Tue, 18 Sep 2018 09:36:25 +0000, 09:36 AM
(This post was last modified: Tue, 18 Sep 2018 09:36:52 +0000, 09:36 AM by alexander.)
I'm interested in your thoughts on the inevitability of our doom.
I will be posing my question as a response to the article featured in this thread: https://anti-civ.net/showthread.php?tid=428
Here is a short summary of the article (although it is worth reading in full):
A «[ n ]ew study argues that the greatest defining feature of our species
is not 'symbolism' or dramatic cognitive change but rather its unique
ecological position as a global 'general specialist'.»
These scientists suggest that «investigations into what it means to be
human should shift from attempts to uncover the earliest material traces
of 'art', 'language', or technological 'complexity' towards
understanding what makes our species ecologically unique.» Our «ability
to occupy diverse and 'extreme' settings around the world stands in
stark contrast to the ecological adaptations of other hominin taxa, and
may explain how our species became the last surviving hominin on the
planet.» Unlike the other species, «our species not only colonized a
diversity of challenging environments, including deserts, tropical
rainforests, high altitude settings, and the palaeoarctic, but also
specialized in its adaptation to some of these extremes».
This raises the question: was this all inevitable?
In philosophy we often talk about the two extremes of technological thinking: instrumentalism (we use technology to accomplish stuff), and determinism (technology is in charge, and we can't stop it). Most (all?) thinkers are somewhere in between those extremes, balancing them. I think that Ivan Illich's insight about tools for conviviality are pertinent to how we think about this. Are we expressing ourselves with our "tool for conviviality", or are we mere expressions of the machine, like with Tolkien's ring of power? The problem is further complicated by the fact that even simple tools are inherently problematic. If I have a sufficiently simple hammer (i.e. anyone can make it without division of labour), and use it to hammer in something to express myself by hammering two sticks together somehow, I can then put the hammer down, or give it away—whatever. But what if I'm better at hammering two sticks together than everyone else? Why would they make their own hammer, when they can just get me to do it? Thus deskilling. And then specialisation. It all seems fundamentally inevitable.
Put succinctly—if perhaps overly dramatically—was behavioural modernity simply a death sentence?
I will be posing my question as a response to the article featured in this thread: https://anti-civ.net/showthread.php?tid=428
Here is a short summary of the article (although it is worth reading in full):
A «[ n ]ew study argues that the greatest defining feature of our species
is not 'symbolism' or dramatic cognitive change but rather its unique
ecological position as a global 'general specialist'.»
These scientists suggest that «investigations into what it means to be
human should shift from attempts to uncover the earliest material traces
of 'art', 'language', or technological 'complexity' towards
understanding what makes our species ecologically unique.» Our «ability
to occupy diverse and 'extreme' settings around the world stands in
stark contrast to the ecological adaptations of other hominin taxa, and
may explain how our species became the last surviving hominin on the
planet.» Unlike the other species, «our species not only colonized a
diversity of challenging environments, including deserts, tropical
rainforests, high altitude settings, and the palaeoarctic, but also
specialized in its adaptation to some of these extremes».
This raises the question: was this all inevitable?
In philosophy we often talk about the two extremes of technological thinking: instrumentalism (we use technology to accomplish stuff), and determinism (technology is in charge, and we can't stop it). Most (all?) thinkers are somewhere in between those extremes, balancing them. I think that Ivan Illich's insight about tools for conviviality are pertinent to how we think about this. Are we expressing ourselves with our "tool for conviviality", or are we mere expressions of the machine, like with Tolkien's ring of power? The problem is further complicated by the fact that even simple tools are inherently problematic. If I have a sufficiently simple hammer (i.e. anyone can make it without division of labour), and use it to hammer in something to express myself by hammering two sticks together somehow, I can then put the hammer down, or give it away—whatever. But what if I'm better at hammering two sticks together than everyone else? Why would they make their own hammer, when they can just get me to do it? Thus deskilling. And then specialisation. It all seems fundamentally inevitable.
Put succinctly—if perhaps overly dramatically—was behavioural modernity simply a death sentence?