Reviews of Recent Non-Fiction on or Related to EREcology

The "other" ERE. Societal aspects of the ERE philosophy. Emergent change-making, scale-effects,...
Post Reply
7Wannabe5
Posts: 9372
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Reviews of Recent Non-Fiction on or Related to EREcology

Post by 7Wannabe5 »

"Enlightenment Now: The Case for Reason, Science, Humanism, and Progress" by Steven Pinker

As I noted elsewhere, I picked this book up for .25 at a book sale with the intention to argue with it. Although I enjoyed Steven Pinker's works on language, which I read many years ago, I was vaguely aware that he was in the Rational Optimist camp, and this book was his argument in favor of this perspective. The Rational Optimist perspective is that the situation for humans right now is great, better than it has ever been, and many problems that still exist will be solved through human ingenuity, IFF we are careful to keep in place the mechanisms, such as free expression, patent law, and globalization that have worked so well thus far. Some others in this camp would be Matt Ridley, "The Rational Optimist: How Prosperity Evolves", Peter Diamandis and Steven Kotler "Abundance: The Future is Better Than You Think", Alan Greenspan and Adrian Wooldridge "Capitalism in America: A History", Julian Simon "The Ultimate Resource", and representative in field of agriculture would be Norman Borlaug (given much direct credit for the Green Revolution which modernized and globalized methods.)

Obviously, "ERE" the book and EREcology is meant to be at a Yellow level beyond the debate between the most Doomer and the most Optimist, because it includes Capitalism in its repertoire. Jacob wrote somewhere that even though his perspective is more towards the pessimistic, the ERE system will just default to render its adherents super-rich if the Rational Optimists are correct or we get lucky as a species. Some representatives of more pessimistic outlook would be William Catton "Overshoot: The Ecological Basis of Revolutionary Change", Kunstler "The Long Emergency: Surviving the End of Oil, Climate Change, and Other Converging Catastrophes of the Twenty-First Century", Rupert Read and Samuel Alexander, "This Civilization is Finished: Conversations on the End of Empire- and What Lies Beyond", Roy Scranton "We're Doomed. Now What?: Essays on War and Climate Change" etc. (I have read at least a couple dozen books in the pessimistic mode, many more than in the optimistic mode, because less in alignment with our common culture and my usually cheerful eNTP disposition.) An overly simplistic generalization of the pessimistic perspective would be that we are using up stuff (dispersing materials in manner that renders them far less useful or retrievable), creating and dumping waste, destroying complex eco-systems, and burning up irreplaceable dense fossil fuel energy reserves at unsustainable rates, and the hyper-efficient, extremely intertwined technological and social complexity we have created through our joint "invisible hand" efforts to improve our lives just renders us ever more vulnerable to eventual collapse.

Strong adherents to either the Optimist or Pessimist camp, including Steven Pinker in "Enlightenment Now", can become very aggressive in their arguments, because "Growth is good and best possibility for our salvation!" and "Unrestrained growth is bad and the further we proceed with madness, the more violent the collapse is likely to be!" are perspectives that are believed to be irreconcilable and therefore like unto kryptonite to each other. For instance, he refers to "Limits to Growth" (Meadows, Meadows, Randers) as a philippic, deifies Borlaug in a section of the book that includes a chart of scientists and how many human lives they were responsible for saving, crows about how Julian Simon won the bet about resource prices against Paul Ehrlich ("The Population Bomb"), and strongly cautions parents against exposing their children to any pessimistic perspectives.

That said, I found his perspective to overall be more moderate and nuanced than that of others in the optimistic camp. For instance, he admits that climate change is going to be seriously difficult problem to overcome, which will definitely demand careful coordinated effort. He is in favor of carbon tax, small offshore generation 4 nuclear installations, bioenergy with carbon capture and storage, and climate engineering that is "moderate, responsive, and temporary." He is hopeful about recent trends in wealthy countries towards decarbonization and dematerialization of the economy. He cautions against just writing the situation off as hopeless and embarking on last chance burn it up bacchanalia. And, although much of his argument is just chart after chart of upwardly trending uni-factor statistics, a good deal of his thinking is tending more towards systems level. For instance, his notes on the necessary interactions and growth of social institutions along with technological advances. He is definitely in the Classical Liberal as opposed to Libertarian camp. His discussion about how more democratic property law was necessary precondition for growth of ingenuity/innovation seemed to me a good point against the argument that the huge upswing in human prosperity and population since 1780 is almost all due to exploitation of fossil fuel and New World resources. Afte rall, human ingenuity did exist for 50,000 years before The Enlightenment/Early Industrial Age, but so did the coal and the oil. Why was neither fully tapped until this critical junction?

Another seemingly very anti-ERE section of the book is the chapter on Happiness in which Pinker obliterates the Easterlin Paradox. This paradox was based on research which suggested that there is an end to the amount of happiness that can be achieved through increases to income/wealth. Pinker presents more recent research that demonstrates that the happiness does keep increasing with increased income/wealth, at both national and individual levels, but this increase is only proportional, not absolute, so that is why it didn't register in earlier, less big data driven, analysis. Going from 1 million to 10 million in your stock account is as likely to make you happier as going from $1 to $10 in your wallet, but this is not as likely to occur. He also presents a good deal of evidence that worries about modern life leading to depression, suicide, ennui are over-hyped. OTOH, he goes on to discuss the difference between Happiness and Meaning, and I think many on this forum would agree with this:
People who lead happy but not necessarily meaningful lives have al their needs satisfied: they are healthy, have enough money, and feel good a lot of the time. People who lead meaningful lives may enjoy none of these boons. Happy people live in the present; those with meaningful lives have a narrative about their past and a plan for the future. Those with happy but meaningless lives are takers and beneficiaries; those with meaningful but unhappy lives are givers and benefactors. Parents get meaning from their children, but not necessarily happiness. Time spent with friends makes a life happier; time spent with loved ones makes it more meaningful. Stress, worry, arguments, challenges and struggles make a life unhappier but more meaningful. It's note that people with meaningful lives masochistically go looking for trouble but that they pursue ambitious goals: "Man plans and God laughs." Finally, meaning is about expressing rather than satisfying the self: it is enhanced by activities that define the person and build a reputation.


In conclusion, although I found this book a bit of an easy and annoying read, there were enough nuggets of information and insight to keep me interested. It also helped me regain a bit of perspective that would have helped me avoid getting into another argument with my strongly Orange/Green Native New Yorker PhD scientist brother-in-law which ended with him condescendingly noting that people who live in Michigan (like me) are more likely to believe in upcoming collapse. But, actually I probably deserved this because I suggested that it might be fun/funny to go to the weekly fish fry in the town most associated with the militia. IOW, just like it's not yet safe to be post-feminist, it's also not yet safe to be post-enlightenment, because you will very often be mistaken for pre.

Western Red Cedar
Posts: 1205
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2020 2:15 pm

Re: Reviews of Recent Non-Fiction on or Related to EREcology

Post by Western Red Cedar »

Thanks for the writeup @7WB5. I picked this up for $1 a while back at a library book sale and it is still sitting in my "to read" pile. I tend to gravitate towards the pessimistic literature, but like to read something that challenges my perspectives as well.

daylen
Posts: 2528
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2015 4:17 am
Location: Lawrence, KS

Re: Reviews of Recent Non-Fiction on or Related to EREcology

Post by daylen »

A Hunter-Gatherer's Guide to the 21st Century
Just received this book a few days ago and breezed through it initially. Plan to slow-read sections as interest directs but thought I would provide my initial impressions here.

The authors being Heather Heying and Bret Weinstein who became somewhat well-known in the past couple years after the Evergreen event. Recently came into the spotlight for pushing against the "vaccines are the only answer" narrative though this isn't related much to the book. The book applying evolutionary principles to modern lifestyles. The first part of the book laying out the principles from which the remainder of the book is derived as well as offering a brief history of the human lineage (going back 3.5+ billion years to single-celled organisms w/o a nucleus). Later sections covering the topics of medicine, food, sleep, sex and gender, parenthood and relationship, childhood, school, adulthood, and finally the last two chapters applying more generally to culture, consciousness, and the fourth frontier.

The middle part of the book compliments ERE quite well in that it elaborates on evolutionary reasons for many of the lifestyle-design attractors we talk about here (e.g. shop the edges of the supermarket, resist pharmaceutical solutions when possible, etc.). Although there exist dogmatic dimensions to many of the rules they give at the end of each chapter, they repeatedly encourage self-experimentation and often point out nuances. Though, I figured the most relevant part of the book related to the EREcology was the final two chapters labeled "Culture and Consciousness" and "The Final Frontier". From which this passage seems salient:
The fourth frontier is a framework, therefore, that can be understood with an evolutionary tool kit. It is not a policy proposal. The fourth frontier is the idea that we can engineer an indefinite steady state that will feel to people like they live in a period of perpetual growth, but will abide by the laws of physics and game theory that govern our universe. Think of it like the climate control that allows the inside of your house to hover at a pleasant spring temperature as the world outside moves between unpleasant extremes. Engineering an indefinite steady state for humanity will not be easy, but it is imperative.
This is discussed within the frame of trade-offs whereby something like a web-of-goals emerges that doesn't optimize uni-dimensionally. Ties this in with diminishing returns, unintended consequences, Chesterton's fence, negative externalities, and the finite nature of resources. Fairly standard stuff mentioned around here put into a slightly new light with examples pulled from their experience working in the field as biologists and with Mayian culture. Overall, a solid book that is quite readable/understandable. Would recommend. If I had to give a critique it would be that is wasn't speculative enough. Though, this is in a trade-off with reach into blue. I would like to see another book by them that bulks the content here up with detailed historical accounts and long-winding, evolutionary side-trails.

7Wannabe5
Posts: 9372
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: Reviews of Recent Non-Fiction on or Related to EREcology

Post by 7Wannabe5 »

@daylen:

I started reading (downloaded free sample) "A Hunter-Gatherer's Guide to the 21st Century" and I must say that I half agree with this review from the Guardian:

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2021/ ... -self-help
This does readers a disservice. The debate over “adaptationism” in biology is long-running, and is not going to be solved by glib reasoning like this. Heying and Weinstein lunge clumsily at evolution’s Gordian knot, fail even to nick it with their blade, yet still smugly tell their audience that they have sliced it right in half.
I didn't search for or read the review until after I was stopped short in my own reading by this:
From the Omega principle we derive a powerful concept: any expensive and long-lasting cultural trait (such as traditions passed down within a lineage for thousands of years) should be presumed to be adaptive.
WTF? Does it matter when we take our "thousands of years" snapshot? 20,000 years ago? 150 years ago? 2000 years from now? The book also struck me as having somewhat the same tone and structure as 19th century sermons (which used to be popular reading material), so also this:
Their towering self-regard gives them the false belief that all their arguments – including the book’s premise, which is just a repackaging of 18th-century Burkean conservatism with a faux-Darwinian paint job – are staggeringly innovative.

daylen
Posts: 2528
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2015 4:17 am
Location: Lawrence, KS

Re: Reviews of Recent Non-Fiction on or Related to EREcology

Post by daylen »

I suppose your taste in non-fiction is stricter than mine. :P

I don't see what the big deal is as theory clearly isn't the main aim of the book, and vague, yet seemingly incorrect principles can have utility or "adaptive value". Volution meets relativity and pluralism to create a fountain of playful interaction not isolated to a few prestigious biologists debating a general concept with paradigmatic cross-talk.

Bicycle7
Posts: 97
Joined: Tue Jun 22, 2021 1:37 pm

Re: Reviews of Recent Non-Fiction on or Related to EREcology

Post by Bicycle7 »

I just finished reading Collapse by Jared Diamond, since this was published in 2005 many others have probably already read it. Jared Diamond in this book explores case studies of past societies and some present societies that either collapsed, are in danger of collapse, or have successfully avoided collapse for now. There is also a discussion of total systemic collapse in the present from globalization.

The book draws interesting parallels between the present and past; past societies' leaders not incentivized/able to plan long term, societies inability to predict higher order effects of changes to the environment (deforestation and poor agricultural practices causing erosion and other soil problems), and over exploitation of renewable and nonrenewable resources, etc. These collapses lead to decreases in complexity and population, with examples of swift declines (Easter Island) and slower ones (Khmer Empire).

The book emphasized for me the importance of permaculture, resilience, and adaptability in a future world.

The book centers the issues we face presently mainly on economic and political incentives. I believe Diamond says that people can and should boycott certain destructive environmental practices, although there is no calling to severely lower individual consumption to solve our issues. He does remark just how much we consume and that this could be significantly lowered in the future from new circumstances. Jared Diamond describes himself in the book I believe as "cautiously optimistic" about the future, believing that as the creators of our problems, we can solve them.

Overall, I enjoyed the book and would recommend it, along with his most recent book Upheaval that explores related but different ideas.

7Wannabe5
Posts: 9372
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: Reviews of Recent Non-Fiction on or Related to EREcology

Post by 7Wannabe5 »

daylen wrote:I suppose your taste in non-fiction is stricter than mine. :P
I doubt that. I very much liked the Santa Fe Institute list which I believe you linked on some other thread. I don't wish to rehash, but everybody in the Peterson coterie sort of puts me skin on the crawl with their highly staged "civilized" debates which IMOO reek of unearned condescension. Why read/watch them when you can read true polymath geniuses like (off top of my head) Poincare, Fuller, Illich, Alexander, Shannon or Mackay or even the much better grade of popularizers such as Gould, Taleb and Diamond?

@Bicycle7:

I loved "Guns, Germs, and Steel." Diamond has some very interesting ideas and a truly lovely writing voice; he could be a model for how we all should attempt to speak at level Green/Yellow and up. I will add "Collapse" to my list.

daylen
Posts: 2528
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2015 4:17 am
Location: Lawrence, KS

Re: Reviews of Recent Non-Fiction on or Related to EREcology

Post by daylen »

I have read a few of those too, but I was under the impression that this thread was for more recent works. Anyway, I am sure you have read more widely than me. All I was saying is that nothing seems to make my skin crawl as something can be learned from any angle of projection. It is all one big hologram and a few "geniuses" still only project specs on an otherwise distributed and fuzzy culture.

It isn't just about what people say but why they exist to say it. That is how I tend to view it anyway.

7Wannabe5
Posts: 9372
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: Reviews of Recent Non-Fiction on or Related to EREcology

Post by 7Wannabe5 »

@daylen:

Gotcha. I'm mostly that way myself. Very little makes my skin crawl*, and I am extremely opposed to any form of censorship. Just consider my offering of an honest negative review as yet another perspective for your amusement/integration :lol:

*For instance, I've read a great deal of mid-20th century anti-feminist writing towards developing my own post-feminist perspective.

daylen
Posts: 2528
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2015 4:17 am
Location: Lawrence, KS

Re: Reviews of Recent Non-Fiction on or Related to EREcology

Post by daylen »

Speaking of Gould, about a year ago I was working my way through "The Structure of Evolutionary Theory" which is a super long-winded tour of the history and concepts of evolutionary theory with Gould's cherry on top being spandrels. With Gould leaning, in general, more towards macro-evolutionary theory and something like the modern evolutionary synthesis(*) leaning towards micro-evolutionary theory.

Another of his major contributions to the field being punctuated equilibrium which I have been raving about for a while now here. Basically being the major antithesis of strict Darwinism which focuses on gradualism. That is, on the micro-level, genes appear to gradually mutate across the adaptive landscape, and on the macro-level, species appear to sharply punctuate between hills in the adaptive landscape.

Spandrels having a harder time gaining acceptance. As Bret has said that the concept just isn't useful(+). In theory, the idea feeding off the analogy in architecture where arches in the doorway open up smaller, triangular regions that can be re-purposed with decorative sculpting. As the original intended use of the arch is presumably to secure the framing of the doorway from collapse, with decoration/beauty being an after thought/purpose. Another example being the negative space under stairs that is typically turned into a closet. The idea linking to biology in the sense that perhaps some adaptations are such spandrels filling in the negative space left by a prior adaptation. For instance, perhaps an organ is required to fit a particular design to function and the awkward shape results in a fluke of evolution whereby the remaining space surrounding the organ is filled by potentially, non-essential "adaptations".

Overall, the book is quite smooth and enjoyable reading but very lengthy (like 1400 pages). Goes into depth on many of the major debates and paradigm shifts that have occurred in the field. Would recommend if you have time, enjoy history, and interested in evolutionary paradigms on a macro-level.

(*) Somewhat captured in the book "Evolutionary Theory: Mathematical and Conceptual Foundations". Which, when I first encountered was amazed by how far math can go in linking genome and population levels. Though, I do empathize a bit with Bret Weinstein's dis-taste for complete mathematizations of biology. As it is messier than physics and suffers from physics envy. In a debate with Dawkins who is mostly on board with the computational biology findings, Bret mentioned how he thinks it distorts what we think we know. In general, I agree, as a highly left-brained analysis tends to develop defense mechanisms that shelter such from scrutiny.

(+) This perhaps being where I diverge from Bret as utility or connection to experiment/prediction may not be entirely feasible anyway. There will always be a philosophical element to such a wide reaching discipline.

Post Reply