I really enjoyed this little movie. I hope you enjoy it too.
Saturday, September 25, 2010
Sunday, September 19, 2010
Book Review: Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed
Recently I have been reading the book Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed by Jared Diamond. It is a follow up to his other book Guns, Germs, and Steel [editor's note: I will provide a review of that book when I finish writing it. I have read the book, but I have not finished writing the review], which won the Pulitzer Prize.
If you are interested in a more comprehensive review of the book then I am sure that you can find a link to a good review from the Wikipedia page on the book, or a review on Amazon. This review is just my own personal take on the book.
First off, the book is well written and full of details, but it is not technical and can be read by any high school graduate (or anyone still in high school for that matter). He makes some excellent points in the book, and it is obvious that his motivations for writing the book are sincere. He truly hopes that by writing this book he will inspire us to take action and to prevent the collapse of our modern societies. I think that this book would be useful for people to get an idea of the sheer scale of our impact on the environment, and how that impact can have some serious consequences on us and our ability to survive.
While Diamond tries to express the complex nature of what causes certain societies to collapse, by the end of the book what I was getting out of it was that the entirety of the book could be summed up in one word, "Deforestation". In every chapter, no matter how complex the situation or society, or how many factors went into the decline (or not) of a society, the clincher...every...single...time, was deforestation. If a society cut down too many trees, they collapsed, if they managed to preserve their forests they succeeded. So while he talked about other causes and the complexity of the situation he, either knowingly or unknowingly, wrote the book so that deforestation was the prime cause of the collapse of a society. In every...single...example that he gives, the final straw that broke the backs of the societies was deforestation. So if you read the book, don't be surprised that you feel like going out and saving every last tree in sight, and don't be surprised if you suddenly become overly concerned about forest management. While he does have a point, and being concerned about proper forest management is very important, I think there are some more severe root causes to societal collapse that he only hints at in the book. While he also mentions soil erosion and soil fertility along with water management and introduction of "noxious weeds" and other ecologically destructive species, eventually it all comes down to deforestation.
But in all of his complex analysis Diamond falls victim in this book, just like in Guns, Germs, and Steel, to what I refer to as the Observational Astronomer Syndrome (OAS) [editor's note: I will explain this in more detail in my review of Guns, Germs and Steel, which I still have to finish writing. When I finish that review I will provide a link here to that review]. To briefly explain OAS you need to understand a little about astronomy. Astronomers spend most of their time looking at data gathered from telescopes (they spend most of their time looking at the data, and not looking through a telescope) and from that data they find correlations between different things. Such as the observe that galaxies that have an overall red color are generally older than galaxies with a more blue color. Also the red galaxies tend to be bigger. Thus an astronomer may spend much of their time taking observational data and plotting it on a graph to see if they can find any trends or correlations between seemingly unrelated things, such as the presence of iron and age, or the presence of magnetic fields and rotation (or a star or galaxy). In his book Diamond does something similar. He looks at historical data and says, "Look, when people cut down all their trees, a short time later their society collapses." And then he proceeds to look at many different societies that apparently were in different situations and says, "Look, for every society in different parts of the world, when they began to cut down too many trees they started to fall apart and die off." So in this way he is like an observational astronomer that looks through a telescope, takes a survey of many different things and finds out what each one had in common right before something bad happened to them. In this case the common thread was apparently deforestation.
While this is not a bad thing to do it does fall victim to the OAS, which is a tendency to look at the correlations and to ignore the underlying causes of the problem. One of the things I learned in astronomy is that there are two types of plots that we can make of astronomical data. The first is simply correlational plots which plot one thing against another and (hopefully) produce a useful trend that can then tell us something about other stars or galaxies that we might look at. It is kind of like looking out your window and noting what kinds of trees you see and from that you can figure out what kinds of trees you ought to see if you go outside and look at places that you can't see from your window. But in astronomy there is a second type of plot that astronomers make and these are arguable more useful. The second type of plots that astronomers make are ones that show or reveal what we call "the underlying physics", that is, it tells us something about the laws of physics that govern everything down to individual atoms. These plots are more interesting because they are more than "happy coincidences" that can be used to find trends and correlations, they tell us something about the universe, about how it works and why we see what we see. If we understand the underlying physics then we can determine the final effects that we should observe in all cases. The problem with most observational astronomers is that they get caught up in finding the interesting correlations, and while the correlations may be useful for further observations and surveys, don't really tell us much about how the universe works. Thus the Observational Astronomer Syndrome is a tendency to look at the correlations and to become fixated on them and to ignore the reasons why the universe (or history) unfolds as it does. Someone with OAS fails to look for the underlying causes to what we observe. They look at interesting correlations, and even correlations that contribute to the end result, but fail to consider the causes that are effective on the small, and smallest, scales, which ultimately determine the whole.
The reason why I say that Diamond falls victim to OAS is that even though he spends an inordinate amount of the book describing how environmental degradation contributes to societal collapse he writes disproportionately less about what factors in society contributed to either the success or collapse of the society. While he focuses a lot on how the practices and customs of the society contribute to the environmental degradation, he does not spend as much time considering just what is it about the society (i.e. the particular practices of the society) that lead directly to the triggering of environmental and consequently societal collapse. Diamond only briefly mentions possible causes, such as mentioning that selfish actions taken by politicians contributed to the genocide in Rwanda, or that the inordinate pride of chiefs lead to excessive monument building that caused the deforestation on Easter Island. Nor does Diamond adequately consider which societal practices would contribute to a successful society, other than good forest management and environmental protections, such as in his example with Japan. Thus at the end of the book the reader is left with a sense that we must do something and that we must practice better forest management and enact better environmental controls, but beyond that there is no clear idea of how a society must be organized so that those practices and controls are effective in accomplishing anything. Diamond briefly mentions in his example with Japan that the Shogun only felt the need or the desire to promote better forest management when the Shogun could ensure that the practices would last for more than a generation. In other words, it would not matter how advanced or how organized the Japanese were with the forest management skills, or how well intentioned they were if they could not transmit that organization and dedication on to the next generation. He notes that it was only when the island was united to the point that large scale warfare was practically nonexistent that the Shogunate could practice good forest management that would last for more than a few years. Without that level of stability any forest management would ultimately be pointless and impossible to enforce, and thus would be unable to prevent the societal collapse that Diamond is warning us about.
So while I agree with Diamond that poor forest management, poor farming practices, and poor environmental controls can and will cause problems for societies, the presence of these dangerous conditions are predicated on societal traits that are necessarily prior to the environmental conditions. These societal traits that either allow good environmental management or prevent it are only mentioned briefly and indirectly in Collapse, and this is why I say Diamond falls victim to OAS. While he does a good job at demonstrating how fragile, or overly exploited environmental conditions contribute to societal collapse, he does not explore to any great depth why particular societies failed to adopt either positive or at least minimal practices that would allow for their success.
He does mention how selfishness of political leaders played a role in Rwanda, and how excessive monument building contributed to the collapse of Easter Island culture and the Maya. He also notes how failure to adopt innovations contributed to the disappearance of Greenland's Norse, and how excessive violent tendencies created problems for the Norse, Maya and Rwanda. He also notes how an extreme distrust in foreigners contributed to the disappearance of the Norse in Greenland and is at the root of the current problems in Haiti. In all of his examples he notes that there was an extreme disparity in resources and that the disparities reached their highest levels right before the collapse. In some cases the disparity caused the collapse (i.e. through excessive monument building on Easter Island and with the Maya), and in others the disparity resulted when the society experienced a drastic change in their fortunes and the "rich and powerful" attempted to maintain their wealth and lifestyle at the expense of the poor until the poor forced a redistribution and thereby triggered a collapse (as was the case with the Greenland Norse, the Anasazi and Rwanda).
Thus if we take as the premise that excessive environmental damage precedes a society's collapse then we might justifiable ask, "What is it about certain societies that cause them to cause so much damage to their environment?" From Diamond's book we can immediately pick out a few obvious ones, and even a few not so obvious ones.
First, selfishness. As is evident in his example of Rwanda, the selfishness of a few political leaders who wished to maintain their power at any cost, cost the country many, many lives. While selfishness played a decisive role in other societies, it was in Rwanda that its effects were most evident (at least as explained by Diamond). Selfish tendencies undermine any attempts at regulation are restraint that may help preserve the environment. Selfish tendencies contribute to over exploitation through the mindset of "if I don't get the [resources, i.e. fish, wood, sheep, grass etc.] for myself then somebody else will just go get it". The concept of restraint and preservation are lacking in a selfish society.
Second, Diamond referred to it as excessive monument building, but other people would use a different word to describe it, namely, pride, or hubris. The drive to make someone's monument bigger, better, taller, or more extravagant than anyone else's is something that ultimately causes harm and contributes to a decline in resources. This pride, though Diamond never uses that word, is what caused the Easter Islanders to build more, and more massive monuments until they literally ran out of trees. It is what caused Mayan kings to continue to build massive monuments until the people rebelled and overthrew the kings.
Third, violence. Diamond notes that one of the main reasons why the Norse in Greenland never established good relations with the Inuit was because their first meeting consisted of the Norse killing eight of the nine Inuit that they met. All other meeting generally followed a similar style for the next 450 years until the surviving Norse at the Greenland settlements were killed off. Now I chose to use the word violence because there are more types of violence than just murder and warfare. Violence can also be oppression, segregation, intolerance and ridicule.
Fourth, disintegration of the family. This does not refer to changing societal expectations or gender roles, or even to a decrease in family size. This refers to family relations becoming broken, strained or resulting in conflict. Essentially when family ties get to the point where husbands and wives do not care for each other, and where parents do not care for children, and siblings for each other. In looking at why Rwanda happened, Diamond noted that many people were killed by family because they had a grudge or felt that they had inherited less than they felt they should have received. On the other hand Japan was able to achieve stability when families felt that they could pass down their inheritance/land/business to their children. They began managing their forests when they felt that their children would be around in 20 or 30 or 40 years to harvest the trees from the forest. Thus the preservation of family ties directly affected the peoples ability to act unselfishly and to enact good environmental controls, thus preserving their society.
Fifth, greed. While this could be lumped with selfishness or pride, greed is distinct enough to warrant mentioning. While selfishness can be characterized by short-sighted decisions, greed is characterized by poor, negative or irrational decisions. These are actions taken with no regard for the result or consequences. Diamond frequently mentions the greed of major corporations (though he does mention how some of them feel and act responsibly), in that they mine, dig, or cut not caring what gets damaged and then when they are done they go away and leave the mess for someone else to clean up (and pay for).
Sixth, failure to adopt innovations. Diamond lists this as the principle reason for the demise of the Norse in Greenland. Another way of putting this is it is a failure to think critically and to accept novel idea. To be fair, in retrospect it is easy for us to say, "If they had just done ______, then they would not have died.", but to look at our own situation and determine what we should do, or what aspects of our society we need to change in order to preserve our society is not so clear. But this is precisely Diamond's reason for writing Collapse in the first place. What sets this societal trait apart from the first five that I mentioned is that a failure to adopt innovation is often unintentional, or in some cases due to other pressures that to those involved consider benign. For example, in the US we use either paper of plastic shopping bags to hold our groceries when we buy food (and other things). The reason why more people do not switch over to using reusable cloth bags is not because they don't want to or have a particular desire to use plastic shopping bags, but because to make the switch is too much effort for the perceived benefit. So it is not a result of ill intention or irrational thought but rather the inertia of human societies, a desire to continue doing what we have always been doing.
This is by no means a complete or comprehensive list of societal traits that are found in collapsed societies, these are just the most obvious ones. Of the six traits that I have mentioned here four are explicitly mentioned by Diamond in Collapse; selfishness, greed, violence, and failure to adopt innovations, and two of them are mentioned indirectly or are referred to by other phrases, namely, pride and the disintegration of the family.
In considering these six things that contribute to the demise of society it might be said that these traits come about because of environmental pressures, but there is also sufficient evidence that these traits are prior to the environmental damage done by a society, and that the reason why a particular society fails to adopt good environmental controls is because of societal traits like the six listed above. This might be a prime candidate for a chicken vs. egg debate but instead a better way of looking at it is as a positive feedback mechanism. This means that there is nothing specific that starts the process, but that natural perturbations will augment the problem and cause it to grow. The societal problems prevent the society from adopting good environmental controls, and in turn the lack of environmental controls contributes to ecological damage which destabilizes the society and creates more societal pressure which augments the problem. This approach gives the impression that societal collapse is somewhat fatalistic because once the process starts it is nearly impossible to stop. The only way to prevent the collapse would be to prevent the problems (either environmental or societal) from growing beyond a manageable level.
In the end, the environmental concerns that Diamond raises are important and require action, but the environmental concerns are of little consequence if our society is not stable enough to follow through with the environmental controls. Thus it should be of greater concern to fix society so that we can then be effective in controlling our impact on the environment. While the book is very well written and Diamond gets his point across, because he gets caught up in the Observational Astronomer Syndrome in that he focuses too much on what is happening in the environment around a particular society and not what the society is specifically doing, other than damaging the environment, that leads to the precarious environmental situation in which the society finds itself. This means that he shows that societies that damage their environment too much will ultimately collapse, but I think the important question to consider here is what is it specifically about the society that prevented them from adopting good environmental controls. This is why I pointed out the six societal traits mentioned directly or indirectly by Diamond, that seem to prevent societies from adopting good environmental controls. The six that I mentioned are definitely not the only societal traits that may contribute to collapse, but they are a good starting point. If someone were to extend the investigation into societal collapse started by Diamond in Collapse then these traits would be a good place to start.
If you are interested in a more comprehensive review of the book then I am sure that you can find a link to a good review from the Wikipedia page on the book, or a review on Amazon. This review is just my own personal take on the book.
First off, the book is well written and full of details, but it is not technical and can be read by any high school graduate (or anyone still in high school for that matter). He makes some excellent points in the book, and it is obvious that his motivations for writing the book are sincere. He truly hopes that by writing this book he will inspire us to take action and to prevent the collapse of our modern societies. I think that this book would be useful for people to get an idea of the sheer scale of our impact on the environment, and how that impact can have some serious consequences on us and our ability to survive.
While Diamond tries to express the complex nature of what causes certain societies to collapse, by the end of the book what I was getting out of it was that the entirety of the book could be summed up in one word, "Deforestation". In every chapter, no matter how complex the situation or society, or how many factors went into the decline (or not) of a society, the clincher...every...single...time, was deforestation. If a society cut down too many trees, they collapsed, if they managed to preserve their forests they succeeded. So while he talked about other causes and the complexity of the situation he, either knowingly or unknowingly, wrote the book so that deforestation was the prime cause of the collapse of a society. In every...single...example that he gives, the final straw that broke the backs of the societies was deforestation. So if you read the book, don't be surprised that you feel like going out and saving every last tree in sight, and don't be surprised if you suddenly become overly concerned about forest management. While he does have a point, and being concerned about proper forest management is very important, I think there are some more severe root causes to societal collapse that he only hints at in the book. While he also mentions soil erosion and soil fertility along with water management and introduction of "noxious weeds" and other ecologically destructive species, eventually it all comes down to deforestation.
But in all of his complex analysis Diamond falls victim in this book, just like in Guns, Germs, and Steel, to what I refer to as the Observational Astronomer Syndrome (OAS) [editor's note: I will explain this in more detail in my review of Guns, Germs and Steel, which I still have to finish writing. When I finish that review I will provide a link here to that review]. To briefly explain OAS you need to understand a little about astronomy. Astronomers spend most of their time looking at data gathered from telescopes (they spend most of their time looking at the data, and not looking through a telescope) and from that data they find correlations between different things. Such as the observe that galaxies that have an overall red color are generally older than galaxies with a more blue color. Also the red galaxies tend to be bigger. Thus an astronomer may spend much of their time taking observational data and plotting it on a graph to see if they can find any trends or correlations between seemingly unrelated things, such as the presence of iron and age, or the presence of magnetic fields and rotation (or a star or galaxy). In his book Diamond does something similar. He looks at historical data and says, "Look, when people cut down all their trees, a short time later their society collapses." And then he proceeds to look at many different societies that apparently were in different situations and says, "Look, for every society in different parts of the world, when they began to cut down too many trees they started to fall apart and die off." So in this way he is like an observational astronomer that looks through a telescope, takes a survey of many different things and finds out what each one had in common right before something bad happened to them. In this case the common thread was apparently deforestation.
While this is not a bad thing to do it does fall victim to the OAS, which is a tendency to look at the correlations and to ignore the underlying causes of the problem. One of the things I learned in astronomy is that there are two types of plots that we can make of astronomical data. The first is simply correlational plots which plot one thing against another and (hopefully) produce a useful trend that can then tell us something about other stars or galaxies that we might look at. It is kind of like looking out your window and noting what kinds of trees you see and from that you can figure out what kinds of trees you ought to see if you go outside and look at places that you can't see from your window. But in astronomy there is a second type of plot that astronomers make and these are arguable more useful. The second type of plots that astronomers make are ones that show or reveal what we call "the underlying physics", that is, it tells us something about the laws of physics that govern everything down to individual atoms. These plots are more interesting because they are more than "happy coincidences" that can be used to find trends and correlations, they tell us something about the universe, about how it works and why we see what we see. If we understand the underlying physics then we can determine the final effects that we should observe in all cases. The problem with most observational astronomers is that they get caught up in finding the interesting correlations, and while the correlations may be useful for further observations and surveys, don't really tell us much about how the universe works. Thus the Observational Astronomer Syndrome is a tendency to look at the correlations and to become fixated on them and to ignore the reasons why the universe (or history) unfolds as it does. Someone with OAS fails to look for the underlying causes to what we observe. They look at interesting correlations, and even correlations that contribute to the end result, but fail to consider the causes that are effective on the small, and smallest, scales, which ultimately determine the whole.
The reason why I say that Diamond falls victim to OAS is that even though he spends an inordinate amount of the book describing how environmental degradation contributes to societal collapse he writes disproportionately less about what factors in society contributed to either the success or collapse of the society. While he focuses a lot on how the practices and customs of the society contribute to the environmental degradation, he does not spend as much time considering just what is it about the society (i.e. the particular practices of the society) that lead directly to the triggering of environmental and consequently societal collapse. Diamond only briefly mentions possible causes, such as mentioning that selfish actions taken by politicians contributed to the genocide in Rwanda, or that the inordinate pride of chiefs lead to excessive monument building that caused the deforestation on Easter Island. Nor does Diamond adequately consider which societal practices would contribute to a successful society, other than good forest management and environmental protections, such as in his example with Japan. Thus at the end of the book the reader is left with a sense that we must do something and that we must practice better forest management and enact better environmental controls, but beyond that there is no clear idea of how a society must be organized so that those practices and controls are effective in accomplishing anything. Diamond briefly mentions in his example with Japan that the Shogun only felt the need or the desire to promote better forest management when the Shogun could ensure that the practices would last for more than a generation. In other words, it would not matter how advanced or how organized the Japanese were with the forest management skills, or how well intentioned they were if they could not transmit that organization and dedication on to the next generation. He notes that it was only when the island was united to the point that large scale warfare was practically nonexistent that the Shogunate could practice good forest management that would last for more than a few years. Without that level of stability any forest management would ultimately be pointless and impossible to enforce, and thus would be unable to prevent the societal collapse that Diamond is warning us about.
So while I agree with Diamond that poor forest management, poor farming practices, and poor environmental controls can and will cause problems for societies, the presence of these dangerous conditions are predicated on societal traits that are necessarily prior to the environmental conditions. These societal traits that either allow good environmental management or prevent it are only mentioned briefly and indirectly in Collapse, and this is why I say Diamond falls victim to OAS. While he does a good job at demonstrating how fragile, or overly exploited environmental conditions contribute to societal collapse, he does not explore to any great depth why particular societies failed to adopt either positive or at least minimal practices that would allow for their success.
He does mention how selfishness of political leaders played a role in Rwanda, and how excessive monument building contributed to the collapse of Easter Island culture and the Maya. He also notes how failure to adopt innovations contributed to the disappearance of Greenland's Norse, and how excessive violent tendencies created problems for the Norse, Maya and Rwanda. He also notes how an extreme distrust in foreigners contributed to the disappearance of the Norse in Greenland and is at the root of the current problems in Haiti. In all of his examples he notes that there was an extreme disparity in resources and that the disparities reached their highest levels right before the collapse. In some cases the disparity caused the collapse (i.e. through excessive monument building on Easter Island and with the Maya), and in others the disparity resulted when the society experienced a drastic change in their fortunes and the "rich and powerful" attempted to maintain their wealth and lifestyle at the expense of the poor until the poor forced a redistribution and thereby triggered a collapse (as was the case with the Greenland Norse, the Anasazi and Rwanda).
Thus if we take as the premise that excessive environmental damage precedes a society's collapse then we might justifiable ask, "What is it about certain societies that cause them to cause so much damage to their environment?" From Diamond's book we can immediately pick out a few obvious ones, and even a few not so obvious ones.
First, selfishness. As is evident in his example of Rwanda, the selfishness of a few political leaders who wished to maintain their power at any cost, cost the country many, many lives. While selfishness played a decisive role in other societies, it was in Rwanda that its effects were most evident (at least as explained by Diamond). Selfish tendencies undermine any attempts at regulation are restraint that may help preserve the environment. Selfish tendencies contribute to over exploitation through the mindset of "if I don't get the [resources, i.e. fish, wood, sheep, grass etc.] for myself then somebody else will just go get it". The concept of restraint and preservation are lacking in a selfish society.
Second, Diamond referred to it as excessive monument building, but other people would use a different word to describe it, namely, pride, or hubris. The drive to make someone's monument bigger, better, taller, or more extravagant than anyone else's is something that ultimately causes harm and contributes to a decline in resources. This pride, though Diamond never uses that word, is what caused the Easter Islanders to build more, and more massive monuments until they literally ran out of trees. It is what caused Mayan kings to continue to build massive monuments until the people rebelled and overthrew the kings.
Third, violence. Diamond notes that one of the main reasons why the Norse in Greenland never established good relations with the Inuit was because their first meeting consisted of the Norse killing eight of the nine Inuit that they met. All other meeting generally followed a similar style for the next 450 years until the surviving Norse at the Greenland settlements were killed off. Now I chose to use the word violence because there are more types of violence than just murder and warfare. Violence can also be oppression, segregation, intolerance and ridicule.
Fourth, disintegration of the family. This does not refer to changing societal expectations or gender roles, or even to a decrease in family size. This refers to family relations becoming broken, strained or resulting in conflict. Essentially when family ties get to the point where husbands and wives do not care for each other, and where parents do not care for children, and siblings for each other. In looking at why Rwanda happened, Diamond noted that many people were killed by family because they had a grudge or felt that they had inherited less than they felt they should have received. On the other hand Japan was able to achieve stability when families felt that they could pass down their inheritance/land/business to their children. They began managing their forests when they felt that their children would be around in 20 or 30 or 40 years to harvest the trees from the forest. Thus the preservation of family ties directly affected the peoples ability to act unselfishly and to enact good environmental controls, thus preserving their society.
Fifth, greed. While this could be lumped with selfishness or pride, greed is distinct enough to warrant mentioning. While selfishness can be characterized by short-sighted decisions, greed is characterized by poor, negative or irrational decisions. These are actions taken with no regard for the result or consequences. Diamond frequently mentions the greed of major corporations (though he does mention how some of them feel and act responsibly), in that they mine, dig, or cut not caring what gets damaged and then when they are done they go away and leave the mess for someone else to clean up (and pay for).
Sixth, failure to adopt innovations. Diamond lists this as the principle reason for the demise of the Norse in Greenland. Another way of putting this is it is a failure to think critically and to accept novel idea. To be fair, in retrospect it is easy for us to say, "If they had just done ______, then they would not have died.", but to look at our own situation and determine what we should do, or what aspects of our society we need to change in order to preserve our society is not so clear. But this is precisely Diamond's reason for writing Collapse in the first place. What sets this societal trait apart from the first five that I mentioned is that a failure to adopt innovation is often unintentional, or in some cases due to other pressures that to those involved consider benign. For example, in the US we use either paper of plastic shopping bags to hold our groceries when we buy food (and other things). The reason why more people do not switch over to using reusable cloth bags is not because they don't want to or have a particular desire to use plastic shopping bags, but because to make the switch is too much effort for the perceived benefit. So it is not a result of ill intention or irrational thought but rather the inertia of human societies, a desire to continue doing what we have always been doing.
This is by no means a complete or comprehensive list of societal traits that are found in collapsed societies, these are just the most obvious ones. Of the six traits that I have mentioned here four are explicitly mentioned by Diamond in Collapse; selfishness, greed, violence, and failure to adopt innovations, and two of them are mentioned indirectly or are referred to by other phrases, namely, pride and the disintegration of the family.
In considering these six things that contribute to the demise of society it might be said that these traits come about because of environmental pressures, but there is also sufficient evidence that these traits are prior to the environmental damage done by a society, and that the reason why a particular society fails to adopt good environmental controls is because of societal traits like the six listed above. This might be a prime candidate for a chicken vs. egg debate but instead a better way of looking at it is as a positive feedback mechanism. This means that there is nothing specific that starts the process, but that natural perturbations will augment the problem and cause it to grow. The societal problems prevent the society from adopting good environmental controls, and in turn the lack of environmental controls contributes to ecological damage which destabilizes the society and creates more societal pressure which augments the problem. This approach gives the impression that societal collapse is somewhat fatalistic because once the process starts it is nearly impossible to stop. The only way to prevent the collapse would be to prevent the problems (either environmental or societal) from growing beyond a manageable level.
In the end, the environmental concerns that Diamond raises are important and require action, but the environmental concerns are of little consequence if our society is not stable enough to follow through with the environmental controls. Thus it should be of greater concern to fix society so that we can then be effective in controlling our impact on the environment. While the book is very well written and Diamond gets his point across, because he gets caught up in the Observational Astronomer Syndrome in that he focuses too much on what is happening in the environment around a particular society and not what the society is specifically doing, other than damaging the environment, that leads to the precarious environmental situation in which the society finds itself. This means that he shows that societies that damage their environment too much will ultimately collapse, but I think the important question to consider here is what is it specifically about the society that prevented them from adopting good environmental controls. This is why I pointed out the six societal traits mentioned directly or indirectly by Diamond, that seem to prevent societies from adopting good environmental controls. The six that I mentioned are definitely not the only societal traits that may contribute to collapse, but they are a good starting point. If someone were to extend the investigation into societal collapse started by Diamond in Collapse then these traits would be a good place to start.
Sunday, September 12, 2010
"I am the light which shineth in darkness"
Just a quick thought, and a question to think about. There are two scriptural phrases that show up in the Bible, Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants that are found separately, but occasionally are found in conjunction. One of these phrases is taken to be literal, meaning it refers to actual physical (historical) events, while the other is interpreted to be metaphorical and symbolic in nature. Both phrases can be found in the first chapter of John where John the Apostle is describing who Christ is. One of the phrases refers to Christ coming to His own people, and being rejected by them, while the other phrase refers to a light which shines in the darkness.
The phrase that is generally considered to be literal is found in John 1:11 and reads, "He came unto his own, and his own received him not. " (John 1:11) This phrase is generally understood to be literal, as in Christ came to His people and they did not receive Him. These events are the events found in the four gospels. While the other phrase found in verse five is generally understood to be figurative. "And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not." (John 1:5)
So we have these two phrases which appear together, but one is taken to be literal and the other is taken to be figurative. But recently as I was reading in D&C section six and again these two phrases came up; "Behold, I am Jesus Christ, the Son of God. I am the same that came unto mine own, and mine own received me not. I am the light which shineth in darkness, and the darkness comprehendeth it not." (D&C 6:21)
One thing to think about is, when Christ is introducing himself, He uses these two phrases to describe Himself and to explain why He is so important. That is, these are phrases that describe what Jesus has done so that make Him the Christ (and the light and the life of the world). So the second phrase, which is generally considered to be figurative, I think describe real, physical events and should not be taken as (just) figurative.
The phrase that is generally considered to be literal is found in John 1:11 and reads, "He came unto his own, and his own received him not. " (John 1:11) This phrase is generally understood to be literal, as in Christ came to His people and they did not receive Him. These events are the events found in the four gospels. While the other phrase found in verse five is generally understood to be figurative. "And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not." (John 1:5)
So we have these two phrases which appear together, but one is taken to be literal and the other is taken to be figurative. But recently as I was reading in D&C section six and again these two phrases came up; "Behold, I am Jesus Christ, the Son of God. I am the same that came unto mine own, and mine own received me not. I am the light which shineth in darkness, and the darkness comprehendeth it not." (D&C 6:21)
One thing to think about is, when Christ is introducing himself, He uses these two phrases to describe Himself and to explain why He is so important. That is, these are phrases that describe what Jesus has done so that make Him the Christ (and the light and the life of the world). So the second phrase, which is generally considered to be figurative, I think describe real, physical events and should not be taken as (just) figurative.
Underestimating the importance of D&C section 6
Recently I was reading in the Doctrine and Covenants in section 6 and I was struck by some of the language in the section that has never been pointed out or emphasized in any class, manual or lesson I have ever had. The heading for section 6 says that it is a "[r]evelation given to Joseph Smith the Prophet and Oliver Cowdery, at Harmony, Pennsylvania, April 1829....The Prophet inquired of the Lord through the Urim and Thummim and received this response." Because of this the way that this section has always been presented in my seminary and institute classes is that Joseph and Oliver were sitting in a room and Joseph asked a question by looking through the Urim and Thummin and then was inspired and proceeded to dictate the following response now known as section 6, with Oliver acting as scribe. In other words, every seminary, institute and Sunday School teacher I have ever had has presented section 6 as being received by Joseph Smith and he dictated it to Oliver Cowdery. But as I was reading through the section I got a very different sense, especially when I got to the final verse in the section.
Every time I have read section 6 I had the image in my mind of Joseph dictating the revelation to Oliver, but when I was reading it recently I was struck by the language of the last verse which states, "Behold the wounds which pierced my side, and also the prints of the nails in my hands and feet; be faithful, keep my commandments, and ye shall inherit the kingdom of heaven. Amen."
As I thought about this verse my mind was drawn to the first part where it says, "Behold the wounds which pierced my side, and also the prints of the nails in my hands and feet". When I reread the verse I thought, "How could Oliver Cowdery "Behold the wounds which pierced [Christ's] side, and also the prints of the nails in [Christ's] hands and feet" if Christ was not literally standing there. Because if Christ was not standing there in person, then why would He tell Oliver to "behold" the wounds in His side and the prints of the nails in His hands? The more I thought about it, if this were a case where someone was commanded to "behold" the wounds and the nail marks, and Christ was not literally there, then that would be very odd because that would mean that this particular experience was somehow different from every other recorded instance where someone was told to behold the wounds in Christ's side and the nail marks in His hands. So this made me wonder why of all of my seminary and institute teachers over the years (and Sunday School teachers) none of them had ever pointed this out, and why some of them even stated that for this particular revelation Joseph was dictating the revelation to Oliver. But if we go back and reread this revelation with the thought that Christ is literally standing there talking to Oliver then suddenly it becomes much richer and full of meaning.
Every time I have read section 6 I had the image in my mind of Joseph dictating the revelation to Oliver, but when I was reading it recently I was struck by the language of the last verse which states, "Behold the wounds which pierced my side, and also the prints of the nails in my hands and feet; be faithful, keep my commandments, and ye shall inherit the kingdom of heaven. Amen."
As I thought about this verse my mind was drawn to the first part where it says, "Behold the wounds which pierced my side, and also the prints of the nails in my hands and feet". When I reread the verse I thought, "How could Oliver Cowdery "Behold the wounds which pierced [Christ's] side, and also the prints of the nails in [Christ's] hands and feet" if Christ was not literally standing there. Because if Christ was not standing there in person, then why would He tell Oliver to "behold" the wounds in His side and the prints of the nails in His hands? The more I thought about it, if this were a case where someone was commanded to "behold" the wounds and the nail marks, and Christ was not literally there, then that would be very odd because that would mean that this particular experience was somehow different from every other recorded instance where someone was told to behold the wounds in Christ's side and the nail marks in His hands. So this made me wonder why of all of my seminary and institute teachers over the years (and Sunday School teachers) none of them had ever pointed this out, and why some of them even stated that for this particular revelation Joseph was dictating the revelation to Oliver. But if we go back and reread this revelation with the thought that Christ is literally standing there talking to Oliver then suddenly it becomes much richer and full of meaning.
Saturday, September 4, 2010
"Choice" In Insurance
Recently a few letters to the editor that appeared in the Daily Tar Heel caught my attention. What struck me about them was not necessarily the topic, but the mindset of the writers that lead them to write what they did. First I need to explain the background. Recently UNC has started requiring that all of its students have health insurance coverage. Because this requirement is mandatory the university has provided a low cost health insurance option for the students. Unless the student provides proof of their own insurance coverage, they are automatically enrolled in the student health insurance plan, which costs the student about $750 a year (WOW! How did they make it so cheap? It was subsidized by the state and federal governments). It turns out that one of the things covered by this student health insurance plan is the cost of having an abortion.
When some people found out that the default health insurance plan for the students included coverage for abortions, some concerned individuals strongly objected to the university and the university provided an option where the students could opt-out of paying for abortion coverage. This would not change the cost of the insurance premium but it would ensure that none of the money paid by someone who had opted out would be used for abortion coverage. Essentially, if someone opted-out then their insurance premiums would go into a separate account that would not be used to pay for abortions. This seemed like a sensible compromise given the situation (though some may argue that it would have been better to have the students opt-in rather than opt-out, but that is a separate issue). In response to this policy there were several letters to the editor in the Daily Tar Heel that addressed this issue. The three letters that I will write about were all pro-abortion and were lamenting the fact that the students were even given the option to opt-out of providing funds to cover the cost of abortions. (Links to the letters: Letter 1, Letter 2, Letter 3).
The three letters included the standard arguments for allowing abortions, which was not surprising, but what was particularly noticeable about what they wrote was their response to the option to opt-out of paying for abortions. As stated in letter 1, "we are concerned about the precedent set by President Erskine Bowles’ recent decision to allow students to “opt out” of sharing the costs of comprehensive reproductive health care in the new student insurance plan." Essentially the letter writers were not expressing a concern about any argument against abortion, or even that someone would be denied an abortion, but that the students were given the choice to not pay for abortions. As expressed in letter 3, "It is upsetting that the DTH [Daily Tar Heel] employs “right to choose” language to portray this opt-out policy". In other words, the main issue here for the writers was not that someone objected to paying for the abortions, but that the students were even given the choice to opt-out of paying for them, and as expressed in letter 3, they were equally offended that the DTH used the phrase "right to choose" to refer to the opt-out policy.
One of the things that was expressed in letter 2 was the idea that refusing to be part of the collective that pays for abortions is equal to denying someone an abortion. Even though abortions would still be covered by the insurance plan, the writers were scandalized by the fact that those who have moral objections to abortion would be given the right to choose not to participate. Again from letter 2, "Regardless of one’s personal feelings on abortion, this trend in removing a standard insurance benefit due to moral objections is disturbing." In other words, for these letter writers, it does not matter the opinions or objections of anyone, everyone should be forced to help, support, and pay for abortions. In short, moral objections are meaningless.
After reading these letters it makes me wonder if they really know what they are saying. Because if they understood what they just wrote, they would realize that they were advocating a tyrannical society in which only a small set of elites were able to have or express an opinion. They are saying that it does not matter what anyone else thinks on the subject, only they are allowed to have their opinions acted upon and become public policy. No one else's opinions are valid. I wonder if they really understand what they are advocating, and if they do, then we really do have problems.
When some people found out that the default health insurance plan for the students included coverage for abortions, some concerned individuals strongly objected to the university and the university provided an option where the students could opt-out of paying for abortion coverage. This would not change the cost of the insurance premium but it would ensure that none of the money paid by someone who had opted out would be used for abortion coverage. Essentially, if someone opted-out then their insurance premiums would go into a separate account that would not be used to pay for abortions. This seemed like a sensible compromise given the situation (though some may argue that it would have been better to have the students opt-in rather than opt-out, but that is a separate issue). In response to this policy there were several letters to the editor in the Daily Tar Heel that addressed this issue. The three letters that I will write about were all pro-abortion and were lamenting the fact that the students were even given the option to opt-out of providing funds to cover the cost of abortions. (Links to the letters: Letter 1, Letter 2, Letter 3).
The three letters included the standard arguments for allowing abortions, which was not surprising, but what was particularly noticeable about what they wrote was their response to the option to opt-out of paying for abortions. As stated in letter 1, "we are concerned about the precedent set by President Erskine Bowles’ recent decision to allow students to “opt out” of sharing the costs of comprehensive reproductive health care in the new student insurance plan." Essentially the letter writers were not expressing a concern about any argument against abortion, or even that someone would be denied an abortion, but that the students were given the choice to not pay for abortions. As expressed in letter 3, "It is upsetting that the DTH [Daily Tar Heel] employs “right to choose” language to portray this opt-out policy". In other words, the main issue here for the writers was not that someone objected to paying for the abortions, but that the students were even given the choice to opt-out of paying for them, and as expressed in letter 3, they were equally offended that the DTH used the phrase "right to choose" to refer to the opt-out policy.
One of the things that was expressed in letter 2 was the idea that refusing to be part of the collective that pays for abortions is equal to denying someone an abortion. Even though abortions would still be covered by the insurance plan, the writers were scandalized by the fact that those who have moral objections to abortion would be given the right to choose not to participate. Again from letter 2, "Regardless of one’s personal feelings on abortion, this trend in removing a standard insurance benefit due to moral objections is disturbing." In other words, for these letter writers, it does not matter the opinions or objections of anyone, everyone should be forced to help, support, and pay for abortions. In short, moral objections are meaningless.
After reading these letters it makes me wonder if they really know what they are saying. Because if they understood what they just wrote, they would realize that they were advocating a tyrannical society in which only a small set of elites were able to have or express an opinion. They are saying that it does not matter what anyone else thinks on the subject, only they are allowed to have their opinions acted upon and become public policy. No one else's opinions are valid. I wonder if they really understand what they are advocating, and if they do, then we really do have problems.
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
The Tea Party and Civil Rights Leaders
Recently I was reading a news article about the reaction of some "civil rights leaders" to some of the recent activity of the Tea Party movement and there was a statement from one of the civil rights leaders that made me realize why many in the civil rights movement have a problem with the Tea Party. In the article the civil rights leader was quoted as saying something to the effect that black people enjoy their civil rights because of the federal government. This realization may seem rather obvious (or pointless) but when I thought about it I think it went right to the heart of the problem that civil rights leaders have with the Tea Party.
One of the most repeated accusations of the Tea Party is that they are racist. This accusation is particularly annoying to the Tea Party members because in their minds race has absolutely nothing to do with why they are upset with the government. The main unifying idea behind the Tea Party is individual freedom, but the direct cause that catalyzed the growth of the Tea Party into a viable movement was a concern over the economic state of the country. So it may be argued that while the unifying force behind the Tea Party is individual freedom, the main driving force is economics. They see the fiscal irresponsibility of the government as a direct threat to their personal freedom and thus they have united to oppose what they view as excessive government spending and interference (read taxation). Because their primary concern is about economics it is a non sequitur to accuse the Tea Party of being racist. Thus when civil rights leaders accuse the Tea Party of being racist from the point of view of the Tea Party members it is as if the civil rights leaders are either just not understanding what they are saying, or worse they are fundamentally irrational and crazy. Essentially the conversation goes something like this:
Tea Party member: "I think the government is spending too much money."
Civil rights leader: "You are just being racist!"
Tea Party member: "Huh? What does race have to do with the government spending too much money?"
Civil rights leader: "You're racist!"
Now to most of the Tea Party members they are more than willing to lump all the civil rights leaders in with the "tax and spend" liberals and to consider them to be fundamentally crazy. That would certainly be an easy thing to do because at least at first glance the response of many of the civil rights leaders to the Tea Party movement is rather irrational. It makes no rational sense to accuse someone of being racist when the issue of race never came up in the first place.
While I said that it would be easy to consider the civil rights leaders as nothing more than a bunch of irrational power mongers, in my personal opinion most people will usually act in a way that is in their own opinion, rational. The key here is that the standard of what someone considers to be rational is determined by their own knowledge, experience, and society. Thus what may be an entirely rational decision for one person would seem to be entirely irrational for another person. For example, for me it is entirely rational to sit here staring at a glowing flat surface hitting small squares with my fingers, while for another person it would seem the height of irrationality, and if I tried to explain why I am doing it, they may treat me like a crazy person (as a philosophical side note, this way of thinking may seem to be a form of Relativism but that would only be true if there were no external, objective measure of rationality, but there is (it's called reality) and while the individuals may act in a manner that seems to them to be entirely rational, it may be possible that their apparent "rational" acts are actually most irrational. Think of any teenage boy who has done something stupid to impress a girl. At the time they did it, it probably seemed completely rational to them. But this is another matter for a different post). So when I come across someone who is doing or saying something that seems to be entirely irrational I try to see things from their perspective and usually I can eventually understand why they view their own actions as entirely rational.
Now for the civil rights leaders to accuse the Tea Party of being racist may seem irrational but if we return to the beginning where I mentioned a statement from a civil rights leader about how it was the federal government that gave black people their civil rights, we can begin to see the rationality of the civil rights leaders in calling the Tea Party members racist (stay with me on this one). If we think about it, in the mind of many of the civil rights leaders the individual states were the ones that violated the civil rights of black people. It was the individual states that enacted and enforced the Jim Crow laws that actively discriminated against black people. It was incidents like the riots in Wilmington, North Carolina in 1898 that convinced early civil rights leaders that the individual states would not do anything to guarantee the rights of black people. It was only in the 1960's when the civil rights leaders found friends in the federal government that they began to realize that if they were to have any rights at all then it would have to come from action at the federal level. What this effectively did was instill the mentality in the civil rights leaders that the only way could have, and maintain their civil rights would be through the support and protection afforded them by the federal government. They lost all faith in the ability of the states to protect them and instead placed their faith in the federal government. Thus in their minds they view any attack on the federal government as a personal attack on their civil rights, because after all it is the federal government that is the guarantor of their civil rights. For them the main role of the federal government is to maintain and preserve their "rights", whatever those may be (either the right to vote, or the right to have a house, or the right to have a job etc.). As this is the primary role of the federal government they view any attack on the federal government, or even on the powers of the federal government, as an attack on their rights.
Thus in their minds it is entirely rational to accuse someone of being racist if they insist on decreasing the power and influence of the federal government. Because it logically follows that to decrease the power and influence of the guarantor of their rights, is to decrease their rights. And as the sole function of the federal government is to guarantee their rights, therefore anyone who wishes to decrease the power of the federal government must have as their only motive to decrease their rights, for there is no other function to government. And anyone who wishes to decrease the rights of the civil rights leaders must be motivated by racist tendencies because there is no other possible reason for someone to want to limit the rights of black people. Thus we can see that in the minds of many of the civil rights leaders the demands of the Tea Party are tantamount to racism. For the civil rights leaders the Tea Party wants to limit the very thing that gives them their civil rights, and therefore wants to limit their civil rights. Because the Tea Party wants to limit their civil rights the only possible explanation is that the Tea Party is racist.
Now for the other side. The fundamental assumption of the Tea Party is that their rights and freedom come because they are living breathing rational beings, not because any government gave them to them. Thus for them the federal government is an appendage of convenience for society and not the guarantor of anything. Thus to decrease the power and influence of the federal government is simply like remodeling an old and decrepit wing of a house. It is not an attack on the foundation of rights for anyone. Thus when the Tea Party members propose some revisions to how the federal government works, they are (in their own minds) in no way, even indirectly, attacking the foundation of anyone's rights. Because for them their rights are not guaranteed by the federal government.
Thus what we have here is a fundamental disconnect in ideas. On the one hand the civil rights leaders view the federal government as the guarantor of their rights and thus must be maintained at any cost, while on the other hand, the Tea Party views the federal government as a convenience that must be paid for in taxes, but if the federal government becomes too onerous then it will attack the foundation of their rights, and this is unacceptable. The real problem here is, how can both sides be made to see the issues and concerns of the other. Both have legitimate concerns and valid points. On the one hand, black people had little or no recourse for redress of wrongs until the federal government stepped in to help. While on the other hand, the Tea Party has a point that if too much power is concentrated in one place then the rights and freedoms of individuals can very easily be violated. Thus we have this dichotomy, of remembering the pains and problems of the past and holding to that which fixed it in the past, and looking to the uncertainty and possibilities of abuse or pain in the future, and somewhere we must find a common ground, because I do not believe that either side is entirely devoid of reason. I hope that someone, somewhere can find the understanding to reconcile the two sides.
One of the most repeated accusations of the Tea Party is that they are racist. This accusation is particularly annoying to the Tea Party members because in their minds race has absolutely nothing to do with why they are upset with the government. The main unifying idea behind the Tea Party is individual freedom, but the direct cause that catalyzed the growth of the Tea Party into a viable movement was a concern over the economic state of the country. So it may be argued that while the unifying force behind the Tea Party is individual freedom, the main driving force is economics. They see the fiscal irresponsibility of the government as a direct threat to their personal freedom and thus they have united to oppose what they view as excessive government spending and interference (read taxation). Because their primary concern is about economics it is a non sequitur to accuse the Tea Party of being racist. Thus when civil rights leaders accuse the Tea Party of being racist from the point of view of the Tea Party members it is as if the civil rights leaders are either just not understanding what they are saying, or worse they are fundamentally irrational and crazy. Essentially the conversation goes something like this:
Tea Party member: "I think the government is spending too much money."
Civil rights leader: "You are just being racist!"
Tea Party member: "Huh? What does race have to do with the government spending too much money?"
Civil rights leader: "You're racist!"
Now to most of the Tea Party members they are more than willing to lump all the civil rights leaders in with the "tax and spend" liberals and to consider them to be fundamentally crazy. That would certainly be an easy thing to do because at least at first glance the response of many of the civil rights leaders to the Tea Party movement is rather irrational. It makes no rational sense to accuse someone of being racist when the issue of race never came up in the first place.
While I said that it would be easy to consider the civil rights leaders as nothing more than a bunch of irrational power mongers, in my personal opinion most people will usually act in a way that is in their own opinion, rational. The key here is that the standard of what someone considers to be rational is determined by their own knowledge, experience, and society. Thus what may be an entirely rational decision for one person would seem to be entirely irrational for another person. For example, for me it is entirely rational to sit here staring at a glowing flat surface hitting small squares with my fingers, while for another person it would seem the height of irrationality, and if I tried to explain why I am doing it, they may treat me like a crazy person (as a philosophical side note, this way of thinking may seem to be a form of Relativism but that would only be true if there were no external, objective measure of rationality, but there is (it's called reality) and while the individuals may act in a manner that seems to them to be entirely rational, it may be possible that their apparent "rational" acts are actually most irrational. Think of any teenage boy who has done something stupid to impress a girl. At the time they did it, it probably seemed completely rational to them. But this is another matter for a different post). So when I come across someone who is doing or saying something that seems to be entirely irrational I try to see things from their perspective and usually I can eventually understand why they view their own actions as entirely rational.
Now for the civil rights leaders to accuse the Tea Party of being racist may seem irrational but if we return to the beginning where I mentioned a statement from a civil rights leader about how it was the federal government that gave black people their civil rights, we can begin to see the rationality of the civil rights leaders in calling the Tea Party members racist (stay with me on this one). If we think about it, in the mind of many of the civil rights leaders the individual states were the ones that violated the civil rights of black people. It was the individual states that enacted and enforced the Jim Crow laws that actively discriminated against black people. It was incidents like the riots in Wilmington, North Carolina in 1898 that convinced early civil rights leaders that the individual states would not do anything to guarantee the rights of black people. It was only in the 1960's when the civil rights leaders found friends in the federal government that they began to realize that if they were to have any rights at all then it would have to come from action at the federal level. What this effectively did was instill the mentality in the civil rights leaders that the only way could have, and maintain their civil rights would be through the support and protection afforded them by the federal government. They lost all faith in the ability of the states to protect them and instead placed their faith in the federal government. Thus in their minds they view any attack on the federal government as a personal attack on their civil rights, because after all it is the federal government that is the guarantor of their civil rights. For them the main role of the federal government is to maintain and preserve their "rights", whatever those may be (either the right to vote, or the right to have a house, or the right to have a job etc.). As this is the primary role of the federal government they view any attack on the federal government, or even on the powers of the federal government, as an attack on their rights.
Thus in their minds it is entirely rational to accuse someone of being racist if they insist on decreasing the power and influence of the federal government. Because it logically follows that to decrease the power and influence of the guarantor of their rights, is to decrease their rights. And as the sole function of the federal government is to guarantee their rights, therefore anyone who wishes to decrease the power of the federal government must have as their only motive to decrease their rights, for there is no other function to government. And anyone who wishes to decrease the rights of the civil rights leaders must be motivated by racist tendencies because there is no other possible reason for someone to want to limit the rights of black people. Thus we can see that in the minds of many of the civil rights leaders the demands of the Tea Party are tantamount to racism. For the civil rights leaders the Tea Party wants to limit the very thing that gives them their civil rights, and therefore wants to limit their civil rights. Because the Tea Party wants to limit their civil rights the only possible explanation is that the Tea Party is racist.
Now for the other side. The fundamental assumption of the Tea Party is that their rights and freedom come because they are living breathing rational beings, not because any government gave them to them. Thus for them the federal government is an appendage of convenience for society and not the guarantor of anything. Thus to decrease the power and influence of the federal government is simply like remodeling an old and decrepit wing of a house. It is not an attack on the foundation of rights for anyone. Thus when the Tea Party members propose some revisions to how the federal government works, they are (in their own minds) in no way, even indirectly, attacking the foundation of anyone's rights. Because for them their rights are not guaranteed by the federal government.
Thus what we have here is a fundamental disconnect in ideas. On the one hand the civil rights leaders view the federal government as the guarantor of their rights and thus must be maintained at any cost, while on the other hand, the Tea Party views the federal government as a convenience that must be paid for in taxes, but if the federal government becomes too onerous then it will attack the foundation of their rights, and this is unacceptable. The real problem here is, how can both sides be made to see the issues and concerns of the other. Both have legitimate concerns and valid points. On the one hand, black people had little or no recourse for redress of wrongs until the federal government stepped in to help. While on the other hand, the Tea Party has a point that if too much power is concentrated in one place then the rights and freedoms of individuals can very easily be violated. Thus we have this dichotomy, of remembering the pains and problems of the past and holding to that which fixed it in the past, and looking to the uncertainty and possibilities of abuse or pain in the future, and somewhere we must find a common ground, because I do not believe that either side is entirely devoid of reason. I hope that someone, somewhere can find the understanding to reconcile the two sides.
Sunday, August 22, 2010
Experiential Theology vs. Syllogistic Theology
I was thinking of making the title of this post "Narrative Theology vs. Syllogistic Theology" but I found that the phrase "Narrative Theology" is in current use by a small group of theologians so I settled on "Experiential Theology" because it seems to be slightly less used and thus might cause less confusion. I also considered the title, "LDS Theology as Narrative", but while technically the title conveys the correct idea, at first glance it seems to be grammatically incorrect (it's actually not, but I won't split hairs over that) and that might give some people who read this blog a bad case of hives, so I went with the current title. But after writing the title I thought that it might imply that one of the two is better than the other and that we should reject one and embrace the other, but that would be a false dichotomy, so I again thought about changing the title but then I decided to just go with it because by worrying too much over the title I would be expressing a syllogistic approach rather than an experiential approach to the topic, and thus would be going against my whole purpose in writing this post.
So in church today one of the speakers mentioned something that I found to be very interesting. He said that LDS Theology is narrative driven as opposed to driven by logical arguments and prepositions. As he explained it I realized that he had a very good point. What he meant by it being narrative driven is that we focus on the stories or the experiences behind the doctrine rather than focus on fundamental principles, or prepositions, like so many other Christian religions do. He made the distinction between traditional Creedal religion and the way we approach and learn our doctrine in that we do not take logical prepositions and then create a logical argument out of those to form the basis of our beliefs. There were many other points that he made, but I will not cover those here.
As I thought about what he had said the more I realized that he was right. In the Church we use our experiences or the stories that we tell as the basis of the doctrine that we know and understand. For example, when ever we teach about tithing we always use the scripture in Malachi 3:10 that says, "Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be meat in mine house, and prove me now herewith, saith the Lord of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there shall not be room enough to receive it." This scripture is then always followed by the explanation, "If you want to know whether or not the law of tithing is true, you have to try it first, and just pay your tithing, and then you will know that it is true." This approach to determining whether or not blessings can be received by paying your tithing is not based in logical arguments but rather it is based in our own personal experiences. Quite frequently this teaching is combined with a personal experience about how it has worked for the person teaching about tithing. All of this is part of what I am calling Experiential Theology (or Narrative Theology) because the truthfulness or efficacy of the doctrine is not based on a logical syllogism but rather in the experiences of those involved.
The same holds true for other points of doctrine in LDS theology. In terms of our knowledge regarding the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon, we do not typically prove it through logical arguments but rather encourage people to read it for themselves and to gain their own "witness" that it is true. We tell them to pray and to have their own spiritual experience to confirm that it is true. When we teach about other things, such as the Word of Wisdom, or the Law of Chastity we encourage people to live those laws so that they may know by their own experience that they are good laws and induce us to happiness. This approach is almost unique in organized Christian Churches because it places more emphasis on our own experiences as the foundation of our beliefs than on some well thought out logical argument, in the style of St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, Anselm and other christian thinkers.
But what is also unique about the LDS approach is that while we use our own experiences as the foundation of our knowledge we do not reject Syllogistic Theology. As a matter of fact we strongly embrace logical, rational approaches to explain our beliefs, but we do not take the syllogism or even logical prepositions to be the foundation of our religious knowledge. That comes from our own experiences.
Now there are some interesting results for having this approach to our theology. First: No professional clergy. Because we focus on our own experiences rather than a well thought out syllogism there is not so much need to get everything "said correctly". That is, if some one is unable to express an idea clearly and coherently then that is not frowned upon in our church because the important part is the personal experience and not the well stated argument. Churches that rely on a professional clergy are founded on a syllogistic theology because they need to have the teachings "correct" and the way the ensure this is to have a professional clergy that knows the proper things to say and teach so that there are no unclear or possibly false teachings. This does not mean that in the LDS church we are not concerned about "correct" teachings, but rather we are more interested in "correct" personal experiences rather than an orthodox and clear articulation of the doctrine.
Second: How we "prove" things in the Church. This is related to the previous point and I have already covered this before, but we "prove" things in the Church by relating our personal experiences and contributing to the narrative of the doctrine. If someone demands to have something "proven" to them we tell them to try it out in order to "prove" it. This response tends to frustrate some people because they are looking for a logical syllogism and our response is, "Try it out for yourself and gain your own experience." Ultimately we consider the personal experience with the Holy Spirit to be the only valid method of "truly" learning the truthfulness of something.
Third: Compared to other Christian traditions we appear to have a non-existent theology. Some observers say that this is due to the relative young age of the Church, but I think that this has more to do with the fact that our theology is fundamentally different from other traditional Christian theologies. In effect critics look at our theology and because it is fundamentally different they do not see any of the typical hallmarks of a Christian theology, and thus they summarily conclude that we have no theology, when in reality our theology is much more extensive and robust then they could possible imagine.
So those were some of my thoughts on the matter. I may look into this more later on.
So in church today one of the speakers mentioned something that I found to be very interesting. He said that LDS Theology is narrative driven as opposed to driven by logical arguments and prepositions. As he explained it I realized that he had a very good point. What he meant by it being narrative driven is that we focus on the stories or the experiences behind the doctrine rather than focus on fundamental principles, or prepositions, like so many other Christian religions do. He made the distinction between traditional Creedal religion and the way we approach and learn our doctrine in that we do not take logical prepositions and then create a logical argument out of those to form the basis of our beliefs. There were many other points that he made, but I will not cover those here.
As I thought about what he had said the more I realized that he was right. In the Church we use our experiences or the stories that we tell as the basis of the doctrine that we know and understand. For example, when ever we teach about tithing we always use the scripture in Malachi 3:10 that says, "Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be meat in mine house, and prove me now herewith, saith the Lord of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there shall not be room enough to receive it." This scripture is then always followed by the explanation, "If you want to know whether or not the law of tithing is true, you have to try it first, and just pay your tithing, and then you will know that it is true." This approach to determining whether or not blessings can be received by paying your tithing is not based in logical arguments but rather it is based in our own personal experiences. Quite frequently this teaching is combined with a personal experience about how it has worked for the person teaching about tithing. All of this is part of what I am calling Experiential Theology (or Narrative Theology) because the truthfulness or efficacy of the doctrine is not based on a logical syllogism but rather in the experiences of those involved.
The same holds true for other points of doctrine in LDS theology. In terms of our knowledge regarding the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon, we do not typically prove it through logical arguments but rather encourage people to read it for themselves and to gain their own "witness" that it is true. We tell them to pray and to have their own spiritual experience to confirm that it is true. When we teach about other things, such as the Word of Wisdom, or the Law of Chastity we encourage people to live those laws so that they may know by their own experience that they are good laws and induce us to happiness. This approach is almost unique in organized Christian Churches because it places more emphasis on our own experiences as the foundation of our beliefs than on some well thought out logical argument, in the style of St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, Anselm and other christian thinkers.
But what is also unique about the LDS approach is that while we use our own experiences as the foundation of our knowledge we do not reject Syllogistic Theology. As a matter of fact we strongly embrace logical, rational approaches to explain our beliefs, but we do not take the syllogism or even logical prepositions to be the foundation of our religious knowledge. That comes from our own experiences.
Now there are some interesting results for having this approach to our theology. First: No professional clergy. Because we focus on our own experiences rather than a well thought out syllogism there is not so much need to get everything "said correctly". That is, if some one is unable to express an idea clearly and coherently then that is not frowned upon in our church because the important part is the personal experience and not the well stated argument. Churches that rely on a professional clergy are founded on a syllogistic theology because they need to have the teachings "correct" and the way the ensure this is to have a professional clergy that knows the proper things to say and teach so that there are no unclear or possibly false teachings. This does not mean that in the LDS church we are not concerned about "correct" teachings, but rather we are more interested in "correct" personal experiences rather than an orthodox and clear articulation of the doctrine.
Second: How we "prove" things in the Church. This is related to the previous point and I have already covered this before, but we "prove" things in the Church by relating our personal experiences and contributing to the narrative of the doctrine. If someone demands to have something "proven" to them we tell them to try it out in order to "prove" it. This response tends to frustrate some people because they are looking for a logical syllogism and our response is, "Try it out for yourself and gain your own experience." Ultimately we consider the personal experience with the Holy Spirit to be the only valid method of "truly" learning the truthfulness of something.
Third: Compared to other Christian traditions we appear to have a non-existent theology. Some observers say that this is due to the relative young age of the Church, but I think that this has more to do with the fact that our theology is fundamentally different from other traditional Christian theologies. In effect critics look at our theology and because it is fundamentally different they do not see any of the typical hallmarks of a Christian theology, and thus they summarily conclude that we have no theology, when in reality our theology is much more extensive and robust then they could possible imagine.
So those were some of my thoughts on the matter. I may look into this more later on.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)