when we consider the very early settlement of both Australia and Sounth America, now thought to be 60000 years ago at least, it lends weight to this argument. It will be interesting to see how these latest discoveries are interpreted and what difference if any this will make to our understanding of homo sapiens early history....
Thursday 30 June 2011
Wednesday 29 June 2011
Why neo-luddism is a waste of time and effort….
The Luddite marchers, toasted in song and story are a strong part of British history. The ability of our populous to take up arms against perceived oppression and to express their fears and concerns in a physical manner, whilst perhaps inappropriate when taken to extreme, but is non the less a function of the right of freedom of speech. The Luddites, followers of John Ludd were cottage industry weavers and carders who were unhappy with the development of mechanized industrial processes which were allowing large mill owners to bring weavers out of their own homes and into the first factories and production lines. There are two points here, firstly that the early industrialists had a tremendously patriarchal approach to their staff, often seeming to work on the principle that their workers were incapable of functioning without constant direction and input, and at times reducing them to components within the factory machine.
Around the UK certainly there is good evidence that this attitude was prevalent throughout the industrial revolution, with industrialists like Titus Salt, Matthew Boulton and Joseph Cadbury creating entire communities of workers around the factory site, providing housing, food, employment and in most cases a religious overtone and moral and spiritual guidance. Under this regime there may well have been an argument for the taking up of arms against what could easily be seen as oppression and in some cases almost slavery. However it can be seen, not just in these early cases, but later through the industrial action taken by the trade unions in the 1960’s and ‘70’s that brought British manufacturing to it’s knees that processes such as these in the long term have at best a very limited effect. The mills maintained production and expanded, the British manufacturing base was relocated offshore rather than give in to the workers, and those same complainants were no better off, and in many cases worse off than they would have been by simply accepting change and working with rather than against the entrepreneurs who controlled the processes.
There have been very few occasions where pressure from the bottom up has actually created change, and in almost all of those cases where it has, the pressure has been on legislation rather than industries directly. Effecting political change is often an easier route than effecting business change, and this, I would argue, is why a direct assault in industry whether that be financial, manufacturing, service or any other is almost always doomed to failure.
Tuesday 28 June 2011
Where are all the intellectual heroes?
After spending years under threat, and facing drastic funding cuts, next year could see the end of University philosophy department as we know it. Philosophy conferences over recent years have seen more and more of the attendees, most of whom are perfectly acceptable thinkers in their own right, are struggling for work, freelancing for periodicals and journals, occasional lecturing, really just scraping by. As you may well imagine, I don't see this as a good thing. To my mind, one of the primary purposes of University is to encourage independent critical thought amongst students, and to train them to analyse and argue rationally and logically. Without a solid grounding in philosophical techniques and the forms used to structure debate and discussion, how can we possibly hope to develop the strength of mind required to drive forward endeavour in other aspects of life?
The days of teaching critical thinking at school level ended a long time ago, so essentially University was the last bastion of this particularly useful skill. It was the last chance saloon for engaging the next generation of inquisitive minds in the rigours and processes developed over multi-thousand years by some of the finest minds of humanity. Without the facility to effectively teach such key skills as ethics, empiricism, virtue at al. how can we possibly expect our upcoming scientists and engineers and entrepreneurs to work for the greater good? What hope society if we are producing experts who can't debate, argue or think?
For me, this false economy is intrinsically linked to the decline in broad based learning, and the drive towards early specialism. Talking to late school age children, many already have a perfectly mapped career path, have already specialised to such an extent that their ability to adapt is severely curtailed and is alreay causing them issues in terms of creativity of thought and breadth of opinion. Is it any wonder that our youth are politically disengaged? Until they are aiming for a career in politics, everything around them seems to be telling them not to worry about it, not to get involved....
The days of teaching critical thinking at school level ended a long time ago, so essentially University was the last bastion of this particularly useful skill. It was the last chance saloon for engaging the next generation of inquisitive minds in the rigours and processes developed over multi-thousand years by some of the finest minds of humanity. Without the facility to effectively teach such key skills as ethics, empiricism, virtue at al. how can we possibly expect our upcoming scientists and engineers and entrepreneurs to work for the greater good? What hope society if we are producing experts who can't debate, argue or think?
For me, this false economy is intrinsically linked to the decline in broad based learning, and the drive towards early specialism. Talking to late school age children, many already have a perfectly mapped career path, have already specialised to such an extent that their ability to adapt is severely curtailed and is alreay causing them issues in terms of creativity of thought and breadth of opinion. Is it any wonder that our youth are politically disengaged? Until they are aiming for a career in politics, everything around them seems to be telling them not to worry about it, not to get involved....
Monday 27 June 2011
The hypocrisy of the megarich
Whether it is a super-rich individual or a multi-national corporation, there has over recent years been a drive to demonstrate philanthropic concern for the Worlds poor. This is all very laudable and worthy, and in the finest traditons of the American charitable principle of trickle down, whereby the very rich lead by example by giving generously to charitable foundations and this gesture is mirrored by those lower down the pecking order. But is all as it seems? Certainly in the UK we have a situation whereby these same individuals and corporations devote considerable time and enormous sums of money in developing ever more complex ways of avoiding paying tax. I can understand the arguement that by being "tax-efficient" these non-payers may be making a statement that they distrust our political masters and would rather make their own decisions as to where their money is spent, but this arguement is fundamentally flawed.
We live in a democracy, and as such our political leaders are elected by us, and are ultimately responsible to us as voters. Consequently, suggesting that an individual or corporation who is responsible to no-one but themselves, and possibly shareholders will act in a better way than elected officials is not only wrong but insulting to the electorate. Listening to these people talk about the efforts they are making for charities and to heal the World does rather stick in the throat, since these are, when all is said and done, merely personal hobby horses, and most of these groups and individulas are not in a position to have complete transparency in terms of how their donations are used.
Would it not be better for the rich to pay their taxes as the rest of us have to, ad use any money left over to campaign for the political change that they seek, rather than sanctimoniously preaching about the good work they are doing? There are protest groups here in the UK who are trying to bring these tax dodgers to book, and if you have a look into the recent news stories, you may be surprised to see that they are doing this with very little support from HMRC who seem unable to act in a principled manner when dealing with companies like Tesco, Vodafone, Barclays and many many others, preferring instead to engage in "Sweetheart" deals not available to the hoy polloy. Whatever the good intentions of these companies originally, their morals and ethics have all been undone by the reprehensible actions of those who are simple being greedy. Time for non-executive directors and the major accounting firms to bite the bullet and act to bring these companies in line and to help to create a more equitable society for us all, rather than fatter profits for the very few....
We live in a democracy, and as such our political leaders are elected by us, and are ultimately responsible to us as voters. Consequently, suggesting that an individual or corporation who is responsible to no-one but themselves, and possibly shareholders will act in a better way than elected officials is not only wrong but insulting to the electorate. Listening to these people talk about the efforts they are making for charities and to heal the World does rather stick in the throat, since these are, when all is said and done, merely personal hobby horses, and most of these groups and individulas are not in a position to have complete transparency in terms of how their donations are used.
Would it not be better for the rich to pay their taxes as the rest of us have to, ad use any money left over to campaign for the political change that they seek, rather than sanctimoniously preaching about the good work they are doing? There are protest groups here in the UK who are trying to bring these tax dodgers to book, and if you have a look into the recent news stories, you may be surprised to see that they are doing this with very little support from HMRC who seem unable to act in a principled manner when dealing with companies like Tesco, Vodafone, Barclays and many many others, preferring instead to engage in "Sweetheart" deals not available to the hoy polloy. Whatever the good intentions of these companies originally, their morals and ethics have all been undone by the reprehensible actions of those who are simple being greedy. Time for non-executive directors and the major accounting firms to bite the bullet and act to bring these companies in line and to help to create a more equitable society for us all, rather than fatter profits for the very few....
Friday 24 June 2011
Popularity and consumerism
It seems that in the modern World a person is defined by what they own. This is in stark contrast to the historical analogies of definition by social status as under the feudal system, or by what he does as was seen in the development of career based surnames across Europe. This shift has had a knock on effect I believe in that it has been taken a step further to the stage where people are not simply defined, but judged by their possessions. This can be seen in the demand for labelled clothes, high profile accessories, the latest trainers, the flashest cars and so on. It is interesting to consider how this state of affairs has come about. There are a number of possible reasons for this but I feel that the main ones are the increase in commercialism and marketing and the associated drive through visual imagery to make one feel inferior, a complaint that has been leveled at the fashion industry over the effect it has on womens body image and mental health, and the almost traditional equation of material success with power and strength.
There is a problem with this however. By equating success and consequently popularity with material worth it becomes dfficult to suggest that the developing World should forego the same consumerism for the benefit of the global society. It is difficult to marry the finite nature of the resources used by consumer goods, and the damage caused by procuring those resources, with the requirements of striving to achieve sustainability. We are already seeing conflict positions global with regard to the mismatch between the food requirements of an expanding population, the agricultural requiremets of the bio-fuel industry and the environmental requirements of the ecological systems that maintain this planets climates and atmosphere in an inhabitable state.
Perhaps it is time for the Western World to take a lead and rather than embracing consumerism, use those marketing skills to persuade people that a more ascetic approach is the way forward. This would be one of the things I like
There is a problem with this however. By equating success and consequently popularity with material worth it becomes dfficult to suggest that the developing World should forego the same consumerism for the benefit of the global society. It is difficult to marry the finite nature of the resources used by consumer goods, and the damage caused by procuring those resources, with the requirements of striving to achieve sustainability. We are already seeing conflict positions global with regard to the mismatch between the food requirements of an expanding population, the agricultural requiremets of the bio-fuel industry and the environmental requirements of the ecological systems that maintain this planets climates and atmosphere in an inhabitable state.
Perhaps it is time for the Western World to take a lead and rather than embracing consumerism, use those marketing skills to persuade people that a more ascetic approach is the way forward. This would be one of the things I like
Thursday 23 June 2011
Beauty in simplicity
It is a philosophy that many people espouse, but few seem to manage. It is seem in mathematics, physics, business, politics and the military, even having its own acronym KISS Keep It Simple Stupid, and yet it seems elusive. When it comes to business it should be the first principle hammered home in business school. If there are two ways of doing something, go with the one that requires the least amount of additional effort, and is the least reliant on other factors. It is the same principle that informs Occhams razer, a theory that suggests that when presented with multiple possible solutions, or reasons for something happening you should also go with the one that requires the least amount of other assumptions to be true, until such time as you are proved wrong. It seems pretty straightforward, so why does it tend not to be used as often as it should? Why do people still see UFO's when there are simpler explanations? Why do we still see the face carved on the surface of Mars even though we know it isn't there?
My best guess is that although we profess a desire for simplicity, whether that be a work, or in life, what we secretly crave is drama and difficulty. I can understand this, becuase it does have a tendency to make life rather more interesting than it otherwise might be. By overcomplicating situations we can be justified in feeling stresses and in complaining, and we do as a species tend to enjoy complication. This is not limited to the mass of society, but at all levels, and through all societies. There are of course exceptions, primarily with religious communities such as those found within the catholic faith practicing a monastic tradition, or with the Hindu ascetics or the Buddhist monasteries. This brings up an interesting question in my opinion. Does the need for complication stem from the ego? It can be argued that these religious communities have a similarity that transcends faith based differences in that they practice the subjugation of the ego for the greater good of the community. They do away with materialism in the form of possessions, and with the associated vices of pride and greed.
So does this offer a model on which to move forward as a species? I suspect that the ego is a crucial part of what makes us who we are as a species and has contributed in no small measure to our success at dominating our planet, and there are arguements that ego is still a crucial component of our makeup until such time as we understand completely the universe and our place within it, since it forms part of the drive to exceeed and to improve individually and collectively. It is then perhaps a waiting game, an acceptance that we are as yet unable to achieve large scale simplicity, but that it is something that we should nevertheless aspire to and have as one of our species key goals. Perhaps it is how we will be measured should we ever find more advanced races in the Universe. Not by our level of complexity, as some reasearchers feel, but by our level of simplicity.....
My best guess is that although we profess a desire for simplicity, whether that be a work, or in life, what we secretly crave is drama and difficulty. I can understand this, becuase it does have a tendency to make life rather more interesting than it otherwise might be. By overcomplicating situations we can be justified in feeling stresses and in complaining, and we do as a species tend to enjoy complication. This is not limited to the mass of society, but at all levels, and through all societies. There are of course exceptions, primarily with religious communities such as those found within the catholic faith practicing a monastic tradition, or with the Hindu ascetics or the Buddhist monasteries. This brings up an interesting question in my opinion. Does the need for complication stem from the ego? It can be argued that these religious communities have a similarity that transcends faith based differences in that they practice the subjugation of the ego for the greater good of the community. They do away with materialism in the form of possessions, and with the associated vices of pride and greed.
So does this offer a model on which to move forward as a species? I suspect that the ego is a crucial part of what makes us who we are as a species and has contributed in no small measure to our success at dominating our planet, and there are arguements that ego is still a crucial component of our makeup until such time as we understand completely the universe and our place within it, since it forms part of the drive to exceeed and to improve individually and collectively. It is then perhaps a waiting game, an acceptance that we are as yet unable to achieve large scale simplicity, but that it is something that we should nevertheless aspire to and have as one of our species key goals. Perhaps it is how we will be measured should we ever find more advanced races in the Universe. Not by our level of complexity, as some reasearchers feel, but by our level of simplicity.....
Wednesday 22 June 2011
Why we get the politicians we deserve
The roots of this rant go back even further than I do, into the dark days of post war Britain. Recovery from the second World War was a slow process with rationing still in effect for many years, and a maintainance of the austerity measures of the War years being retained long after it was necessary. The drive for rebuilding and regrowth spawned an ethos that capitalism was the best way to drive forward, with technical innovation to the fore. The backlash against this was seen through the 1970's in the form of rampant trade unionism encouraged by the Labour government of the period. This had the effect of crippling the industrial base of the UK and limiting our productive and creative advantages globally, additional setting up a national obsession with semi-idolising of entreprenurial spirit. With the coming of Thatcher in 1979 this process only accelerated, giving rise to the greed culture of the '80's and '90's leading to the inevitable collapse of the banking sector in 2008.
At no point in this process did we, as a nation stand up and say "Enough". There were plenty of voices advocating caution, suggesting alternative routes, fighting for fairness within the system, but these were in the main ignored. There are a number of reasons for this but personally I believe that the main driving force for this was the introduction of "spin" to the political system. The media-government complex is a hugely complex beast in which every political move is a story to be twisted to suit the bias of the media outlet concerned. The BBC has shifted from an independent national broadcaster to being afraid to be too outspoken for fear of budget cuts. The mainstream commercial media are hamstrung by their reliance on advertising revenue, so the only place to find journalistiv integrity and balanced reporting is online, and even here, where freedom is almost enshrined in the principle that anyone can utilise the internet, there is a tendency to simply parrot the party line of whichever party the particular commentator favours.
Until such time as we, the people of Great Britain truly understand that we are collectively responsible for the actions and behaviours of our elected officials and act according to the principles of the greater good for the betterment of society as a whole rather than for largely selfish purposes we will continue to get politicians who mirror these values. Sustainable change can only come from weight of opinion, and our first priority as a nature should be to foster and encourage sustainability. We are a nation of innovators and inventors. We should be leading the World in creating solutions to global problems, but instead we are still all driven by the lies of commercial success and ramapnt consumerism at any cost. We get what we deserve, and will continue to do so until we, the people of this great country bring about change ourselves.
At no point in this process did we, as a nation stand up and say "Enough". There were plenty of voices advocating caution, suggesting alternative routes, fighting for fairness within the system, but these were in the main ignored. There are a number of reasons for this but personally I believe that the main driving force for this was the introduction of "spin" to the political system. The media-government complex is a hugely complex beast in which every political move is a story to be twisted to suit the bias of the media outlet concerned. The BBC has shifted from an independent national broadcaster to being afraid to be too outspoken for fear of budget cuts. The mainstream commercial media are hamstrung by their reliance on advertising revenue, so the only place to find journalistiv integrity and balanced reporting is online, and even here, where freedom is almost enshrined in the principle that anyone can utilise the internet, there is a tendency to simply parrot the party line of whichever party the particular commentator favours.
Until such time as we, the people of Great Britain truly understand that we are collectively responsible for the actions and behaviours of our elected officials and act according to the principles of the greater good for the betterment of society as a whole rather than for largely selfish purposes we will continue to get politicians who mirror these values. Sustainable change can only come from weight of opinion, and our first priority as a nature should be to foster and encourage sustainability. We are a nation of innovators and inventors. We should be leading the World in creating solutions to global problems, but instead we are still all driven by the lies of commercial success and ramapnt consumerism at any cost. We get what we deserve, and will continue to do so until we, the people of this great country bring about change ourselves.
Monday 20 June 2011
The quest for the theory of everything
The idea of understanding the universe and all of its' glories has long been the aim of mankind. The great Egyptian civilisations made use of astrology and architecture to try to understand their place in the universe and their interactions with their Gods. This can be seen in the ceremonial preperations for burial of corpses, the stories highlighted in the pyramid and coffin texts and the development of monotheism during the Amarna period. There was a constant questing for an understanding of the infinite throughout the pharonic ages right up to the Ptolomeic period of Greek occupation and indeed one of the best references to this quest comes to us from Solon of Aexandria, a Greek incomer who attempted as part of the library project to collate all of the Egyptian thoughts and stories of the infite. It has been suggested that it was from these sources that Solon came to understand the stories of Atlantis later made infamous by Plato in his discourses.
The quest for knowledge proceeded apace through the Greek and Roman empires with the development and refinement of mathematical and philosophical thought and the application of hard logic. This blended with the spirituality of the time to create myths and Gods that represented the quest for wisdom as a search for knowledge from the universe itself. As Christianity began to take hold during the Roman period there was a branch of that faith which focused on the aquisition and understanding of knowledge as being an integral part of approaxching divinity. This was Gnosticism and came out of a Greek tradition that suggested that to understand and therefore move closer to divinity it was necessary to learn more and understand more about the World. Gnosticism lost out to the more esoteric branches of Christianity, but the desire to know GOd through scientific understanding of Gods creations is a tradition that has continued through the Catholic church to the present day.
Throughout the intervening period there have been traditions wherein knowledge and understand were crucial to the development of society. The Islamic world of the 8th to the 12th century had a tremendous focus on understanding and much of what we now consider to be core to our scientific development in mathematics and physics has come down to us from this period. Similarly in the far East, practical philosophers made tremendous advances in chemistry, and the mugal empire of India developed on these these.discoveries and developed them further. Through trade and exploration these ideas came back to Europe and formed the basis of the enlightenment movement through Italy and France at the same time as the Germanic nations and England began to industrialise with all of the scientific developments that that brought.
During these periods the theme was for the great thinkers of the ages to be polymaths, following multiple lines of enquiry concurrently through multiple disciplines and techniques. In more recent times as we moved into the 19th Century there was a movement away from this strategy towards far more specialism, highlighted by the development of highly specialised areas of study and the differentiation of natural philosophy into its component areas of chemistry, biology and physics. In my opinion this is one of the primary reasons that a unified theory is still little more than a pipedream. The recent advances in physics have been very impressive with the work on the quantum world, chaos theory, string theory and the like beginning to get to grips with the substance of the universe, but I feel that there must be a place for re-integrating the disparate strands of research and thought in order to achieve mankinds ultimate goal of complete understanding.
Harmony is the goal, understanding is the path, endeavour is the journey....
The quest for knowledge proceeded apace through the Greek and Roman empires with the development and refinement of mathematical and philosophical thought and the application of hard logic. This blended with the spirituality of the time to create myths and Gods that represented the quest for wisdom as a search for knowledge from the universe itself. As Christianity began to take hold during the Roman period there was a branch of that faith which focused on the aquisition and understanding of knowledge as being an integral part of approaxching divinity. This was Gnosticism and came out of a Greek tradition that suggested that to understand and therefore move closer to divinity it was necessary to learn more and understand more about the World. Gnosticism lost out to the more esoteric branches of Christianity, but the desire to know GOd through scientific understanding of Gods creations is a tradition that has continued through the Catholic church to the present day.
Throughout the intervening period there have been traditions wherein knowledge and understand were crucial to the development of society. The Islamic world of the 8th to the 12th century had a tremendous focus on understanding and much of what we now consider to be core to our scientific development in mathematics and physics has come down to us from this period. Similarly in the far East, practical philosophers made tremendous advances in chemistry, and the mugal empire of India developed on these these.discoveries and developed them further. Through trade and exploration these ideas came back to Europe and formed the basis of the enlightenment movement through Italy and France at the same time as the Germanic nations and England began to industrialise with all of the scientific developments that that brought.
During these periods the theme was for the great thinkers of the ages to be polymaths, following multiple lines of enquiry concurrently through multiple disciplines and techniques. In more recent times as we moved into the 19th Century there was a movement away from this strategy towards far more specialism, highlighted by the development of highly specialised areas of study and the differentiation of natural philosophy into its component areas of chemistry, biology and physics. In my opinion this is one of the primary reasons that a unified theory is still little more than a pipedream. The recent advances in physics have been very impressive with the work on the quantum world, chaos theory, string theory and the like beginning to get to grips with the substance of the universe, but I feel that there must be a place for re-integrating the disparate strands of research and thought in order to achieve mankinds ultimate goal of complete understanding.
Harmony is the goal, understanding is the path, endeavour is the journey....
Selling out
"If you do an advert, then you are off the artistic register forever" So said the eponymous namesake of this blog, and it is perhaps more true today than it has ever been. We seem to exist in a world were celebrity is defined by how many endorsements you can make. Kate Moss has been dropped and rehired more times than it was once thought possible, Jedward make far more from endoresements than they could possibly make from music, lady Gaga is considered more powerful than Oprah when her entire career seems to be an endorsement for herself as a brand. Even beyond this to the World of charity, once, it could be argued, the only for of endorsement that was even vaguely acceptible. We now see charities engaging in the worst excesses of mainstrea media advertising in order to generate revenue.
On this, amongst many other things I am in agreement with Mr. Hicks. There can be no excuse for product endorsement if you, as a performer, want to be considered ethical. There is no such thing as an innocent endorsement, there is no company that is ethical enough to be considered acceptable. This may seem harsh, but let us consider environmental charities. There are huge swathes of the developing world where indigenous peoples are being forcibly resettled in a way that would be considered completely unacceptable, if it wasn't for the fact that they are being removed in the name of environmental protection, This, to me is completely unacceptable and smacks of colonialism. It is not a new phenomena. Diane Fossey the primate researcher treated the indigenous very badly indeed physically assaulting them despite the fact that they had been living side by side with the local gorilla population for thousands of years and could have been a useful resource.
If celebrities thought for even a moment about the long term effects of the products and services and on the people they are influencing I strongly suspect that we would see a dramatic decrease in endorsements, and in my opinion, the World would be a better place....
On this, amongst many other things I am in agreement with Mr. Hicks. There can be no excuse for product endorsement if you, as a performer, want to be considered ethical. There is no such thing as an innocent endorsement, there is no company that is ethical enough to be considered acceptable. This may seem harsh, but let us consider environmental charities. There are huge swathes of the developing world where indigenous peoples are being forcibly resettled in a way that would be considered completely unacceptable, if it wasn't for the fact that they are being removed in the name of environmental protection, This, to me is completely unacceptable and smacks of colonialism. It is not a new phenomena. Diane Fossey the primate researcher treated the indigenous very badly indeed physically assaulting them despite the fact that they had been living side by side with the local gorilla population for thousands of years and could have been a useful resource.
If celebrities thought for even a moment about the long term effects of the products and services and on the people they are influencing I strongly suspect that we would see a dramatic decrease in endorsements, and in my opinion, the World would be a better place....
Friday 17 June 2011
Dancing under the moon and stars
It was a beautiful full moon last night, and the sky alternated between clear and showers. It was a baeutiful night and I took full advantage popping out to a local hilltop and spending a very pleasant couple of hours dancing in the moonshine, watching my shadow spin and twirl across the wet grass. The hilltop has a small cupola at the summit as a viewing platform and the combination of the moon and the lights of the city around the horizon took my breath away. I have always loved dancing, but for me it is a very private think, something I share with nature rather than with a bunch of strangers in a club. I see it almost as an offering, the energy of my movements given as a gift to the beauty of the World.
I ended up soaked to the skin after the second shower, but the night wasn't particularly cold and the rain in my wet hair made it whip around my face as I gyrated. There are many people who enjoy being out in nature, enjoying the sensations of rain on skin, wind in hair, soft ground under foot, but I feel that there are still not enough. We live in a closetted World, behind double glazing with the climate controlled, divorced from our natural roots, and even when we do go outside we wrap up aginst the weather rather than working with it and just enjoying it.
Some day we will understand our place in the network of life that forms our home planets biosphere, but I fear it may be too late. We will have to see....
I ended up soaked to the skin after the second shower, but the night wasn't particularly cold and the rain in my wet hair made it whip around my face as I gyrated. There are many people who enjoy being out in nature, enjoying the sensations of rain on skin, wind in hair, soft ground under foot, but I feel that there are still not enough. We live in a closetted World, behind double glazing with the climate controlled, divorced from our natural roots, and even when we do go outside we wrap up aginst the weather rather than working with it and just enjoying it.
Some day we will understand our place in the network of life that forms our home planets biosphere, but I fear it may be too late. We will have to see....
Thursday 16 June 2011
Travelling is all in the mind
I'm not particularly well travelled in the real world. I hadn't been abroad other than on a school trip to Paris when I was 13 until really quite recently. It was only when I joined a German company that I started travelling a bit more, firstly to Germany for business, which involved my first flight in a plane, then on my first foreign holiday to Egypt. I thoroughly enjoyed myself, but having moved on from that company and now being self-employed the opportunity no longer presents itself. This isn't a major stress, I am quite happy with life in the UK. I am kept busy most of the time, and when I do have some free time there are plenty of lovely places I can explore, but I do still like to travel with my mind.
I love to read travel diaries, and watch programs from far flung places about societies and cultures that I haven't experienced. I spend time in contemplative meditation travelling to those areas in my mind, exploring and interacting. It can be quite an intense process, and I guess some would consider it akin to techniques used in astral projection. I start with breath control techniques, slowing my breathing and conseqently my pulse and alpha wae brain activity. I have been meditating for a while no so I find it quite easy to slip into a semi-trance state. As my Alpha waves are reduced nad the Beta waves take presidence I feel that I am floating weightless and can see the entire World, and sometimes more laid out before me.
From this point I can chose to travel to any location, spending my time wandering the streets of Delhi or exploring city sites in the Amazon jungle. It is amazing how close to a real experience it can become with the sights, sounds, smells all becoming more and more focused as I immerse myself in the journey. It can be a wonderful way to see the World from the comfort of my own home, and is great for planning where I might go in the future if opportunity presents.
I love to read travel diaries, and watch programs from far flung places about societies and cultures that I haven't experienced. I spend time in contemplative meditation travelling to those areas in my mind, exploring and interacting. It can be quite an intense process, and I guess some would consider it akin to techniques used in astral projection. I start with breath control techniques, slowing my breathing and conseqently my pulse and alpha wae brain activity. I have been meditating for a while no so I find it quite easy to slip into a semi-trance state. As my Alpha waves are reduced nad the Beta waves take presidence I feel that I am floating weightless and can see the entire World, and sometimes more laid out before me.
From this point I can chose to travel to any location, spending my time wandering the streets of Delhi or exploring city sites in the Amazon jungle. It is amazing how close to a real experience it can become with the sights, sounds, smells all becoming more and more focused as I immerse myself in the journey. It can be a wonderful way to see the World from the comfort of my own home, and is great for planning where I might go in the future if opportunity presents.
Tuesday 14 June 2011
Navigating through the social maze
The World is a complex place, chaotic in nature, fraught with hidden dangers, and no more so is this the case than in the realm of human social interaction. The intricacies of communication both verbal and non-verbal, the subtle interplays of body language and the signs and signals that we all give out, almost without realising can make understanding somewhat difficult for those of us who are not natural social animals. There are several neurological conditions that make social interaction more challenging but perhaps the most widely known is the spectrum of disorders that come under the umbrella of Autism. These can range from the extreme case such as that portrayed in the film "Rainman" to the far more subtle conditions that fall under the term Aspergers Syndrome.
With conditions at the aspergers end of the spectrum there are in some senses additional difficulties, since there are very few, if any, external cues to someone with the condition. It has been suggested that such great minds as Sir Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein may have displayed Aspergers traits and both were certainly compromised in social situations. As with so many neurological conditions these syndromes are not fully understood, and the facilities to test for them are severely limited. Getting a diagnosis as an adult is next to impossible without first hand evidence from a relative who knew the individual as a very young child. As these are developmental disorders, it is behaviour in the early years of development that is crucail for an accurate diagnosis.
The symptoms of Aspergers syndrome are an inability to understand social situations caused by a lack of instinctual empathy. The typical person with Aspergers, if such a think exists, will tend to be quiet, tend to be quite reserved, will have difficulty in making appropriate levels of eye contact, either avoiding it or tending to stare, and may have difficulty with understanding whether their conversation is appropriate or engaging, tending to talk at length about inappropriate topics. There is an additional wrinkle to this tale however. For those with Aspergers who have never been diagnosed, and who have had to try to muddle through life as best they can, there is a tendency to have become quite good at hiding these traits through a range of coping strategies. These have been know to include asking a lot of questions during a conversation, using stimuli outside the conversation area as an excuse to keep shifting eye focus and breaking eye contact, exaggerating facial and physical gestures during speech, and limiting conversations to non-contentious topics.
It is always worth bearing in mind when engaging in any social activity that those around you may not have the same level of social awareness that you do. They may have heightened senses that are prone to being overstimulated, they may engaged in repetitive or stereotyped bahaviours or need to stick to a set routine. If you are someone you know matches to these criteria, it may just be that they find socialising a little more challenging, and may need a little patience.
With conditions at the aspergers end of the spectrum there are in some senses additional difficulties, since there are very few, if any, external cues to someone with the condition. It has been suggested that such great minds as Sir Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein may have displayed Aspergers traits and both were certainly compromised in social situations. As with so many neurological conditions these syndromes are not fully understood, and the facilities to test for them are severely limited. Getting a diagnosis as an adult is next to impossible without first hand evidence from a relative who knew the individual as a very young child. As these are developmental disorders, it is behaviour in the early years of development that is crucail for an accurate diagnosis.
The symptoms of Aspergers syndrome are an inability to understand social situations caused by a lack of instinctual empathy. The typical person with Aspergers, if such a think exists, will tend to be quiet, tend to be quite reserved, will have difficulty in making appropriate levels of eye contact, either avoiding it or tending to stare, and may have difficulty with understanding whether their conversation is appropriate or engaging, tending to talk at length about inappropriate topics. There is an additional wrinkle to this tale however. For those with Aspergers who have never been diagnosed, and who have had to try to muddle through life as best they can, there is a tendency to have become quite good at hiding these traits through a range of coping strategies. These have been know to include asking a lot of questions during a conversation, using stimuli outside the conversation area as an excuse to keep shifting eye focus and breaking eye contact, exaggerating facial and physical gestures during speech, and limiting conversations to non-contentious topics.
It is always worth bearing in mind when engaging in any social activity that those around you may not have the same level of social awareness that you do. They may have heightened senses that are prone to being overstimulated, they may engaged in repetitive or stereotyped bahaviours or need to stick to a set routine. If you are someone you know matches to these criteria, it may just be that they find socialising a little more challenging, and may need a little patience.
Thursday 9 June 2011
Censorship and the BBFC
So, the British Board of Film Censors (BBFC) have decided that they are unable to give a certificate to Human Centipede 2, because it is considered to be too gruesome for British audiences. There has been, as one would expect, a tremendous outcry across the artistic media and much debate, but what is all the fuss about? Contrary to popular opinion, the film is not banned in the UK, the BBFC doesn't have that power. It is unclassified but can still be shown at the discretion of local authorities if they so chose. But more to the point, why shouldn't the BBFC take this decision if they consider it merited. We have a system of film classification in this country specifically to try to limit the exposure of young children to inappropriate imagery, and it serves this purpose reasonably well. It also acts to limit the gratuitous use of shocking images that don't have an artistic merit. This is more of a difficult issue since it does rely on an arbitrary definition of what is art and what has artistic merit?
In the case of this particular film it is largely a question of hype surrounding the first film. For whatever reason this film was considered shocking by many, even seminal by some, whereas having watched it, it was actually quite derivative in terms of plot, having similarity to "The island of Doctor Moreau", quite basic in terms of storyline, mad scientist takes experiments too far, and the objectification of victims, on the theme of "Silence of the lambs" or "Hostel". As such there was little that was groundbreaking beyond the rather overblown use of consumption of human excreta, something that has its own pornographic genre. The sequel to this film, if anything, appears to have more merit in that the storyline addresses a fundamental complaint about horror films in general, that they have a negative societal effect on certain sections of the audience who are more vulnerable to external influence. The second film takes the story on to feature a fan of the original becoming sexually aroused by watching the original, and deciding to complete the project, again kidnapping victims and modifying them through surgery such that each victims mouth is attached to another victims anus.
It certainly is pretty graphic and pretty gruesome, and features some additional shock content around the sexualisation and brutalisation of the victims, and their descent into an associational sexuality as they are themselves degraded, but this is not anything particularly new. There have been several films in the serial killer genre where the "Stockholm syndrome" whereby victims become conditioned to agree with their captors/abusers have been made. I think back to "Natural born killers" and the relationship between Mickey and Mallory, and the implicit and explicit corruption of Mallory through the incestuous abuse by her father to the apparent freedom of an abusive relationship with Mickey.
So, this sequel presents little that is new, little that can't be found on the internet, and little of substance. Should it be unclassified? Probably not, but the decision has been made. Best to let it lie and move forward perhaps...
In the case of this particular film it is largely a question of hype surrounding the first film. For whatever reason this film was considered shocking by many, even seminal by some, whereas having watched it, it was actually quite derivative in terms of plot, having similarity to "The island of Doctor Moreau", quite basic in terms of storyline, mad scientist takes experiments too far, and the objectification of victims, on the theme of "Silence of the lambs" or "Hostel". As such there was little that was groundbreaking beyond the rather overblown use of consumption of human excreta, something that has its own pornographic genre. The sequel to this film, if anything, appears to have more merit in that the storyline addresses a fundamental complaint about horror films in general, that they have a negative societal effect on certain sections of the audience who are more vulnerable to external influence. The second film takes the story on to feature a fan of the original becoming sexually aroused by watching the original, and deciding to complete the project, again kidnapping victims and modifying them through surgery such that each victims mouth is attached to another victims anus.
It certainly is pretty graphic and pretty gruesome, and features some additional shock content around the sexualisation and brutalisation of the victims, and their descent into an associational sexuality as they are themselves degraded, but this is not anything particularly new. There have been several films in the serial killer genre where the "Stockholm syndrome" whereby victims become conditioned to agree with their captors/abusers have been made. I think back to "Natural born killers" and the relationship between Mickey and Mallory, and the implicit and explicit corruption of Mallory through the incestuous abuse by her father to the apparent freedom of an abusive relationship with Mickey.
So, this sequel presents little that is new, little that can't be found on the internet, and little of substance. Should it be unclassified? Probably not, but the decision has been made. Best to let it lie and move forward perhaps...
Where did it all go wrong?
Dancing round the living room to the songs of my youth, the anarcho-punk-pop anthems of Carter, the Stuffies, the Poppies, Prodigy, the tunes that sing to all the greebos, crusties, goths, metalheads, ravers....all the old school heroes from a time when we felt that in spite of everything going on in the World, we would be alright, we could make it alright, we were unbeatable and we would tear up the world and remould it into something better. That the fractured ideologies of our parents and grandparents would be shown to be the imperialistic, arrogant, wasteful dogma that we could all see it was. Thatcher had gone, and her legacy had been replaced by a bright new era of open politics fronted by someone that appeared to be approachable. How wrong we were. For many of us are parents and grandparents are gone, our children don't know who Thatcher was, and yet we still destroy our environment, we still live in a World fractured by inequality, we still believe that science will come up with the solutions for us and that we don't need to worry any more.
How has this situation been allowed to happen? How are we now more concerned by who did what to whom on some innane TV show than we are in how many people live in abject poverty? Did we become innured to images of suffering through the famines in Africa during the '80's? Are we overwhelmed by the atrocities that have happened, and continue to happen in our lifetimes, in Kosovo, the balkan states, the middle east, africa, asia, even nearer to home in a society where our most vulnerable are afraid to turn on their heating in winter in case they can't afford the fuel bills next year? Something is very seriously rotten, and not just in the state of Denmark.....
How has this situation been allowed to happen? How are we now more concerned by who did what to whom on some innane TV show than we are in how many people live in abject poverty? Did we become innured to images of suffering through the famines in Africa during the '80's? Are we overwhelmed by the atrocities that have happened, and continue to happen in our lifetimes, in Kosovo, the balkan states, the middle east, africa, asia, even nearer to home in a society where our most vulnerable are afraid to turn on their heating in winter in case they can't afford the fuel bills next year? Something is very seriously rotten, and not just in the state of Denmark.....
Monday 6 June 2011
A celebration of talent...
I'm a big fan of Mark Gattiss, a very talented young man, writer, performer, film buff, amongst many other thinks. He was part of the team behind "The league of gentlemen" a tremendously dark comedy that started as a stage show before moving on to BBC2. The strange cast of grotesque characters were primarily played by the four protagonists with storylines roaming from incest to mass murder, sexual deviance to cannibalism. The story arc was concluded with the characters having to break out of their created world into our reality to try to kidnap the creators and force them to continue the story, a neat hommage to the earlier works of Mark Twain and the cartoonists of the 1970's. He also put in an excellent performance in the film "First men on the moon" playing a scatty genius creating a manned mission to the Moon by developing an ani-gravity formula.
His latest work is a three part documentary on the history of the horror film starting with the early work in the 1920's and '30's in Hollywood, working through the Hammer films of the 1960's and '70's to the horrot revival of the '70's and '80's with the independent slasher movies coming out of America. As a felow fan of the horror genre I have been highly appreciate of his work, and would very much like to take this opportunity to tip my hat to leading light of the new horror movement in the UK. Cheers, Mr. Gattiss, I raise a class to you and yours, and wish you a long and productive career.
His latest work is a three part documentary on the history of the horror film starting with the early work in the 1920's and '30's in Hollywood, working through the Hammer films of the 1960's and '70's to the horrot revival of the '70's and '80's with the independent slasher movies coming out of America. As a felow fan of the horror genre I have been highly appreciate of his work, and would very much like to take this opportunity to tip my hat to leading light of the new horror movement in the UK. Cheers, Mr. Gattiss, I raise a class to you and yours, and wish you a long and productive career.
Friday 3 June 2011
Why do some people succeed and others don't?
Looking at pretty much anyone who has made a success in their field you see one consistent trait. It doesn't appear to matter if that field is business, sport, art or science, the leaders stand out above the herd because they are prepared to dedicate an enormous amount of time and energy to being the best at what they do. They have what has become known as a type AA personality. That is, they not only have a tremendously strong work ethic but also back this up with a very strong personal belief. This is particularly seen in business where the most successful business people have generally failed several time but come back from those failures in large part because of their faith in themselves, but it appears to be common to all fields. This personality type does not seem to be contributed to by education, with many people demonstrating the type having disconnected with education quite early in their development, and it also doesn't appear to be a function of pure genetics, since many highly successful people come from spectacularly unsuccessful backgrounds.
Some have argued that a tough upbringing fosters the mental strength and resilience that is a part of this, but again there is considerable evidence that this is not always the case. This does rather leave the question, where does this come from? It is a similar question to the arguements about whether talents exist in a real sense, and whether qualities such as leadership are inherent or learned. This has tremendous implications for global society, particularly in terms of developing a globally sustainable society and combating challenges such as climate change and poulation overload. There are two distinct ways of looking at the question of inherent ability, and they are fundamentally opposed in terms of what they mean for our species. Egalitarians would argue that there is no such thing as talent, since we all have equal potential and equal ability and our outcomes are products of our environment and upbringing. The counter arguement put forward by pretty much everyone else is that we are not all created equal and that some people are born with higher abilities than others, in terms of intelligence, co-ordination, perception, awareness etc.
If the egalitarians are correct then the ideal solution for our species is to move towards a truly Marxist state without any of the latter leninist/trotskyite additions that polluted the ideal. This redistribution of wealth, and re-organisation of decision making and control would put power into the hands of those who currently have the least, and would create a more fair and equitable society, that is, by definition, more sustainable. Contra to this is the idea that there are natural leaders, people who are "better" at making decisions, more intelligent, stronger, faster. If this is the case, Marxist theory can never provide a workable society. It is interesting to note that to date there has never been a successful Marxist society. There has been an arguement that this is because Marxist theory is flawed and can only possibly work in small communities less than 100 members. However even in small commune communities this theory has been shown not to work.
Does this mean that the egalitarians are wrong? Many argue that it does, but I am not so certain. I firmly believe in the principles of egalitarianism, that we are all born with the same potential, but that this becomes clouded as we grow, conditioned by environmental factors. It is my contention that the biggest stumbling block to accepting the rinciples of true equality is ego. We have developed such a strong sense of self, such a strong idea of our own importance that we are unable, and certainly unwilling to let it go. I believe that there are examples that back up my assertion, and that these can be found in monastic communities. The principles of monasticism are not common to every faith but they seem to be conditioned in those faiths where they do occur, in the sublimation of the ego in order to create a harmonious spiritual community. By understanding that within the community everyone is equal, all are given equal opportunities and equal status and as a consequence jealousy and greed are completely eradicated. in my experience, although monastic orders tend to have a hierarchical structure, it is understood within the community that the leaders are equal to everyone else, and that there is no prestige or pride associated to leadership, indeed it is considered a task no more worthy than tilling the fields, preparing the food or sweeping the floor. All labours are of equal worth.
I do not suggest that monastic communities are a blue print for a successful global society, but I do suggest that there is some anecdotal evidence that the possibility of harmonious egalitarian society exsists and is an achievable aim for the human species. I also believe that this is only possible if it transpires that we are truly all equal.
Some have argued that a tough upbringing fosters the mental strength and resilience that is a part of this, but again there is considerable evidence that this is not always the case. This does rather leave the question, where does this come from? It is a similar question to the arguements about whether talents exist in a real sense, and whether qualities such as leadership are inherent or learned. This has tremendous implications for global society, particularly in terms of developing a globally sustainable society and combating challenges such as climate change and poulation overload. There are two distinct ways of looking at the question of inherent ability, and they are fundamentally opposed in terms of what they mean for our species. Egalitarians would argue that there is no such thing as talent, since we all have equal potential and equal ability and our outcomes are products of our environment and upbringing. The counter arguement put forward by pretty much everyone else is that we are not all created equal and that some people are born with higher abilities than others, in terms of intelligence, co-ordination, perception, awareness etc.
If the egalitarians are correct then the ideal solution for our species is to move towards a truly Marxist state without any of the latter leninist/trotskyite additions that polluted the ideal. This redistribution of wealth, and re-organisation of decision making and control would put power into the hands of those who currently have the least, and would create a more fair and equitable society, that is, by definition, more sustainable. Contra to this is the idea that there are natural leaders, people who are "better" at making decisions, more intelligent, stronger, faster. If this is the case, Marxist theory can never provide a workable society. It is interesting to note that to date there has never been a successful Marxist society. There has been an arguement that this is because Marxist theory is flawed and can only possibly work in small communities less than 100 members. However even in small commune communities this theory has been shown not to work.
Does this mean that the egalitarians are wrong? Many argue that it does, but I am not so certain. I firmly believe in the principles of egalitarianism, that we are all born with the same potential, but that this becomes clouded as we grow, conditioned by environmental factors. It is my contention that the biggest stumbling block to accepting the rinciples of true equality is ego. We have developed such a strong sense of self, such a strong idea of our own importance that we are unable, and certainly unwilling to let it go. I believe that there are examples that back up my assertion, and that these can be found in monastic communities. The principles of monasticism are not common to every faith but they seem to be conditioned in those faiths where they do occur, in the sublimation of the ego in order to create a harmonious spiritual community. By understanding that within the community everyone is equal, all are given equal opportunities and equal status and as a consequence jealousy and greed are completely eradicated. in my experience, although monastic orders tend to have a hierarchical structure, it is understood within the community that the leaders are equal to everyone else, and that there is no prestige or pride associated to leadership, indeed it is considered a task no more worthy than tilling the fields, preparing the food or sweeping the floor. All labours are of equal worth.
I do not suggest that monastic communities are a blue print for a successful global society, but I do suggest that there is some anecdotal evidence that the possibility of harmonious egalitarian society exsists and is an achievable aim for the human species. I also believe that this is only possible if it transpires that we are truly all equal.
Wednesday 1 June 2011
Thoughts on anarcho-primitivism
There have been an increasing number of reports into the state of the planet, and how as a species mankind is creating a range of problems with the impact that our societies have. It appears that there is concensus that we do not generally live sustainably, and that a consequence of this could well be that we either need to change our way of interacting with the plant, or change the size of our population. Ideas of overpopulation really began with Thomas Malthus, and his investigations into the land requirements to provide for the food needs of expanding populations. Since then there have been a number of investigations into sustainable population levels with figures suggesting that we are already overpopulated by a factor of six, to suggestions that we can sustain an additional three billion people yet. The problem with these investigations, and with many others into areas such as the use of fossil fuels or climate change is that there seems to be an expectation in the general population, particularly in the developed world, that a solution will be found in time to make everything alright without any need for radical change.
This almost certainly comes from the developed worlds reliance on technology and innovation over the last 300 years, and the certainty with which scientific pronouncements are made. Additionally, the development of the western world has led to increased aspirational growth in the developing world and a feeling of inequality which will make re-organising resources or potentially limiting resources, much more difficult. These inputs in combination have led some people to suggest that there is a need to be prepared for a time of severe austerity and difficulty in the foreseeable future, and the breakup of civilization. Should this occur people will be forced, it is argued, to return to a far more self reliant hunter gatherer lifestyle. This brings it's own difficulties since if we compare the populations of both hunter and prey in early human history when we were hunter gatherers we find a far higher ratio of prey to hunter with vast herds of prey animals being pursued by small bands of hunters.
We see this most clearly in North America, where prior to European settlement there are stories of the indigenous tribes living just such an existance with an oral tradition of vast herds of buffalo and bison, rivers teaming with fish so dense that they became a bridge, flocks of birds miles wide, and vast plains of usable plants for berries and seeds. These resources are no longer so freely available, research has suggested that we have reduced fish stocks by 90%+ for some key species, large land mammals by 80%+ and at the same time the population pressure on those resources has incresed by a factor of 10000 or so. Not asustainable position. James Lovelock has suggested that we need an urgent depopulation of something in the order of 80% of the human population, but bearing in mind the impact that we have already had, this doesn't seem like anything like enough.
I would argue that having an apocalypse plan, and learning the skills required to survive post-civilisation is a useful practice, but taking it the step further and beginning to follow a primitivist lifestyle now really serves no purpose and risks missing any technological developments that may prove useful. It appeals on an emotional level, but not on a cerebral one.
This almost certainly comes from the developed worlds reliance on technology and innovation over the last 300 years, and the certainty with which scientific pronouncements are made. Additionally, the development of the western world has led to increased aspirational growth in the developing world and a feeling of inequality which will make re-organising resources or potentially limiting resources, much more difficult. These inputs in combination have led some people to suggest that there is a need to be prepared for a time of severe austerity and difficulty in the foreseeable future, and the breakup of civilization. Should this occur people will be forced, it is argued, to return to a far more self reliant hunter gatherer lifestyle. This brings it's own difficulties since if we compare the populations of both hunter and prey in early human history when we were hunter gatherers we find a far higher ratio of prey to hunter with vast herds of prey animals being pursued by small bands of hunters.
We see this most clearly in North America, where prior to European settlement there are stories of the indigenous tribes living just such an existance with an oral tradition of vast herds of buffalo and bison, rivers teaming with fish so dense that they became a bridge, flocks of birds miles wide, and vast plains of usable plants for berries and seeds. These resources are no longer so freely available, research has suggested that we have reduced fish stocks by 90%+ for some key species, large land mammals by 80%+ and at the same time the population pressure on those resources has incresed by a factor of 10000 or so. Not asustainable position. James Lovelock has suggested that we need an urgent depopulation of something in the order of 80% of the human population, but bearing in mind the impact that we have already had, this doesn't seem like anything like enough.
I would argue that having an apocalypse plan, and learning the skills required to survive post-civilisation is a useful practice, but taking it the step further and beginning to follow a primitivist lifestyle now really serves no purpose and risks missing any technological developments that may prove useful. It appeals on an emotional level, but not on a cerebral one.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)