Defining Progress

Speaking at the recent New York City Petrocollapse Conference, peak oil activist Jan Lundberg articulated what has become a standard view among what might be called the “pessimistic wing” of the energy depletion movement. “Human beings have clearly gotten out of control starting about 10,000 years ago . . . Civilization is the threat. Civilization is what brought about nuclear bombs and the commodification of nature. Culture change is the cure.”

He then goes on to describe the talks to be given on sustainability: “urban gardens, pedal power produce delivery, depaving and lawn conversion to gardens and farms . . . the idea of our country may be redefined back to love of the land.”

Where to begin unraveling the murky threads of fallacy and illogic that underlie this thinking? It may seem churlish to criticize Lundgren for attacking “civilization” itself and then holding up post-Soviet Cuba as a model of sustainability (as if Cuba—even in its “special period”—were not part of civilization) and promoting suburban agriculture (as if agriculture itself were not both product and hallmark of civilization). After all, whether his anthropology and history is precise or not, the general message—that peak oil threatens modern life as we know it—is undoubtedly true. It is also very likely that we will have to drastically downscale our energy consumption—so those hoping for a continuation of the status quo (much less a “Jetsons” future) are likely to be in for a rude shock.

Beyond those basic observations, though, are Lundberg’s assumptions about culture, civilization, progress and technology—assumptions that should not go unexamined. Learning the facts of peak oil has a tendency to refocus the mind on the fundamental question of human use of resources; abstract ideas about society seem less important. But if history teaches us anything, it is that ideas have consequences. As one of the greatest changes in the human story is now afoot, it would seem foolish in the extreme to leave intellectual rigor to the physical scientists while allowing sloppy armchair anthropologists and historians frame the relevant cultural questions.

It has become axiomatic among environmentalists of a certain bent that the development of civilization (meaning agriculture and permanent settlement) was the central wrong turn in human development. Tribal people, they say, lived better, longer and worked less than the average person in a civilized society—at least until the 20th century. Whether or not this is true is debatable, but also irrelevant to the situation at hand. Six billion people cannot return to tribal living, nor is it likely that they would.

But it is not clear that this is what Lundberg means; in fact, it is not at all clear what he means. He uses “civilization” and “Western civilization” interchangeably (and pejoratively) while “culture” is neutral or positive. “Not all human beings are guilty of civilization,” he says, as if civilization were an activity, not a description of a society. “The idea of returning to a real community-based culture (e.g. tribal) are (sic) heresy here in the land of techno-worship.”

Lundberg also attacks the very notion of progress, which he claims is “as dangerous one as history has shown if we read between the lines.” By progress, he seems again to be referring to the progress of civilization as opposed to the relative stasis of pre-historical societies. But “progress” in intellectual history usually refers to a much more recent idea from the Enlightenment. Many previous civilizations had different conceptions of time and progress than we do now; that did not prevent them from “advancing” technologically. Some of the most important inventions in history come from a Chinese civilization whose major religion advocates working with nature as its central tenet.

These distinctions are important. Deciding to approach the coming crisis with a Taoist sense of non-resistance and appropriate action at the appropriate time is a quite different from railing against the sins of civilization.

What is heresy is that the idea that we could possibly have both “progress” and still work with nature (rather than against it). But how else do we describe the permaculture movement? Sophisticated organic farming techniques are now able to produce yields that are equivalent to high-intensity conventional farming while also replenishing the soil almost indefinitely. This can’t be described as a “return” to pre-industrial farming (much less “tribal” society), when yields were much lower.

Furthermore, do we really wish to abandon the central premises of the Enlightenment—premises which include essential equality of all people, the importance of representative government, or the centrality of reason? Lundberg talks of “epidemics of breast cancer and prostate cancer . . . we are being raped in every orifice,” but would he sacrifice simple epidemiology or germ theory to return to a pre-scientific era when plague and infections killed millions?

The problems we are facing are bad enough without the limits of artificial intellectual boxes. The human virtues that would seem to matter most now are tolerance, adaptability, perseverance, forbearance and most of all creativity. Raging incoherently against “civilization” is neither intellectually honest nor helpful.

Comments

[AN]

Really great points. I found Lundberg to be absurd if not insane. This was my take:

http://www.freezerbox.com/archive/article.php?id=385

[Lakis]

Thanks Aaron. I really liked your Freezerbox piece, and your website . . . I look forward to reading more of your thoughts on peak oil and cities.

[Ryan]

Though Lundberg is certainly guily of sloppy and, dare I write, lazy thinking, a grain of truth hides behind his choice of terms.

Civilization comes from the Latin word for city. To be "civilized" is literally to make cities. In this sense, it actually makes sense to regard civilization as an activity as well as a description.

Based on what Lundberg recommends, I suspect he's trying to argue that our culture went astray when it started building cities - around 10,000 years ago, as it turns out.

It's possible to make a case that organized warfare (as opposed to territorial skirmishes) followed civilization, but I think the case is weak. Civilization did, however, establish fixed targets for invading forces and capital assets to defend.

This certainly established the long back-and-forth escalation in offensive and defensive techniques that has culminated in a globe-spanning military apparatus with the capacity to destroy nearly all life on earth.

I'd be interested in seeing how someone with a more rigorous approach to history and language could develop Lundberg's ideas.

[Lakis]

I’m not an anthropologist, so it’s impossible for me to take a position on whether (for example) warfare began with cities or not. Certainly you are correct that Lundberg is not the first person to argue that civilization has, on balance, made life worse for humanity. Many anthropologists have said that when one compares tribal societies to pre-industrial civilizations, it seems that tribal people lived longer, worked less and were more egalitarian. On the other hand, the “noble savage” myth seems equally misplaced when one considers the damage that many tribal people did to their environments (perhaps modern society’s problem is more one of scale and efficiency than an intrinsically inferior moral state). My understanding is that the anthropological debate is not settled.

But how relevant is all of this to our current situation? How realistic is it to argue for a return to tribal life? And how desirable is it, when there is no consensus about what tribal life really entailed (or entails)? It seems to me that many people who argue for a return to “tribal life” really mean a return to “rural/agricultural life”. But if we believe the arguments of people like Jane Jacobs, in “civilized” societies, it is the health and diversity of cities which drives the quality of life for rural regions; when cities decline, rural areas suffer, not vice-versa.

I’m still working out all of these ideas for myself, but what I am coming to is the thesis that while human beings are tool-making animals by nature, not all technologies are equally beneficial or destructive; and the nature of civilization (“city-making” as you correctly say) is not fixed.

I could be wrong, but I can’t see any other way forward—however small tribes survived in the past, I am afraid that a wholesale abandonment (not just shrinkage) of our cities as a response to energy depletion would be a catastrophe for humanity.

[Tim Hjersted]

While I can understand your critisism's of Lundburgs speech, since many of your arguments stem from the same paradigm of thinking he is trying to address, I beg you to look a little further into what he is saying. The contradictions lie in what he is not able to cram into a 30 minute speech, but with a closer look (read Ishmael by Daniel Quinn, for example) the new vocabulary he uses makes sense for a new way of thinking.

There are so many fallacies present in your dismisals, I cant even begin. I can only point you in the direction of a more thorough analysis: Ishmael, by Daniel Quinn. The Last Hours of Ancient Sunlight. Its a mistake to dismiss his thoughts as crazy, simply because you can find contradictions within a limited context (that of the speech) when to address these issues would require a LOT more background info.

www.readishmael.com

[cheap jersey]

Oh god! You seriously can capture a reader’s attention. I really learnt a thing or two. Thanks for being a mentor!

[lacoste 2010]

This certainly established the long back-and-forth escalation in offensive and defensive techniques that has culminated in a globe-spanning military apparatus with the capacity to destroy nearly all life on earth.