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.
Recent Comments