Toughts and Feelings and Shit

Nudnik was found! I told my sister to relax and get back to her normal life, not sit there and wring her hands over his whereabouts. So she did. She turned on the AC and prepared for an afternoon of relaxation. The AC wasn't working, so she checked the filter under the house. And there he was, all covered in dirt and kinda hungry and scared. But alive. So I was right, and I am best.

Also, while getting towels out of her dryer, she apparently felt a slight popping sensation in her ear, and saw a little stone fall out, followed by a tiny fly. That was still alive. weird, no?

I dont know why, but every time I start a new job, I find myself re-reading some of the work of Daniel Quinn. It's not a conscious decision, it just kinda happens. When trying to justify why, I've come up with the following suggestions:

- I'm a cancer. So I tend to be very withdrawn and quiet at first, and after a while, become very outspoken and loud. But in those first few weeks, I'll crawl into my shell and read a lot.

- Usually when I start a new job, it's because I've grown fed up with call-centre work, and have decided to dull the pain by moving to another call centre. I don't know what bad circuitry in my head is responsible for calculating that conclusion, but it would explain why I head for the books of Daniel Quinn, which answers a lot of questions for the directionless.

I guess I'll attempt to explain what Quinn discusses in his books. If you wanna check them out, start with Ishmael and proceed to My Ishmael. Then read Beyond Civilization: Humanity's next great adventure. These are the essential ones- the others I find superfluous.

The fundamental rule behind Quinn's philosophy is this: There is no one right way for people to live.

Beyond that, Quinn tries to frame this innocuous looking idea in the following context.

- For 3 million years, humanity lived by that rule. We lived in ethnic tribes, each of which had a set of rules that worked for the tribe. The rules of that tribe were incompatible with other tribes. But not by design. They just were. It never would have occured to anyone to make a set of rules that were adaptable for everyone.

- In this context humanity, though more intelligent than other species, were not especially harmful. They were as harmless as sharks, tarantulas, bluebirds and caterpillars. They left the running of the world in the hands of the Gods, so for arguments sake, let's call these people Leavers.

- Around 9000 years ago, one particular tribe made a massive change. They decided to rely on agriculture as their sole means of obtaining food\

Now, this is where it gets a bit more complex. So far, nothing groundbreaking- humans lived in tribes, then they 'discovered' agriculture. This is widely known.

But actually, limited agriculture had been practiced long before that. It would have been a supplement to hunting and gathering, scavenging and foraging. It certainly wasn't desirable. Why? Because. It's fucking hard, that's why. People didn't live to work- they worked to live. And the only thing we're actually slaves to is hunger, right? so why work when not hungry?

People didn't. They hunted when they were hungry. They picked fruit from a tree...when they were hungry. No fruit today? Try some grubs. Whatever. Food is food. Absolutely no food for me? Okay. Today is the day I become food.

HA! There's the kicker. The Leavers left the decision as to who was to be food in the hands of the Gods. If it was going to be them, so be it. Oh, they'd fight for it, but they didn't try to fundamentally change the way the world works.

Agriculture DOES try to fundamentally change the way the world works.

Devoted agriculture, as a full-time pursuit, is pretty bloodthirsty and unnatural. Don't think so? Go into an unfarmed portion of the world (if you can find one) and find me an apple orchard. A field with only apple trees. Won't happen.

And it's bloodthirsty. Don't think so? Alright, I'm hungry. I kill a sheep. One sheep. But grow me a field of corn, and I gotta kill off pests, including whole ecosystems of insects, not to mention voles, varmints, rabbits, field mice, etc...

So, agriculture is saying "we're gonna take the decision as to who will or won't be food out of the hands of the gods. We'll create our own rules for the world, to the exclusion of others. We will decide who lives and who dies".

Brutal, no?

Of course, agriculture meant more food. which means more people. People are made out of food. No? What, you think you're made out of silicon?

Okay, so more people. and food surplus. what to do with the surplus? Well, let's store it. Okay, Now we need someone to store it. These are the middle men, the priests and kings and governments. They safeguard the food, while we slave away, making more food, to make more people.

From there, it doesn't take a great deal of extrapolation to see how our civilization came about. It's main defining features, and the cornerstone of it's success in dominating the globe, are the following rules:

1. Food is under lock and key.

2. There is only one right way for people to live, and this is it.

So what's the point of all of this, even if it seems like a reasonable assessment? The point is, our current way is not sustainable. It's not good, it's not bad, it's just not going to work. Sure, it's worked for 9 millenia, but that's pretty small in comparison to the 3 million years that tribalism served us. And we're facing total destruction, at least according to...well, everyone. In fact, we're enamored with death. We're gagging for it.

Most people, from here, get scared and assume Quinn is proposing we return to hardscrabble hunting and gathering. He doesn't. He advocates that civilization is unsustainable, and we need to move into something new, not back into something old. And not all of us should or could do this. Just the ones for whom civilization is kinda sucky. The ones who have to keep buying shiny toys to dull the pain of having little to no actual satisfaction and joy in their lives.

Think about it: how many shiny toys out there simply look to simulate human action and interaction that's already free? Hint: all of them. Cars? They simulate walking. Phones? They simulate talking. Computers? They simulate thinking. iPods? They simulate singing.

Anywho, it gets deeper and deeper, and it's sometimes a real joy to read, especially for those (like myself) who feel that something isn't quite right. But I wouldn't try to read it if you're not ready for it. His writings never make any hard and fast, black and white staetements, and nothing he says is particularly inflammatory. But if you find yourself arguing with every little thing, then it's probably not for you.