(Untitled)

[hobgadling]

Well it doesn't sound like there's any more interest here than in the population at large, but generally speaking I'm interested in spreading memes which promote the long-term happiness and survivability of all life. Now here's a list of words: sustainability, conservation economy, peak oil, unschooling, natural capitalism, cradle to cradle,

Comments

2¢

[ratmist]

I debated whether or not I wanted to throw my 2¢ into this thread, but then the library informed me that they won't retrieve the volumes from the Special Collections that I want until two hours from now. So here I am, replying out of sheer boredom - which is to be noted, in case someone gets the idea that I'm flaming hobgadling.

The fundamental problem I've had with your memes, Benjy, is that I don't believe memes serve as a catalyst towards environmentally sustainable living, let alone towards a better future for mankind. They feel more like medeival bloodlettings, undertaken to exorcise spirits and malignant cancers, and ultimately useless to the poor patient desperately trying to get well - which, in this case, I identify as you. (I've seen you enjoy medical jargon in describing the Western culture (=virus; =cancer), both terms which I found unhelpful and unnecessarily negative in terms of accurately identifying and describing Western culture; I use the terminology here because it seemed fitting. Regardless, memes are fundamentally intellectual wanking - and this is why I don't read them, nor have the time for them.

Furthermore, as an anthropologist/archaeologist, I have little time for others in this thread who've casually dismissed ethnographies from the 1960s and 70s, as though they have no relevance to current anthropological ethnographers' theoretical groundings. There is a prediliction in science-orientated enthusiasts that if theories cannot be proven true, or are proven false on any level, they are discounted. This is not true in the humanities, where Malinowski's work from the 1920's is still considered very useful for understanding Pacific island life, even if his approach was flawed and his data incomplete. The idea that ethnographer's political agendas in the 1960s and 70s render their ethnographic data unusable, or untenable, is ridiculous: it merely means that certain models of research have fallen out of favour in light of new approaches and interpretations. Those that read these ethnographies and cannot take them on balance with current ethnographic research, nor see the ethnographic data 'forest' for the political 'trees', betray a certain naivety.

Throughout your LJ, Benji, you mention things about your daily living habits which I do find interesting: the fact that you attempt to bicycle wherever you can rather than using petrol-based transportation; recycling attempts; reading various books that fuel your intentions towards sustainable energy lifestyles. These are all very good things to do, but I disagree with the idea that "every bit helps": human beings worldwide are wrecking the environment much faster than a small group of humans could counterbalance, but at least you get in shape and save money on gas with all the biking around. Maybe somewhere along the way you've realised that on your own, these daily habits amount to piffle, and you're trying to inspire people to change their habits (and their outlooks) towards what you feel is the solution.

However, I'd suggest very tacitly that your methods aren't making the most of your talents and energies. I agree with myspicybrains, who encourages you to go out and do more, to create these communities where leading by example inspires far more than a meme ever could. And I would encourage others to do the same, and cut hobgadling a little slack.

Re: 2¢

[ciggieposeur]

*applause*

Well said.

Re: 2¢

[naralian]

Your assertion about theories being discarded just because they're wrong in the hard sciences is not entirely correct. Wrong theories generally are not developed any further once their falsity is discovered, but they are often used as analytic tools because they generally provide a close approximation. A psysicist tossing a ball at a window is probably going to call the kinetic energy of the thing mv^2/2, despite the fact that this is not the correct formula (or rather, it's the correct formula with the incorrect assumption mass = rest mass). Similarly, a materials scientist will often shuffle between 5 or 6 models of interatomic connection, none of which may be the strict truth, but all of which work within an acceptable margin of error. I should know, my professor does it all the time.

In fact, a lot of the popular (most useful) models were never intended to be true. Look at the Lewis dot/line bond model of covalent bonding.

Re: 2¢

[ratmist]

Firstly, you're correct.

Secondly, I believe you may have willingly misinterpreted my words by stating that I asserted anything contrary to what you mentioned. I was merely asserting that the data collected by ethnographies in the 1960s and 70s, regardless of the ultimate framework by which they interpreted their findings, was still useful, even if some (and I stress that it is only some) find the inherent ideologies suspect. Those that work in the humanities, like I do, could not possibly do their job well if we decided to discard other people's work because they were known to be Marxists, or capitalists, or whatever. As for theories, they are useful in so far that they are flexible models of thought, which are subject to change as new ideas and ideologies are introduced into whatever field, whether science or humanity.

My 2¢ post was never intended to be a veiled jab at the sciences, for I find the intellectual divide between the humanities and sciences an unfortunate and unnecessary rift, to which I certainly would not wish to contribute.