From the author of Archdruid Report (peak oil and the future of industrial society,), books on peak oil -- The Long Descent, The Ecotechnic Future, etc which have been discussed a lot here.
It needs to be remembered in this context that the word “evolution” does not mean “progress.” Evolution is adaptation to changing circumstances, and that’s all it is. When people throw around the phrases “more evolved” and “less evolved,” they’re talking nonsense, or at best engaging in a pseudoscientific way of saying “I like this” and “I don’t like that.” In biology, every organism—you, me, koalas, humpback whales, giant sequoias, pond scum, and all the rest—is equally the product of a few billion years of adaptation to the wildly changing conditions of an unstable planet, with genetic variation shoveling in diversity from one side and natural selection picking and choosing on the other. The habit of using the word “evolution” to mean “progress” is pervasive, and it’s pushed hard by the faith in progress that serves as an ersatz religion in our time, but it’s still wrong.
Should you squeeze the toothpaste tube in the middle or from the end?
2 posts • Page 1 of 1
I like John Michael Greer, and I maybe 80% agree with his take. I often think it is funny how much we are all still currently stuck with our roots in the Victorian era. I think Greer's observation that we underestimate the extent to which art informs science is right on the money. My biggest quibble with him is that I think he, along with most other post-resource futurists, is very pessimistic in his estimates of degradation of information storage, UNLESS the trend towards only storing copies in a manner that requires a complex electronic system continues. Since the last few hard copies of any written work only hold value in alignment with price of electronic copy, it is highly likely that they may be destroyed if not curated. OTOH, a book printed on high quality, modern paper can survive many human generations given only moderate care.