Last night after the public meeting I had the chance to talk with an anarcho-primitivist friend of mine about the role of civilization in human life and where technology is leading us. I tested some fairly radical futurist theories against his own. The conversation was a bit heated but quite interesting. What I found both amusing and disturbing was our propensity to take our arguments to the most extreme ends at which point I don’t think either of us could really believing what we were trying to assert, at least I hope not. There was no room for a middle ground in the discussion
Each of us described the ideal future that our viewpoints would lead to. I argued for the nobility and virtue of self-aware (human) consciousness which might eventually lead to a state of singularity, infused consciousness inhabiting a bio-mechanical conglomeration, something like what is seen in the Matrix, but not so malevolent. My friend, Steven, insisted that, A.) the very concept of a singular consciousness is horrific (Personally, I don’t see why. To me, it would represent the unification of all human life, the equalizing of all disparity, and, potentially, the fulfillment of an evolutionary process.) and, B.) the bio-mechanical transition would not be sustainable as it would destroy the very biosphere that it feeds off of, planet earth. To this latter point, I postulated that the fueling of consciousness would stop being nutrient based and would instead be powered by other sources of energy in nature.
He asked what energy sources would we use once the available fossil fuels were used up. I stated, first the earth’s core, secondly the sun, and hopefully, by the time the sun was no longer an option our cybernetic logic systems would have solved the problem of how to access energy sources outside of our solar system. “So you want to consume the entire universe,” he said. Essentially, yes, was my response, but the amount of time it would take for this to occur, if it is even possible, is incalculable. But consumption of the universe is not the goal. Rather, the goal is to sustain consciousness in manner that gives us an opportunity to understand itself within and without of the material universe in the search for God, who is beyond the universe.
Steven said this narrative sounds far too similar to the story of the Tower of Babel. I agree that it does, and I wonder about that. But frankly, I don’t understand why Steven’s philosophy or utopian vision is more righteous. He would like to see an anti-industrial revolution in which we eventually return to a state of foraging for sustenance. He argues that the human consciousness, which I view as sacred and evidence of the existence of a creator, is actually a corruption of life, and that we would do well to cast off our desire to control our own destinies with technology and instead live in harmony with planet earth. He kept repeating that for two million years our species lived in harmony with the planet; only in the last ten thousand years have we have become dangerous to ourselves and to all other life.
I don’t know where he’s getting this two million year number. I had always heard that the primate life form has only been in existence for eight hundred thousand years, and during most of that time it was barely recognizable as human. The Cro-Magnon man only emerged 35,000 years ago, as the theory goes. No matter, what I think Steven is trying to propagate is a “back to Eden” type of philosophy. The metaphor is that the Garden of Eden represents our animal state, and that obtaining the Knowledge of Good and Evil brought us to our fallen state which is civilization. This viewpoint implies that all culture is evil and misguided and the solution to the problem is in its complete abolition.
This sounds a little extreme, even for Steven. He did say it, but I think it may have been going beyond his actual position. I think he actually wishes that human development had arrested in the state of those indigenous American people who lived here just before European settlers massacred them. But now, since that did not occur, we should somehow return to that life way. This sounds a bit unrealistic to me, barring some major collapse of industrial society, which I don’t argue is impossible. However, even in such a case, it seems unlikely that civilization would regress. Steven argues that the majority of the world, outside of western civilization, is seeking this holistic harmonious life with planet earth. I think he is suffering from a luddite delusion.
Additionally, if a return to this supposedly harmonious life were even an option, it would eventually mean the total extinction of humanity. The possibility of a major catastrophic event that would permanently alter the ecology of the planet is a certainty. The only way we can predict and prepare for such an event is by utilizing technology. And if we got lucky and avoided such an event, the sun is bound to alter over time changing the conditions of solar system in way that the planet’s biosphere could no longer function. Scientists conjecture that it will be a few billion years from now.
Outside of the logistics of Steven’s ideal, let’s look at the theology. Is a return to the Garden of Eden the point of human life or of being a Christian, as some of my Christian friends seem to conjecture. When Adam and Eve were cast out, they were given clothing, they were told that childbirth would be painful, and from now on they would have to work the earth for their food. And they were told they would die, which, if we are looking at this in terms of the metaphor, I think it’s means that we now understand what death is (to an extent) and fear it. Then God stationed an angel with a flaming sword to guard the garden and prevent them from returning to eat from the tree of life. The point of the story is, we can never go back.
But the people at my church with anarcho-primitivist tendencies love to twist the stories to fit their view. So the story of Cain and Able is about how agriculture is wrong. The Tower of Babel is a cautionary tale against building civilization. I think the most bizarre of these interpretations is the idealization of the Exodus of the Israelites, of their wandering in the desert following God in the form of a cloud of smoke/pillar of fire, that this is somehow the state in which God intended people to live, homeless and dependent on manna from Heaven. Never mind that one day the manna stopped coming and God told them it was time to enter the promised land where they were instructed to settle.
What I realized after the conversation between Steven and I is that both of us were arguing for extremes to their absurd ends, and neither of us were really taking into account the possibility of a spiritual intervention by God, which is of course how the Bible stories tell us things will end. It’s hard to believe in that type of thing, because along with the intervention there’s judgment, and then these unpleasant metaphors of heaven and hell. We don’t like that. I suppose some people get gratification at the thought that their version of justice will come to pass. Personally, I shudder to think of justice in terms of vengeance. But if vengeance is God’s then, probably, much like God, it is something we have no grasp of.
Ultimately Steven and I both come to the same conclusion, that we are fairly helpless about what happens on the grand scheme of things and that we can only choose to lead the best life we can. But Steven has chosen to feel guilty and angry that he is born in a civilization he hates and has dedicated his life to tearing it down and recruiting others to do the same. Whereas I accept civilization as merely a survival tool that is beneficent to humanity but also can be abused. I choose not to focus on what clothing I wear and food I eat which may have been processed through an unjust bio-mechanism in which some suffer more than others. The mechanism continues to improve in my view. Instead, I choose to focus on my personal interactions with others, which is enough of a struggle in itself, learning to assert my individuality in a positive and creative manner and hoping that the consciousness beyond the material world will manifest itself to this lowly body-bound consciousness that needs it so.
