Constant Growth--The Philosophy of Cancer: March 11, 2009
There is something in the cultural notion of Constant Growth as being either an imperative or a virtue that should be closely examined.
This notion is so deeply embedded in our culture, our economy and our demography that it is seldom brought to the light of critical inquiry. And yet, it is so deeply embedded within our mind-frame that it ends up forming a dominating influence in the global paradigm that spreads across our Sacred Mother Earth and violates Great Nature itself.
Two caveats here. I use the term "Constant Growth" as a man-made concept and distinguish it from cyclical or circular growth found in nature and even in Malthusian catastrophes. Second, I am broad-brushing many issues in population, economy and culture deliberately and am not responding merely to the current breakdowns occurring in the economy, etc. (However, where the shoe fits...wear it.)
In virtually every arena of "modern-life" the notion that for an entity to be well it must be in a state of constant growth. In technology, economics, education and many others the "more is better" is seemingly integral to our perception that something is doing well, e.g., is "progress."
A question begins to arise as to where does this stop (or should it.) How fast can the changes inspired by "Constant Growth" be assimilated into our lives? Or does it leave us needing more and more complexity of knowledge and resources to go about our lives.
I can't go into every aspect of human life without this becoming tedious. But we can examine a few well-defined areas, I believe, to inquire into "Constant Growth's" effects on life and our lives in particular.
Instance: Economy. Our economy, and in fact the global economy, predicates it's determination of "good" or "bad" by economic growth. My question: What does this imply? I am not an economist but looking at the issue with a broad brush I question where does this growth come from? Can an economy grow forever without running into limitations in both natural resources and human population. Does a "healthy economy" mean we have to have more and more people buying more and more "stuff?" Has anyone ever considered such a thing as a "steady state" economy? Would such a thing be antithesis to so-called free-market capitalism?
Technology: Now, I am not an anti-technology person as you can tell by the fact that I am using the Internet to speak to you as a reader. Nor am I anti-science or a Luddite. But there are differences between technology and science per se and market-biased technology and market-biased science. Adding more and more bells and whistles on every years new car reaches a point where a car can no longer be fixed by an owner, or in some cases even serviced for maintenance. Technology in a medical practice has yielded both the wondrous and the ponderous. How much can you afford to take part in the wondrous? Are you able to pay for the technology when market forces determine the cost? Do the rich have access and the poor do not? And what comes next? Then there is the great planned obsolescence (also known part rightly and part wrongly) as "innovation." Vinyl Records---> Reel-to-reel----> 8 Track Tapes---> cassettes---> CD's---->? Each change or "advance" brings with it the need to convert all previous data (your music for instance) to a new format. Or you are left behind. So many people with VCR's and then, kaboom!, DVD's. I cannot buy most new material on anything other than DVD so I must then have a DVD player. But I have a huge collection of VCR recordings so I must have a VCR as well. Who will fix my record player?
OK, I admit I am getting a trivial in the context of my broader point, but it pisses me off.
More important things to consider in the instance of technology. I am all for the development of new energy alternatives that are either solar or renewable. Without them there will be no way to stop the burning of our planet that is already underway.
The ability to read and eventually change the human genome deserves incredible caution. On one hand it may lead to cures for many illnesses (and increasing human life-expectancy) and on the other hand it brings up the scarier idea of Eugenics. Once the door is opened, where will it stop? And what kind of world will the human world be...in fact, what will humans themselves become? And what will this do to our relation to the World itself. As the early 1900's magickian Austin Osman Spare says in his "Book of Pleasure", "evolution teaches by terrible punishments."
TMI and Education: When I was a young man (I am now 55...kind of a boring number) and began kindergarten I was not expected to have already attended 2+ years of preschool education, nor expected to have developed social skills beyond that of home and neighbourhoods. But that was back in the early 1950's where stay-at-home moms were normal and we were still riding the wave of the post WW II economic boom. Now over 80% of children are in preschool education and the demands upon young ones are greater. While I will give the devil his/her due it is not without some reservation. I work in a back-handed way with this in my employment and while I know everyone involved with this push is genuinely caring and professional I still wonder how it affects the structure of family (as compared to my own). It is an utterly changed world, nearly unrecognisable in many respects. What happens when human growth and development becomes more and more institutionalized? And how long does a human stay within the educational system? Longer and longer as the amount of information needed to become the kind of professional that society seems to want. And this leads to more and more specialization in every field which essentially makes getting the big picture more and more difficult. A unified vision becomes harder the deeper you are into that one field you study.
Once "News" was something you absorbed in quantities small enough to not overwhelm but as the pace of knowledge acquired increases exponentially, "News" becomes more and more far-reaching. I am required to be an economist to understand the global economic meltdown. I have to have detailed information on not just my own countries' working but the whole nation-state planetary state. How much do we have to worry about and how much of it can we change should we desire? I have to be a scientist, a military strategist, a diplomat, a M.D. and about 30 other types of specialist to wade through and edit down the amount of information I am exposed to every day in order to fulfill my requirement as "good global citizen."
Please don't get me wrong. Information is good. Knowledge is good. The question is when they are in a free fall how does one become a smart enough editor to not be an idiot or just ignore the whole mess? Many, I think, "ignore the whole mess" and just deal what is in front of them. How does one become "wise" holistically when information becomes overwhelming and specialized? Does anyone remember the book "Future Shock" by Alvin Toffler in 1970? Toffler's shortest definition of future shock is a personal perception of "too much change in too short a period of time". Assimilation and wisdom become nearly impossible.
Population: O.K.--here's the big elephant in the room. We are approaching 7 billion human inhabitants in this world. Somewhere I heard someone say they are expecting it to reach around 9 billion by the year 2050.
Uh-huh! Oh-oh! It is my feeling that humans as a species should probably not exceed 3 billion people if we want to have any room left for a natural world (our Mother and sustenance.) We topped that in 1965. If we want to create a world just ready for plague, starvation and warfare, well, we're doing just the right thing.
Does any of this remind you of Cancer? Where cells lose their ability to know when to stop growing.
As Edward R. Murrow used to say at the end of his radio programs, "Good night, and good luck."