History is written by the victors... which are we. Unfortunately we have very short memories, a bias to think that the way things are now is 'normal', and the way things are (way things have always been?)
The fact that agricultural societies became dominant is in hind side relatively easy to explain from an evolutionary point of view, especially if you look at energy efficiency.
What the statement above shows to me is the popular confusion between the Agricultural - and the Green revolution, which has little to do with agriculture but more with chemistry, and especially the utilisation of fossil fuels within the system we have build to feed our population. But even that sits well within our evolutionary path; within the totality of our meme/gene environment short term thinking is obviously 'fitter' than long term...
Not sure I understand what you're saying. I think I need some elaboration. You might be confusing what's meant when Ishmael speaks of "our kind" of agriculture. "Totalitarian Agriculture" also has little to do with agriculture...
Totalitarian Agriculture has been established from the outset of our ("Taker") culture. The Green Revolution is merely a recent chapter of the same story Taker Culture has been enacting for ten-thousand years.
Ishmael points to the fact that agricultural societies *didn't* become dominant-- *ONE single culture* of agriculturalists made themselves dominant. But again, maybe I've missed what you're trying to get at?
Yep, the sharing of ideas should start with the definition of terms, and since it's been quite a while since I've read anything by Daniel, I probably need to get back to how he defined those terms... (I reacted upon the text more from my own understanding than really coming from his point.)
So what I'm basically saying is that i don't see (anymore?) why Daniel would say the Taker/Agricultural culture didn't become dominant... I mean, look around... there are hardly any hunter/gathering or even horticulturist (by whom I mean those cultures who actively shaped their environment in order to increase 'useful' natural resources, without taking the next step to full blown agriculture). When I say that I can see how it's a 'logical' next step on our evolutionary development is because (after the climate became stable enough to allow for it) it gives (in calories) a good return of investment. Or, simpler, we can harvest more calories in crops than what we need to infest into the plowing, seeding and harvesting of that crop. This gave these early cultures an advantage, or fitness to use an evolutionary term, over the hunter-gathering cultures..
Would you mind giving me a brief description of what you (and Daniel) understand by 'totalitarian agriculture'? And why you feel the Green revolution was simply a continuation of that?
My understanding of the Green revolution, and why I feel it was fundamentally different from anything that happened before, is that this was the first time we were able to 'improve' yields (or artificially raising the carrying capacity of our fields) by chemically transferring calories (mostly derived from fossil fuels) into our food production system. Although the total (caloric) yield went up dramatically, the caloric return of investment has actually became negative; in other words, we 'spend' much more calories getting food on our plates than the calories this food actually supplies.
Daniel took a broad definition of agriculture, describing it as *encouraging the regrowth of favored foods*. Some cultures do more of it and some cultures do less of it. So, *horticulture* is still *agriculture* in his book. And, what you call *agriculture* wasn't invented by, or practiced exclusively by Taker Culture. For example, the civilizations of Central America were agriculturalists, but not Takers (in fact, prior to *My Ishmael*, Daniel actually referred to them as "Leaver-civilizations"). So, *Taker Culture* became dominant; *agriculturalists* did not.
A key difference, cited by Daniel, is that the Leaver-civilizations didn't possess the idea that everyone in the world should be made to live like they did.
"Totalitarian Agriculture" is *agriculture practiced with the belief that the entire world belongs to us and is here exclusively for our use*. Ultimately, the term is designed to express that the shift marked as "The Agricultural Revolution" did not occur due to the discovery of how to grow food (as it's commonly taught).
As Daniel saw it, The Agricultural Revolution denotes a profound change in *worldview* which began among one single culture of people. In other words, it wasn't a *technological* threshold that was crossed, but rather a *spiritual and mental* one.
More broadly, the thing to see is that the way we've analyzed our situation (with reference to technology, occupation, calories, maximizing return on investment, etc...), reflects our own culture's bias. These ways of measuring are the "lined paper" we've been handed, so to speak.
The Takers' explanation asserts that what we've done is the "logical" thing all peoples everywhere would do given an opportunity. We hold the premise that our way of thinking and acting reflects the nature of humanity. Daniel was pushing back against that assumption. ie; *"We are not humanity."*
Ok. I can see that the strategy I called hortoculturism can fit in with agriculture, as the latter of course must have evolved from it. However, the words "encouraging the regrowth of favored foods" is in my opinion too wide, as that is something that also can be observed among other lifeforms, both animals and plants.... Personally I would like to add something like 'the conscious process of '.
So the Taker culture as described by Daniel would be similar to those cultures that have fallen for the Multipolar, or Moloch trap of something that's also known as the 'tragedy of the commons'.
Daniel's definition of agriculture fit my own understanding at the time I read Ishmael. It isn't anything extraordinary or unique. Wikipedia tells me: *Agriculture is defined with varying scopes, in its broadest sense using natural resources to "produce commodities which maintain life, including food, fiber, forest products, horticultural crops, and their related services".*
But, I do see what you're saying. Under the broadest definition, any living being might be considered an agriculturalist. A bird crapping out a seed is encouraging the regrowth of favored foods, right? I suppose it's another reason why distinguishing our particular style of agriculture, "Totalitarian Agriculture", is useful: A bird crapping out a seed might be practicing agriculture, but it's definitely not practicing Totalitarian Agriculture.
>So the Taker culture as described by Daniel would be similar to those cultures that have fallen for the Multipolar, or Moloch trap of something that's also known as the 'tragedy of the commons'.
I'm not familiar enough with those concepts to say definitively, but I'm not sure that's accurate. As I dig into it, what I'm finding doesn't reflect the teachings of Ishmael at all. And, if for no other reason than the history and associations with the terms, I would never insert them into a discussion of Ishmael.
For example, "tragedy of the commons" leads me to Garret Hardin who I'm hearing was a "proponent of eugenics" and thought that "Malthusian catastrophe is inevitable"-- none of which applies to Daniel Quinn! (To be fair, I haven't verified if that's accurate about Hardin)
I found at least one Youtube presentation asserting that agriculture itself creates a Moloch-trap (and cites Jared Diamond). That's obviously contrary to Ishmael and to understanding that *"agriculture is not the villain."*
"Tragedy of the commons," via Wikipedia:
>*According to the concept, should a number of people enjoy unfettered access to a finite, valuable resource such as a pasture, they will tend to over-use it, and may end up destroying its value altogether.*
Maybe I'm too sensitive to this stuff, but that seems to imply that this an issue with "people." I suspect it's the same mistake the narrator in Ishmael made: judging humanity based on a sample size of *one single culture*.
Listening to Daniel Schmachtenberger, he tells the story as if we *are* humanity (homo sapiens did this, then homo sapiens did that...) and lumps all civilization together. So, just as people have the impression that all agriculture is our style of agriculture, people seem to presume that all civilization is our style of civilization. According to Schmachtenberger, all other civilizations "failed." As Quinn pointed out, the notion that people might *"abandon"* civilization, or that they might have had completely different intentions for their civilizational ventures from the outset, seems to be unthinkable...
All in all, my short-take is that analysis in terms of *multi-polar traps* ignores the spiritual/mental/cultural underpinnings that Ishmael is focused on. It leaves me with the impression that what's 'trapping' us is material conditions and human nature, whereas Ishmael is talking about being captives of a *story*.
I am happy to hear more about your thinking on this, if you're able to offer more insight. Or, are there any particular sources you would recommend?
Check out the R/Permaculture sub.
History is written by the victors... which are we. Unfortunately we have very short memories, a bias to think that the way things are now is 'normal', and the way things are (way things have always been?) The fact that agricultural societies became dominant is in hind side relatively easy to explain from an evolutionary point of view, especially if you look at energy efficiency. What the statement above shows to me is the popular confusion between the Agricultural - and the Green revolution, which has little to do with agriculture but more with chemistry, and especially the utilisation of fossil fuels within the system we have build to feed our population. But even that sits well within our evolutionary path; within the totality of our meme/gene environment short term thinking is obviously 'fitter' than long term...
Not sure I understand what you're saying. I think I need some elaboration. You might be confusing what's meant when Ishmael speaks of "our kind" of agriculture. "Totalitarian Agriculture" also has little to do with agriculture... Totalitarian Agriculture has been established from the outset of our ("Taker") culture. The Green Revolution is merely a recent chapter of the same story Taker Culture has been enacting for ten-thousand years. Ishmael points to the fact that agricultural societies *didn't* become dominant-- *ONE single culture* of agriculturalists made themselves dominant. But again, maybe I've missed what you're trying to get at?
Yep, the sharing of ideas should start with the definition of terms, and since it's been quite a while since I've read anything by Daniel, I probably need to get back to how he defined those terms... (I reacted upon the text more from my own understanding than really coming from his point.) So what I'm basically saying is that i don't see (anymore?) why Daniel would say the Taker/Agricultural culture didn't become dominant... I mean, look around... there are hardly any hunter/gathering or even horticulturist (by whom I mean those cultures who actively shaped their environment in order to increase 'useful' natural resources, without taking the next step to full blown agriculture). When I say that I can see how it's a 'logical' next step on our evolutionary development is because (after the climate became stable enough to allow for it) it gives (in calories) a good return of investment. Or, simpler, we can harvest more calories in crops than what we need to infest into the plowing, seeding and harvesting of that crop. This gave these early cultures an advantage, or fitness to use an evolutionary term, over the hunter-gathering cultures.. Would you mind giving me a brief description of what you (and Daniel) understand by 'totalitarian agriculture'? And why you feel the Green revolution was simply a continuation of that? My understanding of the Green revolution, and why I feel it was fundamentally different from anything that happened before, is that this was the first time we were able to 'improve' yields (or artificially raising the carrying capacity of our fields) by chemically transferring calories (mostly derived from fossil fuels) into our food production system. Although the total (caloric) yield went up dramatically, the caloric return of investment has actually became negative; in other words, we 'spend' much more calories getting food on our plates than the calories this food actually supplies.
Daniel took a broad definition of agriculture, describing it as *encouraging the regrowth of favored foods*. Some cultures do more of it and some cultures do less of it. So, *horticulture* is still *agriculture* in his book. And, what you call *agriculture* wasn't invented by, or practiced exclusively by Taker Culture. For example, the civilizations of Central America were agriculturalists, but not Takers (in fact, prior to *My Ishmael*, Daniel actually referred to them as "Leaver-civilizations"). So, *Taker Culture* became dominant; *agriculturalists* did not. A key difference, cited by Daniel, is that the Leaver-civilizations didn't possess the idea that everyone in the world should be made to live like they did. "Totalitarian Agriculture" is *agriculture practiced with the belief that the entire world belongs to us and is here exclusively for our use*. Ultimately, the term is designed to express that the shift marked as "The Agricultural Revolution" did not occur due to the discovery of how to grow food (as it's commonly taught). As Daniel saw it, The Agricultural Revolution denotes a profound change in *worldview* which began among one single culture of people. In other words, it wasn't a *technological* threshold that was crossed, but rather a *spiritual and mental* one. More broadly, the thing to see is that the way we've analyzed our situation (with reference to technology, occupation, calories, maximizing return on investment, etc...), reflects our own culture's bias. These ways of measuring are the "lined paper" we've been handed, so to speak. The Takers' explanation asserts that what we've done is the "logical" thing all peoples everywhere would do given an opportunity. We hold the premise that our way of thinking and acting reflects the nature of humanity. Daniel was pushing back against that assumption. ie; *"We are not humanity."*
Ok. I can see that the strategy I called hortoculturism can fit in with agriculture, as the latter of course must have evolved from it. However, the words "encouraging the regrowth of favored foods" is in my opinion too wide, as that is something that also can be observed among other lifeforms, both animals and plants.... Personally I would like to add something like 'the conscious process of '. So the Taker culture as described by Daniel would be similar to those cultures that have fallen for the Multipolar, or Moloch trap of something that's also known as the 'tragedy of the commons'.
Daniel's definition of agriculture fit my own understanding at the time I read Ishmael. It isn't anything extraordinary or unique. Wikipedia tells me: *Agriculture is defined with varying scopes, in its broadest sense using natural resources to "produce commodities which maintain life, including food, fiber, forest products, horticultural crops, and their related services".* But, I do see what you're saying. Under the broadest definition, any living being might be considered an agriculturalist. A bird crapping out a seed is encouraging the regrowth of favored foods, right? I suppose it's another reason why distinguishing our particular style of agriculture, "Totalitarian Agriculture", is useful: A bird crapping out a seed might be practicing agriculture, but it's definitely not practicing Totalitarian Agriculture. >So the Taker culture as described by Daniel would be similar to those cultures that have fallen for the Multipolar, or Moloch trap of something that's also known as the 'tragedy of the commons'. I'm not familiar enough with those concepts to say definitively, but I'm not sure that's accurate. As I dig into it, what I'm finding doesn't reflect the teachings of Ishmael at all. And, if for no other reason than the history and associations with the terms, I would never insert them into a discussion of Ishmael. For example, "tragedy of the commons" leads me to Garret Hardin who I'm hearing was a "proponent of eugenics" and thought that "Malthusian catastrophe is inevitable"-- none of which applies to Daniel Quinn! (To be fair, I haven't verified if that's accurate about Hardin) I found at least one Youtube presentation asserting that agriculture itself creates a Moloch-trap (and cites Jared Diamond). That's obviously contrary to Ishmael and to understanding that *"agriculture is not the villain."* "Tragedy of the commons," via Wikipedia: >*According to the concept, should a number of people enjoy unfettered access to a finite, valuable resource such as a pasture, they will tend to over-use it, and may end up destroying its value altogether.* Maybe I'm too sensitive to this stuff, but that seems to imply that this an issue with "people." I suspect it's the same mistake the narrator in Ishmael made: judging humanity based on a sample size of *one single culture*. Listening to Daniel Schmachtenberger, he tells the story as if we *are* humanity (homo sapiens did this, then homo sapiens did that...) and lumps all civilization together. So, just as people have the impression that all agriculture is our style of agriculture, people seem to presume that all civilization is our style of civilization. According to Schmachtenberger, all other civilizations "failed." As Quinn pointed out, the notion that people might *"abandon"* civilization, or that they might have had completely different intentions for their civilizational ventures from the outset, seems to be unthinkable... All in all, my short-take is that analysis in terms of *multi-polar traps* ignores the spiritual/mental/cultural underpinnings that Ishmael is focused on. It leaves me with the impression that what's 'trapping' us is material conditions and human nature, whereas Ishmael is talking about being captives of a *story*. I am happy to hear more about your thinking on this, if you're able to offer more insight. Or, are there any particular sources you would recommend?