[P2P-F] How the 'ecosystem' myth has been used for sinister means

[Samuel Rose]

On Sun, May 29, 2011 at 10:50 AM, Kevin Flanagan <kev.flanagan at gmail.com> wrote:
> How the 'ecosystem' myth has been used for sinister means - Adam
> Curtis - Guardian
>
> When, in the 1920s, a botanist and a field marshal dreamed up rival
> theories of nature and society, no one could have guessed their ideas
> would influence the worldview of 70s hippies and 21st-century protest
> movements. But their faith in self-regulating systems has a sinister
> history
>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/may/29/adam-curtis-ecosystems-tansley-smuts
>
> Episode 1 of his current documentary is up on youtube
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xX5jImWRREc
>


A quote from the Guardian:

"But they also fused it with cybernetic ideas drawn from computer
theory, and out of this came a vision of strong, independent humans
linked, just like in nature, in a network that was held together
through feedback. The commune dwellers mimicked the ecosystem idea in
their house meetings where they all had to say exactly what was on
their minds at that moment – so information flowed freely round the
system. And through that the communes were supposed to stabilise
themselves."

"But they didn't. In many communes across America in the late 1960s
house meetings became vicious bullying sessions where the strong
preyed mercilessly on the weak, and nobody was allowed to voice any
objections. The rules of the self-organising system said that no
coalitions or alliances were allowed because that was politics – and
politics was bad. If you talk today to ex-commune members they tell
horrific stories of coercion, violent intimidation and sexual
oppression within these utopian communities, while the other commune
members stood mutely watching, unable under the rules of the system to
do anything to stop it."

"Again, the central weakness of the self-organising system was
dramatically demonstrated. Whether it was used for conservative or
radical ends, it could not cope with power, which is one of the
central dynamic forces in human society."

[end quote]

>>Sam writes:

There is something oxymoronic about describing a "self organising
system" in which participants force each other to act in certain ways.
I think it is safe to say that what is being described is not a "self
organising system", but rather a coercive system. The coercive system
definitely *could* "cope with power", as "power" was frequently
exerted by anyone who was doing the coercing...

>>

[begin quote]

"But at the very same time a new generation of ecologists began to
question the very basis of Arthur Tansley's idea of the
self-regulating ecosystem. Out of this came a bloody battle within the
science of ecology, with the new generation showing powerfully that
wherever they looked in nature they found not stability, but constant,
dynamic change; that Tansley's idea of a underlying pattern of
stability in nature was really a fantasy, not a scientific truth."

[end quote]

>> Sam writes:

I feel sorry for the people who might have wasted hours, days, weeks
or years on these debates. Still in hindsight it makes sense that
early industrial era thinking clashed with later thinking.

>>

[begin quote]


"But in an age that was increasingly disillusioned with politics, the
ghosts not just of Tansley but also of Smuts now began to re-emerge in
epic form. In the late 70s an idea rose up that we – and everything
else on the planet – are connected together in complex webs and
networks. Out of it came epic visions of connectivity such as the Gaia
theory and utopian ideas about the world wide web. And human beings
believed that their duty was not to try to control the system, but to
help it maintain its natural self-organising balance."

[end quote]

>> Sam writes

I would not attribute this thinking solely to Tansley and Smuts. Plus,
there are still *many* people who believe their duty is to control. I
think the history that Adam Curtis writes about in this article is
interesting and worthy of note. However, I think he has mixed up what
led to what, and where the world view/weltanschauung of people is at
and heading to. I don't see how Curtis could have written this article
without discussing the field of modern complex systems theory, for
instance. It's not all utopian/"Gaian" visions, really.


> _______________________________________________
> P2P Foundation - Mailing list
> http://www.p2pfoundation.net
> https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
>



-- 
--
Sam Rose
Future Forward Institute and Forward Foundation
Tel:+1(517) 639-1552
Cel: +1-(517)-974-6451
skype: samuelrose
email: samuel.rose at gmail.com
http://futureforwardinstitute.com
http://forwardfound.org
http://hollymeadcapital.com
http://p2pfoundation.net
http://socialmediaclassroom.com

"The universe is not required to be in perfect harmony with human
ambition." - Carl Sagan