![[tmbchr]™](/journal/popocculture-blog-logo.jpg){kind=logo}
Gender Roles & Population Reduction
Inspired by comments at two recent posts, I have started wondering something about the way gender roles have morphed over the past few decades.
Since we hold gender equality and sexual freedom in such high regard in society, I am sure some people will either take offense to this idea or bitterly oppose its possible validity. Be that as it may, I still think it’s a truly interesting idea.
Namely, that modulation of gender roles since the 1950’s were undertaken intentionally within our culture in order to slow down population growth. That is, instead of just gassing millions of people to reduce the population, or else enforcing sterilization or a one-child policy (like China), you would attack the “problem” at its root: traditional family values and gender roles. In more traditional value systems (and arguably biologically), women were meant to have babies. That was how they were fulfilled. Men in turn were judged by the health and size of their family and how well they could provide for them. Their descendants as well would perpetuate their value systems, which also encouraged people to have large families.
Meanwhile though, we see a sudden burst of activity in the so-called “sexual revolution” which didn’t so much smash all sexual taboos as it re-configured the boundary-lines and made non-procreative sex the norm rather than culturally shunned. After that, we see Women’s Liberation and Feminism come about, in which women further proclaim their independence from the traditional value systems which forced them into one particular role, but which in a practical sense (I am guessing, I don’t have the stats) probably lead to significantly decreased birth rates. Then you can look at the abortion rights movement (look towards the links between eugenics and the founder of Planned Parenthood for more) gaining ground, as well as the rise of gay and lesbian subcultures. (We could even tentatively speculate that the explosion of the sex industry: sex toys and porno proliferating are also directly involved in making us less likely to seek each other out) All of these cultural trends, drawn together I am going to guess have (or are poised to) significantly slowed down population growth within the cultures affected by them.
To the cultures affected by these changing sex and gender rules and roles though, it seems that we are seeing an increase in individual freedom. So if population growth is affected by it, we’re unlikely to notice or especially care, because we think we are freer as a result of these movements. Are we? Have we been duped into stemming our own population growth, so that they don’t have to do it more forcefully to us?
- Alexander Graham Bell’s Eugenics
- Sentimental Depopulation
- Keyword text analyzers
- Visitors Not Tourists
- Consumerist Theatre
- Prev: The Human Project
- Next: That Slimy Underbelly
September 17th, 2006 at 6:27 pm
Culture is arbitrary. That includes sexual aspects. If it is possible to do something it is natural. Culture is human abstraction.
Nature allows any number of cultures.
In ancient cultures like Sparta the girls were encouraged to be sexual with each other during their celebrations that were held by the river that flows thru Laconia.
It was considered perfectly natural , normal and it was thought it created bonds that made the culture stronger.
To our culture that might seem odd, criminal, wrong, etc.
They did this though for about 700 years and it did not seem to bother anyone.
The point.
Nature provides our limitations. Nature gives us humans the ability to do a whole lot of what we please to do , in a culture , or individually.
Now brain-washing as to what is culturally good or bad is another issue.
That is done for political and religious reasons.
September 17th, 2006 at 8:15 pm
The slowing down of birth rates has indeed been affected by the cultural movements you mention, but it has been affected by so many other things as well. The industrial revolution, for example–moving us away from an agricultural society where it was useful to have as many children as possible. In the ’50’s, it was all about 2.5 children and a white picket fence, right? 2.5, not 12, and this is before free love and gay marriage. I’m inclined to look at this as a helpful side effect of our historical trajectory over the last few hundred years, and not as ‘duping.’ If anything, I see the power structure in the US, at least, trying to swing us in the other direction–anti-abortion movements, abstinence education (In high school I was taught, and this is a literal quote: “I would sooner hand you a loaded gun than a condom.” What, pray tell, is the message there?), the strangely urgent push in some circles to have more babies so that “we” won’t be overrun by the influx of people from Latin America.
Then again, maybe I’m just reluctant to believe in a conspiracy that did something actually helpful– or to believe that the powers-that-be really care all that much about the strain on the earth. Wouldn’t they rather have more people around to buy up their products and leave the west strong in relation to the rapidly increasing third world populations?
September 17th, 2006 at 8:34 pm
Most scientists believe that we are over populated presently. At 6 billion it is thought that the actual carrying capacity of the earth may be about 3 or 3 and a half billion, about the population from 1940.
Some even put the figure much lower than that to not destroy the resource base.
The green revolution of petro/chemical fertilizers and pesticides has produced an incredible amount of food. That has increased the population in and of itself.
There may well be trouble ahead with the overpopulation of the present time.
September 17th, 2006 at 9:25 pm
I don’t accept the legitimacy of these arguments simply because we’re currently proving that the “actual carrying capacity” of the earth is much higher
September 17th, 2006 at 9:41 pm
Look around though at the environment and what is happening.
The extinctions of so many animals.
The air and water pollution.
Surely you don`t think things are ok the way they are.? What about the natural world?
What if we stop proving our current carrying capacity.? Then a whole lot of people fair poorly, perhaps miserably.
Isn`t it smart to err on the side of extreme caution with our delicate eco balance.?
September 17th, 2006 at 9:48 pm
I don’t accept the legitimacy of these arguments simply because we’re currently proving that the “actual carrying capacity” of the earth is much higher
At what cost to the future? Carrying capacity isn’t simply about what is paid out in the present, it’s also about what is loaned on credit from the future.
Imagine that you inherit $1,000,000 from a rich uncle. As soon as you cash the check, you change your life. Every day you eat at the most expensive restaurant in town, and sleep in the most expensive hotel. You throw money around, buying drinks for all your friends and for all the beautiful women at the most fashionable nightclub. Your nerdy friend tells you, “dude, you’re spending too much money! slow down!” You answer: “Nonsense, I pay my bills every week, obviously I can afford to live this way.” But really you can’t afford it, because you only have $1,000,000. A more sensible thing to do would be to rent a modest apartment, spend the money to go to college or learn a trade (e.g. landscaping or horticulture), and maybe invest what’s left over.
September 17th, 2006 at 10:22 pm
Although I am not fond of your money analogy Slomo , I agree here with the overall effect of what you are saying.
We have to protect our world.
Part of our problem is measuring things in money presently.
That being an abstract concept that measures debt, it does not serve well in resource management or any kind of management.
That is another subject though, and I found your post a good present reality check.
September 17th, 2006 at 10:42 pm
Skip, I agree that it’s a clumsy analogy, but it’s direct. Money is an abstraction accessible to everybody. I’m trying to emphasize the time-value. And, more importantly, the fact that using up a resource that you apparently “have”, at a rate that is faster than can be reasonably replenished, is a losing strategy.
Perhaps the carrying capacity is 3 billion. Perhaps 6. Perhaps 9. But just because we are supporting 6 billion today doesn’t mean that we can sustainably do so for several centuries more.
September 17th, 2006 at 10:54 pm
I guess my argument is not against the “science” behind it, as I understand and agree with your money analogy. My problem is with the intent expressed through that and the hopelessness that ensues, as I think I got at better in my “sentimental depopulation” article…
September 18th, 2006 at 5:32 am
This whole line of thinking where you critique primitism is reasonable.
I know that primitivism is more appealing to me personally when I’m struggling in my day-to-day life. This suggests that primitivism is (for me) a negative escape fantasy, therefore a creation of ego, therefore something negative that I should try to move beyond. While my experience obviously says little about what others are experiencing, I’m willing to bet that many people are latching on to primitivism as such an escape.
I respect the work of Jason Godesky and also Ran. But lately I can’t help but think that their viewpoints, while remaining a valid critique of our current mindframe, are still biased by their own personal needs. That’s OK for them personally: if it moves them personally to do whatever it is they need to be doing (e.g. buying land and starting a permaculture garden), then it’s a good thing. But for the rest of us, if it invokes despair, it might not be so good.
That isn’t to say that I disbelieve that we are facing enormous crises — climate change, creeping fascism, (possibly) peak oil/energy and resource collapse. But the apocalypse is not likely to be scripted.
September 18th, 2006 at 8:10 am
these abstractions are fine for the purposes of discussion, but when they become emotional to the point where they effect your life then you have to question thier validity.
there are those who believe thier position and live thier lives accordingly. ran seems to be one of those people, but there are many though that adopt a position as an ego prop and wield thier arguement like a bat. this suggests issues of control in thier lives. being mindful of that as opposed projecting the feelings onto the environment or birthrates or who`s controling the weather might be useful.
September 18th, 2006 at 9:19 am
as life expectancy increase and child mortality rates fall, birthrates fall. life expectancy and child mortality are heavily tied into income. since children are more likely to survive into adulthood, less are needed to hedge one’s genetic bets. there’s enough cross-cultural evidence to show there are some things which are as heavily influenced by genetics and a “human nature” as well as cultural effects.
so one solution would seem to be be to make people more wealthy. i prefer this goal to the often creepy malthusian elements of some takes on this issue, especially since the attitude is so pervasive and often popular. jared diamond’s last book was rife with this (as well as some obvious errors), especially in the conclusion, and it certainly sold quite well.
the zero-sum mentality of many malthusesque types is probably not an above-ground conspiracy by power elites who wish to keep everyone buried in that idea that there can never be enough - and subtly pave the way for the acceptance of genocide, famine and tribal warfare, especially in developing nations.
September 18th, 2006 at 11:42 am
That’s a pretty bizarre conspiracy theory you have there, but I’d like to point out two assumptions that seem to underlie it.
An understandable notion, to be sure, but this isn’t rooted in biology at all. In fact, it’s a very new, untested way of organizing human societies that emerged a mere 10,000 years ago–less than 0.5% of our time on this planet. That’s the usual way of thinking among agricultural societies. Agricultural societies are predicated on continual growth, because agriculture degrades the ecosystems it relies on and dips into negative EROEI (farming is hard work–it takes more calories to do it than you get back in food). This is why only agriculturalists suffer famine and starve, why they are perpetually afflicted with plagues and disease, and why they die so young. Peter Brown, The Body and Society:
Life in an agricultural community is, to use Hobbes’ phrase with only a bit of irony, “solitary, nasty, brutish and short.” Everything that could be done to encourage the population was necessary, just to keep the community from the brink of annihilation with such a marginal, miserable and difficult life. If that wasn’t enough, even if they managed to stay alive, centuries of agriculture would degrade the soil, and they would need to expand to new land that hadn’t yet been sapped of all life.
This is not the way humans evolved. In fact, it’s antithetical to human nature. Foragers space out their births. They tend not to have any major movement in their population, either up or down. Not only abortion, but infanticide is as commonly accepted as condoms and birth control among us. We argue about whether a child’s life begins at conception or birth; for foragers, it was often around age two. Children were neither a badge of honor, nor a major impediment. This is the way humans existed for 99.5% of our time on this planet.
The transformation of gender roles in modern, industrialized society is much more basic than this: it’s the simple consequence of greater complexity. Greater complexity means that chldren require much greater education before they are fluent in their society. Traditional societies could recognize a child as a functional adult by age twelve. Among us, even the early twenties seems a tad young. This increases the cost of a child. Meanwhile, neolocality undermines any return on that investment. If the only drive for having children is sentimentality, you can expect birth rates to drop.
Compare this to a place like Mali, where the ethic you outline is still in force. There, a child can be tilling the fields by three, and will stay at home to provide for you the rest of your life. Children are free labor. A lot of children is the best safeguard against starvation. Of course, with more people, the culture as a whole is pushed even further to the brink of starvation….
Anything is sustainable on a sufficiently short timescale. You can warm your house by setting it on fire, and that will work … for a few minutes. The earth can support 6.5 billion people, and maybe even 9 billion projected, but at what cost? Global warming, mass extinction–it’s threatening the survival of our species on this planet.
The actual carrying capacity would have to rely on sustainable methods of subsistence. That eliminates farming immediately, but perhaps we can keep horticulture. At its peak, according to Mann’s 1491, North America might have supported as much as 10 million, pushing sustainable practices as far as they could go (and in a few places, unsustainable practices). So maybe we could see as much as 100 million worldwide, but even that is pushing it.
Three billion? We’re humans. We exist at a very high trophic level. At these levels, ecologies only support small numbers. Before deep human predations, tigers and lions were numbered in the hundreds of thousands. As omnivores, we can dip into lower trophic levels to get higher numbers (that’s what horticulturalists do), and we have a much larger geographical range, but there is no sustainable population of humans that can be measured in billions. Three billion was the world population in 1960.
September 18th, 2006 at 12:28 pm
Jason , I have even heard the figure of 300,000 as a sustainable level for a world population.
That what we are doing now is unsustainable is undeniable from a scientific point of view.
So what is to be done.?
Using advanced technology is the way out. All these things which we love, electricity, piped water, fresh food etc. would be hard to give up.
A society if a good society should present its citizens with a life enhancing experience.
It should be vital and stimulating. I should not inculcate, but it should instill values that are more than the - Every thing for me and nothing for you - value system we are presently employing here in north America.
A first step at taking a real step to solving many of our problems would be to change our current approach , and try a more creative and liberating approach. Our current path leads in a desultory ending of destruction.
September 18th, 2006 at 12:34 pm
Sorry , that was 300 million that I meant to say as to a sustainable world population, Not 300,000 , whoops.
I haven`t a clue as to what a real sustainable figure would be. A lot would depend on our operating system. What method we ran our society’s
September 18th, 2006 at 1:01 pm
Technology is complexity, an complexity is subject to diminishing returns. If your house is on fire, an urgent need to do something is understandable, but you still can’t expect throwing gasoline on it to help put it out. Advanced technology is part of the problem.
Sure. Some of them we may not have to. Others … well, what is freedom worth? To be really and truly free, in a way we can’t even imagine anymore, the way we were born to be? Would you give yp piped water for that, and take a stream instead? Would you take fresher food, safer and healthier, that you gathered yourself?
Those estimates are along the lines of the people who point out we could fit everybody in Texas. If people only ate what was directly under their feet, that observation might be worthwhile. As it is, they’re simply inane.
September 18th, 2006 at 1:42 pm
Inane, ? Says who.? You.? Well I don`t know. I said I didn`t know. So why the inane comment.?
Can you please educate me as to how people are going to drinking out of streams here in Mpls.?
I really would like to know.
Please educate me.
What is it like to be free in a way that I can`t even imagine.?
Fill me in on that also. Please educate me.
Is what you are talking about a little like being a red Indian.?
Is that your idea of being truly free.
I really want to know.
Are you the type that can determine what makes someone truly free. ?
Really curious as to how you do that.
Oh and by the way, was any one suggesting throwing gas on a burning house.?
You have a curious way to retort a point.
I agree that at present advanced Technology is part of the problem.
That is because it is tied into our Price System which values nothing but money. That can be changed.
A whole detailed plan to change our culture is in the 1934 Technocracy Study Course. This was last published in 48. Except for a very few minor details of scientific interest , this plan is still viable. Do you know about it and have you read it.?
Scientists in general do not like to waste or destroy resources.
Our current method is based on doing that. Our price system demands growth. Technocracy use`s a steady state , non-growth totally sustainable type of approach. Are we doomed on our present course. Yes , absolutely. Are there some choices that keep technology and actually disengage it from the way it is being used now. Yes. That is what Technocracy is all about.
September 18th, 2006 at 2:40 pm
Like I said, they’re inane because they take personal space to be the only limit to growth. Population is a lot more complex than just personal space. The argument about everyone fitting in Texas–and the 300 billion figure (I’ve heard it before)–are based solely on personal space. It never stops to consider what those people are going to eat, or the public health implications of environmental degradation, or anything of the other effects of having 300 billion organisms living on a planet this sized with such a high trophic levels. When you ignore such basic elements as that, I think calling such an “analysis” inane is actually quite generous.
Not sure what “Mpls” stands for, but you’re right that the world today is in a much diminished state, ecologically. Cities and their environs are especially ill-suited to any kind of sustainable lifestyle. But there are still (relatively) clean streams in this world, and so long as there is, hope hasn’t disappeared entirely.
I don’t know. I’ve never lived that life; I’ve only occasionally tasted it. But you can start to get an idea of it from ethnographies, and the accounts of those people who still have the benefit of living the way humans evolved to live.
You were suggesting that we could solve the problem of our diminishing returns on complexity by creating more advanced technology, weren’t you?
No, this is because technology is one facet of complexity. It’s an investment, subject to diminishing returns. Notice that our rate of invention has been dropping since the 1800s. A few exceptional, young fields are still in that early stage where one can be forgiven for mistaking the diminishing returns graph for exponential growth, leading to all kinds of ridiculous talk about things like “the Singularity.” Computers comes immediately to mind. But Miller’s Law is already starting to fail, and that doesn’t change the fact that we’re inventing less now than we did a century ago–and what we do invent is increasingly cosmetic, making something smaller, or bigger, or stronger, rather than a real, true invention that really changes the way we do things.
Collapse occurs because a society pursues complexity beyond the point of dimiishing returns. Eventually, people figure out they used to get the same benefit, at less cost, at a lower level of complexity, and the process of anabolic growth reverses. Collapse builds on itself, and accelerates to its final conclusion. Technology cannot stop collapse. This has nothing whatsoever to do with whatever market you put it in, and everything to do with that fact that technology, like any other aspect of complexity, is subject to diminishing returns.
Advanced technology doesn’t come out of nowhere. You need energy sources, and a complex society. Such high levels of complexity are unsustainable, and by their very nature require constant growth. Technocracy could no more be steady state than you could make a fire that doesn’t burn.
I’m actually unique among primitivists in that I don’t think technology itself is to blame. All humans use technology. But technology is part of complexity–and all cultures have some level of complexity. The problems begin when you take complexity–even invention of new technology–as your solution to every problem, no matter what else is involved, even past the point of diminishing returns.
September 18th, 2006 at 4:18 pm
O.K. Now I think I understand you.
You want to go back in time to a place where you can not hear airplane noise, or car backfires. Right.?
Do you think that a approach like that is realistic.? Not saying it has to be , but what do you find attractive about it.?
Do you think it is more dignified to die from a ruptured spleen than to go to a modern hospital.? I guess you really are a primitivist if you do.
Whats with the brandishing of the words diminishing returns.?
Do you like to wave those words around like a little tin knife.?
I don`t suppose I understand this underlying concept that you measure things by. Perhaps you could educate me.
Perhaps according to this theory it is better to not think either , because there is that pesky aspect of diminishing returns involved in thinking also.?
Please educate me to why this over arching theory of yours is so important , and completely should stop any and all from thinking further about some things.
Technology cannot stop a collapse.? Did I say it could.?
I said that it may if given a chance using a system that is not made to destroy the earth as our present system is.
Will Humans be around in a thousand years.?
That is an open question. I hope so. If we survive , I don`t think we will be doing anything even remotely like we are at present. As far as the Singularity, I am not a Kurzweil fan. He doesn`t get what is actually happening , he seems like a robot publicity hound. Money figures into most of his conceptions of the future.
There are lots of other people in the robotics area that are involved in the technocracy movement that have a more well rounded attitude. One I have mentioned here is Richard Anders of the Communistrobot.com site. He is not a communistic in case your worried.
I see now that this issue is an emotional issue about how you feel about your conception of Primitivism. You are romantic about it. It is almost like a Utopia to you to imagine that humans are perfectly suited to run around in animal skins , and chase down their food, or grow it by a bubbling clean brook. That’s fine, it is your opinion and you are entitled to it. It does not make for a larger movement or group that would be interested I am sure, your romantic imagination, that is.
There is a place in remote Indonesia discovered recently that is pretty much untouched. It is a large area, and even the animals are some what tame never having seen humans.
This may be an area that I would go to having your values. You could actually experience the thing that you think you would like and see if its really all its cracked up to be. Having traveled around the world my self about 6 times and having been in Indonesia before this place was discovered or disclosed , I would like to see this area myself. Tarzan was a boyhood hero.
September 18th, 2006 at 8:40 pm
And just what do y’all mean by growth? You keep using that word as if it had a clear physical meaning.
As for the post: you got me, Tim. Me and my Technocratic pals planned it all to reduce the population. No reason, really. We just figured it would reduce the number of freckles in the world (man, do I hate freckles).
Oh, and we thought it might end this. And this.
September 19th, 2006 at 9:39 am
Sure, both of these movements lead to a slight breakdown of traditional social and sexual mores, but the “freedoms” that ensued were mostly decorative individual freedoms as opposed to real, sweeping change. The most influential result of the Sex Lib/Women’s movements was the migration of women in large swarms into the corporate workforce and the subsequent emergence of the two-income household, now a necessity for most modern families. This new “freedom” ensured that wages were kept low, while corporate profits and consumption levels were maximized. There is absolutely no doubt that this has had an enormous impact upon childbirth rates. The ability to stay at home and raise multiple children is now a mark of the elite class. Lower class families simply cannot afford to have and provide for many children.
As far as “sexual liberation” goes, this era gave way to any number of cultural illusions regarding sex. In a fascinating stroke of irony, the “Sex Lib” era succeeded in ushering in an era of disease- and fear-mongering with regard to sex, annihilating any true sexual freedom.
I don’t see how noting the fact that certain movements, like Feminism, were ultimately co-opted and directed into avenues further supporting the establishment constitutes a “bizarre conspiracy theory,” as someone previously said. Despite all of the hype, how much “freedom” and “liberation” did these movements really afford us? Women and men are still, for the most part, tied to traditional roles. Working mothers may be able to work outside the home, but they are still expected to make dinner when they arrive home and fulfill all of the other traditional maternal roles. None of this has really changed. The idea that the cultural fluff and social pomp and circumstance of these movements was, well — just that, and little else– is certainly not far-fetched.
September 19th, 2006 at 11:10 am
Er, no. I want to live the way humans evolved to live, instead of being pigeon-holed into a dehumanizing civilization where I’m compelled to destroy the ecology I rely on. Your idea of “going back in time” relies on a simplistic notion of linear progression. There’s an unspoken assumption that airplanes and cars are good things, and that life has “progressed.” I say it’s regressed–and badly. I want to forsake my present poverty in favor of the wealth my ancestors once enjoyed. All I have are things; they had life.
Yes, I think that a way of life that is sustainable is much more realistic than one based on destroying its own foundation. As for what I find attractive about it, that’s also simple: it affirms my humanity, rather than telling me that my humanity is something bad that I must learn to transcend.
What does that have to do with primitivism? Modern medicine is no better or worse than primitive medicine (thesis #22). It is a common myth that a modern doctor can more effectively treat a patient than a tribal shaman; common, but untrue. However, it is is true that almost everything that makes us sick is because of civilization (thesis #21). The result shouldn’t be terribly startling: foragers are much, much healthier than us. So the health argument is a non-starter. Health is not a reason to keep civilization, it’s a primary reason to abandon it.
Because that’s the primary reason that our civilization is so problematic. It comes up in many different contexts, because the underlying problem is the diminishing returns on complexity. Every society has some amount of complexity, but only civilization continues to push its complexity higher and higher, past the point of diminishing returns.
Not really, but it’s hard to talk about the problem of civilization without mentioning the problem of civilization.
Diminishing returns doesn’t make things good or bad. Ultimately, it’s about moderation. And of course, it’s entirely possible to overthink something. We do that all the time, don’t we?
It really can’t. In any system, regardless of whether or not its “made to destroy the earth” (and I doubt that civilization was first invented in some mad scientist’s laboratory for that purpose), technology will still be complexity. If the problem is that you have too much complexity and you’re past its point of diminishing returns, then you can never solve that problem by adding still more complexity, just like you can’t put out the fire burning your house by throwing gasoline on it.
I think so. Humans are extremely resilient. Civilizations are incredibly fragile. I think we’ll outlive this disastrous experiment, and be much better off for it. If we’re not here in a thousand years, then it’s probably because we didn’t collapse in this window, we went on to the next with something like solar power, and a century or so from now civilization ended, along with our species, and most multicellular life on the planet.
Hardly! It was very hard for me to accept primitivism, but once I had, I found what hope I could in it. But I’m not blinded by any romantic notions of the Noble Savage. Forager life is better because it’s what we evolved with; civilization is dehumanizing, and denies our humanity, while primtivism affirms it. But it’s no perfect utopia. Stuff happens. There are good days and bad days. But these problems are small enough to simply add a little spice to life, they don’t dominate life as they do in civilization. They have problems, but not nearly the problems we imagine them to have. They look like a utopia only by comparison to how deeply, deeply dehumanizing our current state is. We shouldn’t look at forager life as exceptionally good or bad; it’s what we should expect as human beings. The fact that it looks like a utopia from where we are now says less about it being utopian, than it does about just how much we’ve lost.
It does. Economic growth is usually a good proxy, since you can’t just grow an economy by printing more money (that’s not growth; that’s inflation). We’re talking about growth here in the sense of complexity. As Tainter wrote in Collapse of Complex Societies:
In the same sense, the growth of a society can take place through inventing new technology, adding more people, adding more organizations or bureaucracies, adding new social roles, etc., etc. These things all take a certain amount of resources, or energy. These things all have a certain cost, and a certain benefit: they’re investments. When the EROEI (energy ROI) on that investment drops, you’ve passed the point of diminishing returns, and people begin questioning why they should continue investments into a new bureacracy or a new invention–couldn’t we do better instead by eliminating some of those bureacracies, or using less energy? That’s where collpase begins.
To be fair, this was the ACTUAL role of women for most of agricultural history. It was a rare moment in the post-War period that could afford to support a family on one income. That further undermines Tim’s original point, I suppose.
September 19th, 2006 at 12:41 pm
See, this argument from complexity sounds plausible. It also sounds like the plausible, false arguments we see in the work of Aristotle or Malthus. To give you an example of why I don’t consider this remotely proven: public transportation increases “complexity”, in a sense. Its existence requires more of these “specialized social roles”. It can also reduce the scope of all the complex mechanisms society uses to deal with automobiles, like the DMV and the traffic court system and of course the gasoline industry. This “growth” can result in freeing resources for other use rather than swallowing more of them. Complexity clearly does not have a simple physical meaning that would let us make scientifically certain predictions about “growth”.
J, kindly stop referring to feminsim in the past tense.
September 19th, 2006 at 1:13 pm
Wow , you are a very articulate spokesperson for this idea of Primitivism , which I really knew nothing about , except as another approach which I did not resonate with.
You mention balance a couple of times as you write , and that seems like an integral part of it to you.
I don`t know if you are familiar with the movement I am involved with, but our symbol is what we call the Monad, which is an ancient symbol of balance.
Even though Technocracy may seem worlds apart from what you are thinking, I hope you still give the idea some thought. It may be a distant 2nd choice alternative that you can file away.
I understand the horror you feel at the modern world. I truly believe that we live in a space age concentration camp with this type of society.
I think we could agree on that point Jason, and as far as even your diminishing returns underlying concept, I would agree, and add exponential resource destruction , and that ends up in a total nightmare very soon.
As far as what you were saying about a new technology that might increase the rate of our destruction , I totally agree. As long as these technologies are tied into our Price System culture, they are only concocted to make money and not to improve society.
Modernity.?
What a joke.
New technology will diminish us as you say , unless it is carefully thought out , not to make money , but to improve the world , and preserve the natural world.
You might find some of the aspects of our plan to rejigger society to your liking. Large area`s around where people live would be left in a wild state. There would also be a lot of free time for people to commune with nature if that is their desire.
It has been proposed in the past that one possible strategy of resource procurement would be to mine some of the older cities , and recycle them for material , as new types of living environments are made using the most state of the art methods that are environmentally as friendly as possible.
In our present scam society recycling material in a 100% way is not done, because it stops our growth culture of digging a hole, filling it up , and digging another hole and moving the dirt around.
Our commerce and consumerism is driven by the supreme price system value.
That is growth , measured in the abstract concept of debt tokens, or money.
If you put a bill in Congress that said We endorse the idea of growth , you would get a 100% sign up. This is wrong headed. Growth presently means death. Growth in relation to population and resources is killing us now.
What is the future.?
Some one handing the keys of a B.M.W. to someone who bought it as they say , and that person driving off into a cloud of dust, from a destroyed environment.?
Americans.?
Some of dumbest people on the face of the earth. Can they wake up.? Maybe, I hope so.
Why do they work the way they do , and not question what they are doing.?
It`s funny. Comical in a way.
Work is for horse`s. Why would a human want to make someone else rich , unless they were tricked by some oddball system , Political , or Religious to do so.?
We could have a lot of fun, and become a creative place again.
It will not happen under the current system. Get ready for the crash test. An airbag and belt may help.
It only gets worse from here as to our false and deadly values and the future.
Have you heard about the area I mentioned in Indonesia, I can`t remember the name. It was two words, and at the farther reach of it to the east. It may be the last Eden like unspoiled large area in the world. It sounds really beautiful.
I would really like to go there. I love nature and wildness.
September 19th, 2006 at 1:31 pm
See Joseph Tainter’s Collapse of Complex Societies.
September 19th, 2006 at 1:43 pm
The above was for hf….
I live mere minutes away from CMU. I know lots of guys in the robotics program there, a lot of people who are really at the forefront of where technology is going. They’re good people, and they really have a lot of idealistic dreams of making the world a better place. Even our CEO’s are usually trying to do good. It’s not good intentions we’re hurting for in the least. It’s a systemic problem that renders our intentions meaningless.
My problem with technocracy is that I think it has a very unrealistic attitude towards invention. It seems to take invention as an independent variable: we can always be more inventive. But in fact, we can’t. There are limits to invention. What we have now is pretty much all the technology we’re ever going to have. Technology, like complexity–or oil–is subject to diminishing returns. We hit “Peak Inventiveness” quite some time ago. The number of patents issued is declining, inventions take increasingly large R&D budgets and increasingly long timelines, and what they turn out is increasingly innovations of scale, rather than kind. This is a trend that will continue. Our exuberance for invention is a product of a bygone age, when there was plenty of low-hanging fruit and invention was correspondingly easy. Even revolutionary inventions could be counted on, on a regular basis. But there’s no more low-hanging fruit. What’s left is less obvious, or more difficult, or otherwise prohibitive–that’s why no one’s invented it yet. Sure, momentous discoveries will be made–they always are–but they become less and less common. It becomes less and less something that you can count on, and more and more a rare fluke. That’s why I say the level of technology we have now is more or less all we’ll ever have. Not that we’re going to stop inventing, but that our inventions will take more time and money, and they’ll be less grandiose and more modest on average.
That would be nice, but any scheme that relies on people “being good” is pretty much doomed from the start. Is there something to be gained from despoiling that wild land? What’s stopping them from doing so? If it’s simple scruples, all you’ve set up is a Prisoner’s Dilemna: whoever acts immorally first gets the advantage, and eliminates the others. This is one of the main reasons why civilization is so compelled to expand: because it can, and that means you have to do it before the next guy does.
I don’t know the place, but I’m sure it is. There’s actually a surprising amount of wilderness left, even in the U.S. Places that aren’t of any use to our industrialized agriculture, places that slipped between the cracks. The Allegheny National Forest was once decimated for timber, but now it’s a healthy second-growth forest. That’s where the Tribe of Anthropik is making its home.
September 19th, 2006 at 2:38 pm
I have just done a crash course on Tainter`s Collapse idea and I agree 100% with the thesis. I had to chuckle a little when I read some of the rudiments. These are recycled ideas from the Technocracy movement, and my guess is that Mr. Tainter is very familiar with the basics of our concepts.
I don`t know that for a fact, but I will be surprised if that is not the case.
Can I ask if you are in communication with this man , and if you are, could you ask him if he is familiar with Technocracy.? I would put a wager that he is very familiar with our ideas.
His reliance on energy as a determinant of cultural growth or collapse is pretty much the same as ours. Our Idea of a complex high energy civilization and how it works are the same.
We published our material in the late 20`s .
The technocracy movement created the ecology movement.
Tainter`s theory of scanning behaviour is interesting. I would use the analogy of the 1960`s as that period of creative looking. This period now would be the demise period of just prior collapse, and I agree completely that it will be global. It will have to be as the technological network breaks into pieces.
I see now the- out- in your mind Jason, that would be the idea that some people will thrive and actually do better post collapse. That may be true. I have a feeling that a general nightmare ala James Kunstler`s fervid imagination would be likely the sorry ending of our culture , as a worse case scenario , if we hang on to the nasty price system method.
No doubt Kunstler read Tainters ideas to come up with his half baked and intellectually empty ones .
What I mean is that Taintor is brilliant.
Kunstler would have dumbed down the whole thing to make money and stroke his ego perhaps thinking he is smart.
Now I am really curious if Taintor knows a whole lot of stuff because he mined it from our movement , and just how connected to our ideas he is.
As said I suspect he mined much of his concepts from us.
Does he talk about technocracy in his essay work and related writing.?
If you know him would you mind asking him about that.? He sounds like an interesting guy.
My background is similar to his as to anthropology and Archaeology, history of religion, etc.
He may have arrived at some of his ideas independently.
I doubt that though.
Because these ideas that are the basis of our technocracy thesis are simple science that could be. Not rocket science stuff. Any person with an 8th grade education and some native intelligence could understand Tainter or Technocracy. It`s all the unfortunate brain washing that gets in the way. Tainter is right on. ~ ! ~
September 19th, 2006 at 2:45 pm
You may want to go to my www.technocracynow.org site and download a free copy of the Study Course. It was first published in 34 and last in 48. There are a couple very minor things that need updating in it , but nothing that changes the basics of it .
If you have a chance poke around in it a bit. I think you will be very surprised. It is our technate plan and a whole lot more.
My book which is also on my site there and also free, contains some large excerpts also of the Study Course. If you capture my book also , I would suggest that you read the Chapter called - I am the Price System - first.
September 19th, 2006 at 3:36 pm
No, the actual role of women was not to work outside the home for money in an office. You missed the point. Working outside the home for money is a totally different ballgame than working inside the home or agriculturally “in the fields,” so to speak, for sustenance. If you can’t note the tremendous difference between those two concepts, then I’m not sure what to say to you. The key factor here is moving the focus outside of the home, into the corporate world.
September 19th, 2006 at 4:00 pm
Well it wasn’t so long before that when men didn’t work outside the home, either. But think of the Industrial Revolution. The women were usually employed in textile mills and such. That’s pretty much outside the home, and for wages to boot.
September 19th, 2006 at 8:50 pm
September 19th, 2006 at 8:51 pm
Sorry for the repeat post. Forgot to close tags.
Yes, but this wasn’t a typical occupation for most married women. The women working in textile mills were generally either immigrants or very poor spinsters/single mothers.
Men have still always maintained established roles as main breadwinners, regardless of whether they sold their homegrown agricultural wares or found employment in other fields. Women were charged with the child-rearing and countless other domestic tasks. This is just the way familial duties were historically divided.
The postwar period of time to which you referred earlier was the result of tremendous economic success and a subsequent elevated standard of living (maintained on one-income), which was virtually obliterated overnight with the mass spending of events like the Vietnam war. This just so happened to coincide with a mainstream brand of feminism that encouraged women to take on “the boys” in the wage-earning workforce in order to prove themselves as equals.
September 20th, 2006 at 11:12 am
I’m pretty sure that most wives were also textile workers. The post-war period was very atypical in that it allowed for the “housewife” to really emerge. In WW2, women almost all worked. In the Industrial Revolution, pretty much all women worked in places like textile mills. Since the post-war period, women have been forced to go back to work by economic necessity (and the ideologies discussed in the original post emerge concurrently, giving women a justification for that necessity). So, the stay-at-home wife is something of a fantasy. It’s never been a realistic view of society. It might work in traditionally agrarian societies, but again, if we push back to horticultural or foraging societies, we find women doing at least equal outside work, and in the case of horticultural societies, often more work than the men.
September 20th, 2006 at 3:23 pm
Jason, I’m not really sure upon what analysis you base the assertion that “almost all wives worked in textile mills” during the Industrial Revolution. What you’re saying runs contrary to nearly all statistical analysis that I’ve ever read with regard to the history of female occupations here in the US. According to the statistics I’ve read, women made up approximately 15% of the workforce during the Industrial Revolution. Not a terribly significant number. And, in fact, married women were frequently precluded by law from working outside the home for many years.
Certainly, WW2 and the subsequent shortage of men available for non-civilian employment opened up new career opportunities for women. After the war, however, women were encouraged to “do their civic duty” by giving up their jobs for returning vets and many were fired for this very purpose. After the war, women represented an even lower percentage within the workforce than they had during the Industrial Revolution.
Not really. The notion of a woman being the “boss,” so to speak, of the home is not a fantasy at all. It’s completely rooted in cultural history. But then, I’m not sure if we have the same interpretation of “stay-at-home” wife. You seem to take the term literally, while I am using it to refer to a role focused on the nurture and sustenance of a family/home, rather than a wage-based job.
If you go back to the pre-industrial, colonial period, women were still largely in charge of traditional “housewife,” maternal duties. Since working for wages was not usually a part of the socioeconomic equation, both husbands and wives worked together to generate household goods, etc.
Again, I’m not speaking of agricultural/horticultural work for family sustenance, nor do I consider such work to be what we now refer to as “working outside the home.” I’m speaking of working for wages, not working to generate supplies and food for sustenance. I think that there is a pretty significant difference between the two.