sam, re your last paragraph,<br><br>that seems to me the central weakness of the curtis approach, lumping all network-theory/complexity/cybernetics/ecosystems as one big exclusively randian approach ..<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">
On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 12:20 PM, Samuel Rose <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:samuel.rose@gmail.com">samuel.rose@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
<div class="im">On Sun, May 29, 2011 at 10:50 AM, Kevin Flanagan <<a href="mailto:kev.flanagan@gmail.com">kev.flanagan@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> How the 'ecosystem' myth has been used for sinister means - Adam<br>
> Curtis - Guardian<br>
><br>
> When, in the 1920s, a botanist and a field marshal dreamed up rival<br>
> theories of nature and society, no one could have guessed their ideas<br>
> would influence the worldview of 70s hippies and 21st-century protest<br>
> movements. But their faith in self-regulating systems has a sinister<br>
> history<br>
><br>
> <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/may/29/adam-curtis-ecosystems-tansley-smuts" target="_blank">http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/may/29/adam-curtis-ecosystems-tansley-smuts</a><br>
><br>
> Episode 1 of his current documentary is up on youtube<br>
><br>
> <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xX5jImWRREc" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xX5jImWRREc</a><br>
><br>
<br>
<br>
</div>A quote from the Guardian:<br>
<br>
"But they also fused it with cybernetic ideas drawn from computer<br>
theory, and out of this came a vision of strong, independent humans<br>
linked, just like in nature, in a network that was held together<br>
through feedback. The commune dwellers mimicked the ecosystem idea in<br>
their house meetings where they all had to say exactly what was on<br>
their minds at that moment � so information flowed freely round the<br>
system. And through that the communes were supposed to stabilise<br>
themselves."<br>
<br>
"But they didn't. In many communes across America in the late 1960s<br>
house meetings became vicious bullying sessions where the strong<br>
preyed mercilessly on the weak, and nobody was allowed to voice any<br>
objections. The rules of the self-organising system said that no<br>
coalitions or alliances were allowed because that was politics � and<br>
politics was bad. If you talk today to ex-commune members they tell<br>
horrific stories of coercion, violent intimidation and sexual<br>
oppression within these utopian communities, while the other commune<br>
members stood mutely watching, unable under the rules of the system to<br>
do anything to stop it."<br>
<br>
"Again, the central weakness of the self-organising system was<br>
dramatically demonstrated. Whether it was used for conservative or<br>
radical ends, it could not cope with power, which is one of the<br>
central dynamic forces in human society."<br>
<br>
[end quote]<br>
<br>
>>Sam writes:<br>
<br>
There is something oxymoronic about describing a "self organising<br>
system" in which participants force each other to act in certain ways.<br>
I think it is safe to say that what is being described is not a "self<br>
organising system", but rather a coercive system. The coercive system<br>
definitely *could* "cope with power", as "power" was frequently<br>
exerted by anyone who was doing the coercing...<br>
<br>
>><br>
<br>
[begin quote]<br>
<br>
"But at the very same time a new generation of ecologists began to<br>
question the very basis of Arthur Tansley's idea of the<br>
self-regulating ecosystem. Out of this came a bloody battle within the<br>
science of ecology, with the new generation showing powerfully that<br>
wherever they looked in nature they found not stability, but constant,<br>
dynamic change; that Tansley's idea of a underlying pattern of<br>
stability in nature was really a fantasy, not a scientific truth."<br>
<br>
[end quote]<br>
<br>
>> Sam writes:<br>
<br>
I feel sorry for the people who might have wasted hours, days, weeks<br>
or years on these debates. Still in hindsight it makes sense that<br>
early industrial era thinking clashed with later thinking.<br>
<br>
>><br>
<br>
[begin quote]<br>
<br>
<br>
"But in an age that was increasingly disillusioned with politics, the<br>
ghosts not just of Tansley but also of Smuts now began to re-emerge in<br>
epic form. In the late 70s an idea rose up that we � and everything<br>
else on the planet � are connected together in complex webs and<br>
networks. Out of it came epic visions of connectivity such as the Gaia<br>
theory and utopian ideas about the world wide web. And human beings<br>
believed that their duty was not to try to control the system, but to<br>
help it maintain its natural self-organising balance."<br>
<br>
[end quote]<br>
<br>
>> Sam writes<br>
<br>
I would not attribute this thinking solely to Tansley and Smuts. Plus,<br>
there are still *many* people who believe their duty is to control. I<br>
think the history that Adam Curtis writes about in this article is<br>
interesting and worthy of note. However, I think he has mixed up what<br>
led to what, and where the world view/weltanschauung of people is at<br>
and heading to. I don't see how Curtis could have written this article<br>
without discussing the field of modern complex systems theory, for<br>
instance. It's not all utopian/"Gaian" visions, really.<br>
<div class="im"><br>
<br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> P2P Foundation - Mailing list<br>
> <a href="http://www.p2pfoundation.net" target="_blank">http://www.p2pfoundation.net</a><br>
> <a href="https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation" target="_blank">https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation</a><br>
><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
--<br>
</div><div class="im">--<br>
Sam Rose<br>
Future Forward Institute and Forward Foundation<br>
Tel:+1(517) 639-1552<br>
Cel: +1-(517)-974-6451<br>
skype: samuelrose<br>
email: <a href="mailto:samuel.rose@gmail.com">samuel.rose@gmail.com</a><br>
<a href="http://futureforwardinstitute.com" target="_blank">http://futureforwardinstitute.com</a><br>
<a href="http://forwardfound.org" target="_blank">http://forwardfound.org</a><br>
<a href="http://hollymeadcapital.com" target="_blank">http://hollymeadcapital.com</a><br>
<a href="http://p2pfoundation.net" target="_blank">http://p2pfoundation.net</a><br>
<a href="http://socialmediaclassroom.com" target="_blank">http://socialmediaclassroom.com</a><br>
<br>
"The universe is not required to be in perfect harmony with human<br>
ambition." - Carl Sagan<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
</div><div><div></div><div class="h5">P2P Foundation - Mailing list<br>
<a href="http://www.p2pfoundation.net" target="_blank">http://www.p2pfoundation.net</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation" target="_blank">https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>P2P Foundation: <a href="http://p2pfoundation.net" target="_blank">http://p2pfoundation.net</a>� - <a href="http://blog.p2pfoundation.net" target="_blank">http://blog.p2pfoundation.net</a> <br>
<br>Connect: <a href="http://p2pfoundation.ning.com" target="_blank">http://p2pfoundation.ning.com</a>; Discuss: <a href="http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation" target="_blank">http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation</a><br>
<br>Updates: <a href="http://del.icio.us/mbauwens" target="_blank">http://del.icio.us/mbauwens</a>; <a href="http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens" target="_blank">http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens</a>; <a href="http://twitter.com/mbauwens" target="_blank">http://twitter.com/mbauwens</a>; <a href="http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens" target="_blank">http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens</a><br>
<br><br><br><br><br>