Podcast

oneinchpunch/Shutterstock

Lewis Dartnell: How To Rebuild The World From Scratch

If society collapsed overnight, how would we re-create it?
Tuesday, December 5, 2017, 2:24 PM

If our technological society collapsed tomorrow, what crucial knowledge would we need to survive in the immediate aftermath and to rebuild civilization as quickly as possible?

Ask yourself this: If you had to go back to absolute basics like some sort of post-cataclysmic Robinson Caruso, would you know how to recreate an internal combustion engine? Put together a microscope? Get metals out of rock? Or produce food for yourself?

This week's podcast guest is Lewis Dartnell, author, presenter, and professor of science communication at the University of Westminster. He's best known to the public as a popular science writer, especially for his book The Knowledge: How to Rebuild Our World from Scratch. In that book and in his related TED Talk, Lewis explains how every piece of our modern technology rests on an enormous support network of other technologies, all interlinked and mutually dependent:

There's the fundamental fact that the economic system the developed world has based itself on capitalism which has this core assumption that you can forever continue generating wealth by growing your economy, by making more things, by extracting more raw materials and ingredients and environment. And in a sense, that's served us very well since even before the Industrial Revolution when, in a sense, the planet, the Earth, was very, very big compared to the demands of the human population living on it. But that assumption is no longer true anymore. With over 7 billion people on the planet all wanting to have a decent and comfortable standard of living, that puts an enormous amount of demand on the natural systems on our planet for producing those raw materials. That's everything from agriculture and the degradation of the kind of soil and the growing environment through to how many minerals and metals there might be that we're trying to dig up. So there is this limitation.

And even if there never is an apocalypse, and I certainly hope that there isn’t one, over the next couple of decades, we really are going to have to root deeply and reassess how we go about things. Not just try to grow as quickly as possible and not extract as much energy and raw materials as we possibly can. We need to act in a much, much more sustained and careful manner, otherwise we're going to degrade the environment around us to such an extent that it will no longer support us, and there could then be some kind of crash or collapse.

And what a lot of people talk about is a post-oil world in that we are rapidly sucking up all of the easily suck-up-able crude oil around the world. And it's very much a finite resource. It is going to run out. There are signs that it's already starting to run out. They’ve already passed peak oil. And so we need to be thinking very carefully about what we're going to next system. How could we fuel our cars and our transport network without using diesel or gasoline, using petrol? And how can we do a lot of industrial processes? And how can we create things like artificial pesticides and herbicides and plastics and pharmaceuticals which all come from oil as their base stock?

In writing The Knowledge, I wanted to engage in a thought experiment that asks: What's going on behind the scenes to support our everyday lives and all the stuff that we just take for granted nowadays?

In the long term, if you're not just talking about wilderness survival skills but how to go about rebooting the whole of civilization, the key issue is all that we use today is inextricably linked to everything else. There's this vast iceberg of understanding; much of it is under the surface. You don't really interact with it or are aware that it's there. Even the simplest things like how to make a toaster requires this entire infrastructure of capability and knowhow to create things, and where to go to get particular things from the natural world and the environment around you. So I try to explore all of that, as well as how to start reconstructing this network of scientific understanding and technological inventions.

Click the play button below to listen to Chris' interview with Lewis Dartnell (39m:45s).

Transcript:

Chris: Welcome, everybody, to this Peak Prosperity podcast. It is November 28, 2017. I am your host, Chris Martenson. And today, we're going to engage in a very useful, thought experiment posed by our guest. Here it is: If our technological society collapsed tomorrow, what crucial knowledge would we need to survive in the immediate aftermath and to rebuild civilization as quickly as possible? Now, human knowledge is collective. It's distributed across the population. It has built on itself for centuries, becoming vast and increasing specialized and decentralized. Most of us, including myself, are ignorant about the fundamental principles of the civilization that supports us, happily utilizing the latest or even the most basic technology without having the slightest idea of why it works or how it came to be.

Now, if you had to go back to absolute basics, like some sort of post cataclysmic Robinson Crusoe would you know how to recreate an internal combustion engine? Put together a microscope? Get metals out of rock or even how to produce food for yourself? With us today is Lewis Dartnell, an author, presenter, and professor of science communication at the University of Westminster. He is best known to the public as a popular science writer, especially for his book The Knowledge, How to Rebuild Our World from Scratch. In that book and in his Ted Talk, recently posted to the Peak Prosperity website, Lewis explains how every piece of technology rests on an enormous support network of other technologies, all interlinked and mutually dependent. You can't hope to build a radio, for example, without understanding how to acquire the raw materials it requires, as well as generate the electricity needed to run it.

But Lewis doesn't just provide specific information for starting over, he also reveals the greatest invention of them all, the phenomenal knowledge generating machine that is the scientific method itself. Welcome to the program, Lewis.

Lewis: Hi there. Thank you very much for having me.

Chris: It's very wonderful to have you here with us. Let's start here. Lewis, how is it that you came to write this particular book, The Knowledge? What drew you to this idea of a post-apocalyptic rebuild?

Lewis: It was just a project borne out of sheer curiosity, to be honest. So the Knowledge is my third book. I'm just about to submit my script for the fourth, and in all of my books I've researched and written so far, I've written a book that I've wanted to read, looked for on the bookshelves or online and realized it didn't exists yet, so I thought I would sit down and make it myself. And this idea behind The Knowledge book was, to be honest, it's not actually got anything to do with the end of the world. It's not a prepper or survivalist manual. It's intended for everyone on the high streets or going about their day to day lives.

As you hinted at in the introduction just then, I wanted to be able to peek behind the curtain, look under the hood of your home automobile and see how the machinery of civilization works. What was going on behind the scenes to support our everyday lives and all the stuff that we just take for granted nowadays? And I think in a lot of these things the book links very nicely into your interests in Peak Prosperity about just being a little more aware about where stuff comes from, how it's made, raw materials used, how much energy has gone into its production, where does it come from, how is it being transported, the different components coming from places all over the world. And I guess I hoped that when people read the book they'll appreciate that stuff a little more, to look around the world that we live in and understand just a little better where it all comes from and how it was built over history.

Chris: I think that's such a worthwhile pursuit because as I've gone down that same rabbit hole of curiosity about how this modern world works I've stumbled across something quite unexpected for me which is gratitude. So, for instance, after having looked at what's going into a 747, three million components in that plane. All of them have to work, or it will be grounded until maintenance gets to it. and so now when I take off, that first moment of acceleration, just reveling in the power of it, and the idea that I'm going to be flying in this metal tube at nearly 600 miles an hour; it's just astonishing. I get this little fist pump on takeoff now, and the people next to me are maybe settled in like, oh it's a long flight. But I'm actually deeply grateful for this lifestyle that we have and that it affords me the ability to have the free time to be curious in the first place. It's actually an invitation to understand it's miraculous, this world we live in.

Lewis: Yeah. Absolutely. And my father was actually, before he retired, and aeronautical engineer. He worked for British Airways. And I've never been particularly practical or good with my hands myself, but I assume it's from him, from my dad, that I inherited this curiosity of how things work, and as an engineer how you get them to work in the first place. Engineering is very much a practical and applied art. It's so much more than just knowing the theory or the basics of how some things work. You’ve got to actually get it to function correctly as you hope, and almost bug-hunt a bit of machinery or technology that doesn't work properly.

And then, I totally agree with you about this sense of awe and wonder every time you take off in a plane. You know, it's become commonplace nowadays. You don’t really give it a second's thought. And what's going on behind the scenes is absolutely incredible, with all these different components made from different materials are being perfectly designed by people to form this function of allowing to soar over clouds. It's something that was mythological just a few centuries, a millennium, ago. People wrote myths and legends about people that could fly. And we do it nowadays without batting an eyelid.

Chris: It's absolutely true, and so I think underneath all this people have a sense, as well, that this is somewhat miraculous. And sometimes miracles come, and sometimes they go. Lewis, I'm interested, people are both drawn to – and, of course, repelled by the idea of apocalypse. We love it in our movies and our books and our fantasies, but maybe not the actual prospect itself, of course. I'm interested, in your book The Knowledge, have people been drawn to it from the savor angle of it being an interesting thought experiment and gone that route, or have some or more people also maybe been seriously considering that it might be something that we really need to consider as a real possibility?

Lewis: Yeah. The Knowledge did pretty well in terms of sales in the U.K. and Germany. It did pretty well in Japan, bizarrely. And I think that's because people got the – at the end of the day, it was a conceit. It's this idea of a post-apocalyptic world, you're trying to reboot civilization and avoid the dark ages. This was just conceit to explore our everyday world. The book isn't really about the future or post-apocalyptic, it's about today and how things work. But curiously, the book didn't do particularly well at all in the States. And I would have thought there would have been a ready to go in a shrink-wrapped audience with these people who have been thinking about these things far more deeply and for far longer than I have in terms of preppers and survivalism.

And I wonder if that might have been the problem with the book. The index is a history of science and technology. It's a book about how we got to where we are today. And it's not really about the end of the world or the collapse of society. But I think that might have gotten a little confused in the marketing in the States, and it was taken at face value that people assumed it was a prepper book about how to stockpile cans of food and weapons, and didn't think it was the book for them. I think maybe if we'd been less subtle with the book cover and the marketing.

But what's been wonderful about the book, about The Knowledge, has been all the conversations it's triggered with me, with people around the world who got in touch just by emailing or visiting the book's website which is the-knowledge.org, the-knowledge.org. And there's a discussion forum, a chat room there, and its kicked off this really fascinating discussion between lots of different people from very, very different backgrounds about what you actually might be able to do if this ever did happen, if there were a collapse of civilization, what would be the most useful knowledge and knowhow you'd want to hope was never lost to history again. What would be the most useful bits of machinery and tools you'd want to maybe hide in some kind of bunker or you can retreat that you’ve prepared for such an eventuality. I've treated it as a thought experiment, as a way of addressing the curiosity of how the world works.

But I generally think that if you could only save a single book from being burned or lost when civilization collapsed that you try to use it as a genuine manual for restarting everything. And I think the knowledge is pretty much there in providing the breadth and the depth of information that you need across the vast different areas of knowledge that – it took us a millennium to build up and slowly accumulate through trial and error the first time around as we're going through our history.

Chris: Well then, perhaps we could help have that book on the shelf of bunkers in the United States, at least.

Lewis: There's another project you may already be aware of: The Long Now Foundation had started, and in fact, Alexander Rose is the CEO there, and they're based in San Francisco. And the Long Now Foundation deals with this whole theme, this whole idea of looking to the deep future and making sure things are sustainable and don't collapse. And I chatted with him about two years ago when I was first researching the book about this idea that, well, if you did take this seriously, then clearly a popular science paperback book couldn't possibly contain all the detailed knowledge you need. And actually, what you want to set up and try to compile would be some kind of library of civilization, some kind of manual for rebuilding. And the Long Now Foundation is sort of doing that. They’ve been taking submissions from lots of different people recommending sets of books from different areas of knowledge that people want to try to preserve. And they’ve got this library, physical books on shelves in their offices, in their headquarters in San Francisco Bay. And again, I think that's fascinating, trying to think very carefully about what you would hope would never be lost. It would take so long to try to rediscover, redevelop if you ever had to start from scratch again.

Chris: This is a really fascinating thought experiment because it does really illuminate the tremendous complexity of the world we live in and get us thinking, I think, in a more basic way. Like how did this come about? And you mention three main building blocks of any reboot: food, of course, fire, and then knowledge. Maybe, perhaps, we'd put shelter and water in there depending on where we live, but I want to focus on this idea of knowledge. As a scientist, this is really important to me. And as the curator of a website called Peak Prosperity where, I think, if I had one word that was going to bind our tribe together with it would be curiosity. I'm really keen about not what we know but how we go about implementing that and how we think. So what's the simplest way to think about handing over the distilled essence of knowledge that future people could both grasp and then implement?

Lewis: One of the ideas I talked about in the very introduction to The Knowledge was a quote from Richard Feynman. He's a very, very famous physicist. And in his series of lectures, in one part of it he's talking about if you could take a single statement, a single sentence that you would be allowed to transmit to which ever beings arose and try to build a civilization after a collapse of our own, what would you say? What single concept contains and embodies within it the greatest amount of deep understanding? And Feynman's thought was you would try to explain atomic hypostasis, the idea that everything you see around us, all matter, is made of tiny little particles called atoms which combine in different ways to give you chemistry, and give matter its solidness.

And so what I was playing with in The Knowledge is if you weren't quite so restricted to just a single sentence, could you write a book that encapsulated, and importantly, tried to boil down to the very core essence of all these things we've discovered. As I said, a millennium of history, that would get a society back on its feet. So talking about things like how can you more than understand modern knowledge, know for a fact that the water you're about to put to your lips and drink isn't going to kill you. How do you know it's not laced with cholera or typhoid or all these other water borne diseases that have scourged humanity for millennia? And also the basics of shelter and constructing things.

But in the long term, if you're trying to reboot a civilization, and not just talking about wilderness survival skills, and there's been plenty of really great books that have been written on how to survive in the desert or the forest if you got no one coming to help you, but I think the deeper question, one that I've never seen explored anywhere before, was how to go about rebooting the whole of civilization. And you’ve hinted at, the key issue here, is all that we use today is tightly linked and inextricably linked to everything else. There's this vast iceberg of understanding. Much of it is under the surface. You don't really interact with it or aware that it's there. But even the simplest things like make something simple like a toaster requires this entire infrastructure of capability and knowhow to create things and where to go to get particular things from the natural world and the environment around you. So I try to explore all of that stuff, as well as how would you start reconstructing this network of scientific understanding and technological inventions.

Chris: Now, there were a number of books that were really instrumental in my thinking along these lines. One of them was called The Origin of Wealth by Eric Beinhocker, and he talks about the science of complexity, and in particular, a very fascinating piece where he talks about the number of stock keeping units – SKUs and retail partlence. So my jeans might have several SKUs in them if I were a manufacturer. The zipper and the button would be separate items. It would have to be sourced somewhere. The thread would come from somewhere, and the material itself. So he notes the explosion in SKUs from say, an early agricultural society with maybe a thousand to two thousand separate units of things we might identify in the village. Today, when he wrote the book there were over ten billion stock keeping units. Just this explosion of complexity. And you overlay that chart of that explosion in complexity, and it overlays very nicely with the explosion in population, which overlays very nicely on our extraction of resources and all of this.

And so there's this great sense that I have that this massive amount of complexity, which I really – that's what you're drawing upon here – is this idea that even to build a toaster there's much more complexity embedded in it than people would understand in terms of where all the components came from. The knowledge required just maybe to make the nickel heating elements. So much metallurgy and mining and distributing and all this. Enormous complexity. So as we look at this, really what we're talking about is what maintains complexity in a system, and when we look at natural systems, all order and all complexity is maintained by energy flowing through that system.

So the earth is a very complex web of life on the surface of the planet maintained by this thing called the sun. If it blinks out, it becomes a lot simpler. So what we're talking about is a very complex world that owes all of its maintenance of complexity to, really, the flow of energy through it. In your work, did you come across the idea that potentially we may not – I'm thinking back to this preservationist work that's going on. Realistically, is it possible that we can continue to both expand our complexity or even just preserve it going forward, or is there some inkling here that we might need to skinny down to something more sustainable?

Lewis: Well, yes there's the fundamental fact that the economic system that the Western world, the developed world, tends to base itself on, on capitalism, has this core assumption that you can continue generating wealth by growing your economy, by making more things, by extracting more raw materials and ingredients and environment. And in a sense, that's severed us very well since even before the Industrial Revolution when, in a sense, the planet, the earth, was very, very big compared to the demands of the human population living on it. But that assumption is no longer true anymore, and with around seven billion people on the planet all wanting to have a decent and comfortable standard of living, that puts an enormous amount on these natural systems on our planet for producing those raw materials.

And that's everything from agriculture and the degradation of the kind of soil and the growing environment through to how many minerals and metal ores there might be that we're trying to dig up. So there is this limitation. And even if there never were an apocalypse, and I certainly hope that there wasn’t one, in the coming years, the next couple of decades, we really are going to have to root deeply, reassess how we go about things, and not just try to grow as quickly as possible and not extract as much energy and raw materials as we possibly can. But we need to do that in a much, much more sustained and careful manner. Otherwise, we're going to degrade the environment around us to such an extent that it will no longer support us, and there could then be some kind of crash or collapse.

And what a lot of people talk about is a post-oil world in that we are rapidly sucking up all of the easily suck-up-able crude oil around the world. And it's very much a finite resource. It is going to run out. There are signs that it's already starting to run out. They’ve already passed peak oil. And so we need to be thinking very carefully about what we're going to next system. How could we fuel our cars and our transport network without using diesel or gasoline, using petrol? And how can we do a lot of industrial processes? And how can we create things like artificial pesticides and herbicides and plastics and pharmaceuticals which all come from oil as their base stock?

And this is where I think people like Elon Musk have been really, really interesting that he's made some phenomenal advances is private space flight in building his own rockets, but he's also been really shaking up other industries is terms of how we generate and store electricity. So energy storing batteries, how we could have autonomous vehicles and electric cars and how we make them a core, integral part of our society rather than just a bit of a sideline thing at the moment. So I'm watching all these developments with great interest, and crossing my fingers that we can make that transition before it becomes too late.

Chris: Well, absolutely. And all our fingers are crossed over here at Peak Prosperity, as well. And there's an idea here if I could just maybe – we're dancing around it a bit, or maybe I am. So let me pause a devil's advocate position, perhaps echoing, probably mischaracterizing the work of Daniel Quinn. Is civilization worth rebooting? That is, is it so worth saving that we'd attempt to etch its myriad workings in some survival able tone for future humans to replicate so differently. If it were our technological prowess that caused our fall, would we want to rebuild that as some sort of a multi-millennium pendulum of human folly? You book seems to rest on the thesis that technology is worth rebuilding as rapidly as possible, but what if it's true that our technological prowess, our ability, that part of our brain to build technology, is outstripping our cultural ability to use that technology responsibly?

Quick example: I love GPS. If I don't have my Wayz or my Google maps, I get lost in Boston or any major city. I love it. But when I look over to the fishing industry, we can chart the real collapse of fishing grounds about the same time GPS came up, and my theory is that instead of sailing out six, eight, twelve, twenty-four hours to some random dot in the ocean by dead reckoning, people can now take their hundred-meter-wide trawler nets and start six inches to the left of where they stopped last week, and they’ve absolutely left no hiding places, and so they’ve overdone it. What I'm suggesting is that the culture of fishing wasn't ready for the technology of GPS when it came along, plus the other improvements. Those two have to go together, and you're mentioning a piece of that which is, isn't it great that we've got Elon Musk as a single person, in essence, busy doing the right things, and I think, grounded for the right reasons, but we need something much larger than that, so we can uncross our fingers and say, yeah, we've got this. How does cultural knowledge get woven into this?

Lewis: Yeah. In terms of your first point, I do absolutely think that a technological civilization would be worth trying to preserve and worth trying to reboot after an apocalypse because what you probably don't want to have to do, to be forced to do, is to live in some kind of regressed society that might equate to something in the 1500s of our own history where you don't have a lot of the conveniences and the safety nets of the modern world. You don't have unspoiled tricks and you die, and your children die of a very simple infection. You don't have electricity, so you have to go to bed every time the sun sets, and your lifestyle is dictated by the natural world around you.

So those are just two examples of how the very fundamental way that we live and survive is supported and enabled by technology. But I think your point is, nonetheless, a very good one that with technological capability needs to come a sense of responsibility and carefulness as to how that technology is exploited, and to make sure you don’t over exploit the natural world around you or what you’ve got available to you. And so I try to be very careful in the book, in The Knowledge, to not make any moral statements or moral judgements. And the book makes it clear if this doesn't happen, if this hypothetical scenario comes about and you're trying to rebuild society after an apocalypse, you can build whatever society you want to. You can use whatever form of governance or what kind of economic system. All these kind of societal decisions, it's your society. You make those decisions in the best way that you can. It's not for me or anyone else to dictate what might be the best society to try to build.

But on the assumption, that perhaps you do want to have some degree of technological capability to make your life easier and safer, here is the book that you can use to redevelop all of those things. Here is the knowledge. And you can pick and choose. You can choose to use some of that information, you can choose to ignore some of that technological capability. It's very much down to you how you choose to do that. Because at the end of the day, knowledge and the technologies that we construct out of the understanding, it's amoral. It has no moral value in its own. You can put a technical understanding to a very beneficial cause, or you can put it to a very destructive and dangerous cause.

And some of that – explosions - I think makes that point very well that perhaps, and something I wrestled with when I was writing the book, perhaps you'd want to leave out how to make explosives because they use them for gunpowder and weapons and killing people and bombs. And those are, of course, bad things. But they're also used for mining and quarrying and digging tunnels and digging canals. And what you probably don't want to do if you're restarting your society from scratch again is be forced to have to use your own muscles, to break your own back with a pickaxe to dig things up and to get what you need.

So here's the recipe for explosives. You can do what it what you will. I won't make any judgement, but not knowing how to do something is potentially disastrous. It might take you centuries to randomly stumble across some scientific discovery or some technological capability. And so what The Knowledge attempts to do is provide all that core knowledge to help you recover as quickly as possible, to accelerate history a second time around.

Chris: Indeed. And I was just really advocating, maybe devil's advocating, for this idea that if there is a fall and it's in any way precipitate by our own activities that we might want to use that as a moment of reflection to ask more carefully what we're going to build and rebuild. My assessment, or maybe a judgment that I'm holding is that we're so enamored with technology that we often look only at the positive attributes of it, but fail to understand that sometimes there's another edge on that sword.

Quick case and point might be we're now discovering that children that are raised exclusively on screen time are being changed in very fundamental ways at the brain chemistry level, and the wiring and social interaction skills are all being altered. And we might say, oh, they're being altered in great ways or other ways, and we're discovering there's some down side to this as well. So one of the things is to come with this humility that says simply because we can do something doesn't necessarily mean we should. And my own particular moment of concern is I'm really enamored with what CRISPR technology, which is a gene editing technology, what it can do. And I'm also concerned that a person like Unabomber, Ted Kaczynski, and two years of training and 100 grand and one of these machines could really use that inappropriately, as well.

So it has both aspects wrapped in there, and unless we have the cultural understanding of how we're going to manage the technology, it takes a long time to discover what the negative aspects were if we're not willing to conform those openly on the front end, which just means being curious and open and really holding that scientific method which is here's this new technology; how is it being used; what’s happening; and what can we learn from? Both sides, pro and con.

Lewis: I think you are absolutely right in all of that. And one would hope that if there were a collapsed civilization that you were trying to reboot afterwards that perhaps they would learn some lessons from our mistakes and know not to repeat them, to maybe not let technology run away and allow it to develop in step with this cultural intelligence. But I'm just not convinced that would happen. And I think people tend to be short-termist, at least on the course of their own lifestyle and that of their children. And a lot of these problems only become apparent over much longer time spans.

And climate change is a very obvious case of this. The people understood well over a hundred years ago about the problem of carbon dioxide being released from burning coal and oil and how that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere can start warming up the planet. And it's something we need to keep and eye on, but we still are all just going to run as quickly as we can, and it's the problem. Because I think at the end of the day society is nothing more than a group of individuals trying to do what they think is best for them. This is also what the Long Now Foundation is all about is that long term thinking and how you can use that to inform decisions made by society and by the governments that we elect and live under.

Chris: Well, I'm really intrigued by what you wrote in your introduction as well where you said, "By the time you put down this manual you'll understand how to rebuild the infrastructure for a civilized lifestyle." And I'm intrigued by what's in your book because it actually provides, not just a manual for what to do after the fall, but it provides a lot of insights into how things are actually organized and how they're working right now which, again, I think is just a marvelous way to step back – take that crucial step back, like we should all at various times in our lives take that moment of introspection to ask where we've been; where are we now; where are we going, but just to really, I think, have the opportunity to marvel in the abundance that we are currently surrounded by. And then most particularly the opportunity that provides to do whatever you want with an extraordinary amount of free time compared to people of any time in the past or possibly the future. I think it's an astonishing gift once we understand what's possible and that we can both discover that amount of free time that we've got, really, beyond the basics of survival, and then to use our gifts to build on things other people have already built for us. It's astonishing where we are. It's an amazing time to be alive, I think.

Lewis: Absolutely. And that is very much what I was trying to explore in The Knowledge. As I've said. It's not really about the end of the world at all. It's about the here and the now and how the whole world works and what enabled it to process and develop over centuries and history. And therefore how you can go back to that process more quickly if you ever try to recover. And I think what I was trying to address is the sense of being disconnected from the modern world. Like anything I need in my life, and anyone else in developed nations – I pop down to supermarket if I get hungry, and I get some food off the shelves that's just magically appeared there. If my Smartphone breaks I don't have the foggiest idea how to repair it. I can't even change the battery in my phone anymore. It's all been sealed, and the manufacturers disincentivize you from doing that.

I think this is an enormous, maybe sense of hollowness and a disconnection from the everyday reality of these lives that we live. And in our parents' generation, certainly in our grandparents generation, people were just so much more aware of where things came from They maybe grew some of their own vegetables in their backyard. If their wireless radio went on the blink, you might take a screwdriver, and pop off the back, and try to work out which bit of a mechanism had stopped working, and then reconnect it or find a replacement and repair it yourself. We just don't do that anymore.

And alongside The Knowledge there's been a number of other projects and movements that have been trying to readdress that, that loss of understanding, that disconnection of how things work and where they come from and how they're made. And it’s lead into loads of – it stems around the world, kind of maker spaces, and people using dwinos or rasbypines to learn about electronics and how to control things. And I think there's been a huge resurgence in fundamental craft skills as well. People are starting to pick up knitting needles and sewing thread and other tools and materials to make things for themselves. And I think the reason that they do that is it's so much more fulfilling and satisfying to have made something yourself, and to have gone through that process and seeing how it works rather than just getting something probably much more cheaply, something that's being mass produced by a machine somewhere on the other side of the world. But you don’t get that connection with it. It's so much more personal and fulfilling, as I say, to have done something yourself and to see behind the background of where it's come from.

Chris: It's that connection that I think is so important, and it's part of what I think emerges from your work is this understanding that once upon a time we were connected. We were connected to all sorts of things. As you hinted earlier, we were intimately connected to the cycle of the sun. When it went down, you went to bed. But also, the moon and nature. We evolved to be connected, and one of the great things that happens with this abundance is we don't have to work very hard to maintain ourselves. The downside of that, to, again, to illuminate the other side of the coin in this story is that our sense of meaning and purpose often are connected not just to what we do but how we do it.

And I look at this highly materialist, consumer driven culture as being really the pendulum swung very far in a direction which, if you look at any culture of the past, they were also connected not just to the physical, but to the spiritual or to something else that imbued a sense of meaning and purpose to this all that goes beyond just, hey, it's all Newtonian if you can just account for the billiard balls bouncing around, that's you. There's more to it than that, and so I think that's what I pin a lot of my hope in is watching people begin, through these maker cultures you’ve described here, coming back to the sense of hey, wait a minute, it's not just I'm growing a couple of vegetables because I'm worried that maybe the supermarket won't be there – maybe I start there if that's my orientation, but I become reconnected to the process of food and how it's grown and the mystery of that. You put a seed in the soil and it's amazing. It turns into a whole plant. It's astonishing, right. But I'm now connected back to something that I think we're wired for at a very deep, visceral level, and that's a reclaiming of something really important in this story.

Lewis: Absolutely. Absolutely. And as I say, I hope there never will be some kind of apocalypse or some kind of regression in a post oil world. And even if that never happens, all the things you’ve just been talking about and all the things I put into the book are still important because it's that connection between yourself and the world around you and other people around you. And like you're saying, even if you think the supermarkets aren't going to disappear next week, growing just some herbs or some simple fruit and veg in your backyard is so enlivening and so fulfilling. And you could enjoy cooking your meal at the end of the day knowing that you yourself have grown that food. It's just a different way of living your everyday lives, and so I think it adds a lot more.

Chris: I totally agree because if you ever had to try to explain to a four-year-old what happens when you put a seed in the ground, I mean really explain, it's just magic. Come on. And so reconnecting with that magic is amazing. And so, hey, everybody, our guest today had been Lewis Dartnell. The book, his book, is The Knowledge, How to Rebuild our World from Scratch. It's an astonishing manual for the rebuild. In there you will discover lots of the building blocks, but most importantly the building blocks of rebuilding a civilization rooted in knowledge, and that's rooted itself in curiosity. So everything should have that book in their library. Absolutely pick it up. And Lewis, please, tell people how to find your book, your prior two books before The Knowledge, as well as your future book, and also, how to follow your future works and writings more closely.

Lewis: Yes. You can pick up a copy of The Knowledge in any good bookstore or online. If you search for the book's website, which is the-knowledge.org or the-knowledge.org you can buy the book through there as well, and that helps me out a little bit more. There's an enormous amount of content we had to edit out of the book just for the sake of it being too long. So there's loads and loads of additional content on the book's website. There's lots of recommended reading lists, so books and novels you can read that also deal with this idea of starting from the ground up. Some things from Robinson Crusoe or The Martian, which was recently made into a film with Matt Damon, but is basically the same question – how do I do things for myself but on another planet in that case. And there's all sorts of videos you can watch and the kind of projects I went through when I was researching this book. So look up the website. It should be very interesting.

Chris: Fantastic. We'll provide a link to that below this podcast. So, Lewis, thank you so much for you time today, and just fantastic work. You’ve been an excellent guest.

Lewis: Grand. Thanks ever so much for having me. Cheers. Bye-bye.

About the guest

Lewis Dartnell

Lewis Ryan Dartnell is an author, presenter and Professor of Science Communication at the University of Westminster. He is best known to the public as a popular science writer, especially for The Knowledge: How to Rebuild our World from Scratch.

Endorsed Financial Adviser Endorsed Financial Adviser

Looking for a financial adviser who sees the world through a similar lens as we do? Free consultation available.

Learn More »
Read Our New Book "Prosper!"Read Our New Book

Prosper! is a "how to" guide for living well no matter what the future brings.

Learn More »

Related content

30 Comments

richcabot's picture
richcabot
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 5 2011
Posts: 127
Great interview

The Knowledge has been on my Amazon wish list for a while now.  I've hesitated because the pages visible through the book preview imply that the descriptions of each item are rather thin.  Though they might get you thinking about a technology they don't seem detailed enough to enable duplication without a large amount of experimentation.

nigel's picture
nigel
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 15 2009
Posts: 133
A thought experiment

I purchased Lewis's book some years ago. As a thought provoking book it is good, as an actual manual on how to rebuild civilization after collapse it is not that good.

Let me propose a thought experiment, imagine a total collapse, but that over the world there are 1000 remote sites that all have a copy of 'the knowledge' to rebuild civilization. What happens if there is a flaw in the book, what if the logic is wrong, or a key fact is wrong. Would it not then follow that all of those 1000 sites would rebuild their civilization with that bad information or flaws?

I would suggest that difference in approaches and everyone writing a similar but different manual of 'the knowledge' is probably better in the long run than everyone having the same manual.

Let me phrase it this way, the scientific principle doesn't explain things that are emotional or appealing to us. I can't imagine a scientific experiment where the outcome is a piano concerto, or a miley cyrus song, but each can be considered just as valuable as the scientific method to some. He is a green blooded vulcan arguing against human emotion espousing logic. How do you decide what is more valuable. If I had only one book to reboot civilization would it be 'the knowledge', 'the bible' or 'a songbook about love.' What kind of civilization has science but not love, or science without faith. Given that science has given us weapons of mass destruction my choice would be the songbook. I'd prefer to live in a civilization where we love and respect each other than one where we can launch missiles at each other.

There is an unstated assumption that science can answer all questions, and satisfy all needs and wants, I think that assumption should be challenged.

cmartenson's picture
cmartenson
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 7 2007
Posts: 5466
The fatal flaw....?
nigel wrote:

Let me phrase it this way, the scientific principle doesn't explain things that are emotional or appealing to us. I can't imagine a scientific experiment where the outcome is a piano concerto, or a miley cyrus song, but each can be considered just as valuable as the scientific method to some. He is a green blooded vulcan arguing against human emotion espousing logic. How do you decide what is more valuable. If I had only one book to reboot civilization would it be 'the knowledge', 'the bible' or 'a songbook about love.' What kind of civilization has science but not love, or science without faith. Given that science has given us weapons of mass destruction my choice would be the songbook. I'd prefer to live in a civilization where we love and respect each other than one where we can launch missiles at each other.

There is an unstated assumption that science can answer all questions, and satisfy all needs and wants, I think that assumption should be challenged.

I poked at this idea in a question at Lewis when I played devil's advocate for a moment.  The idea is that if our downfall was caused by our inability to culturally manage our technology, that is the hardware outstripped the abilities of the software (think of a ram jet engine whose software lacked the ability to also turn it back off again), then simply rebuilding that technology as fast as possible wouldn't be a good idea.

Chris: Indeed. And I was just really advocating, maybe devil's advocating, for this idea that if there is a fall and it's in any way precipitated by our own activities that we might want to use that as a moment of reflection to ask more carefully what we're going to build and rebuild.

My assessment, or maybe a judgment that I'm holding, is that we're so enamored with technology that we often look only at the positive attributes of it, but fail to understand that sometimes there's another edge on that sword.

Quick case in point might be we're now discovering that children that are raised exclusively on screen time are being changed in very fundamental ways at the brain chemistry level, and the wiring and social interaction skills are all being altered. And we might say, oh, they're being altered in great ways or other ways, but we're also discovering there's some down side to this as well. So one of the things is to come with this humility that says simply because we can do something doesn't necessarily mean we should.

And my own particular moment of concern is I'm really enamored with what CRISPR technology, which is a gene editing technology, what it can do. And I'm also concerned that a person like the Unabomber, Ted Kaczynski, and two years of training and 100 grand and one of these machines could really use that inappropriately, as well.

So it has both aspects wrapped in there, and unless we have the cultural understanding of how we're going to manage the technology, it takes a long time to discover what the negative aspects were if we're not willing to confront those openly on the front end, which just means being curious and open and really holding that scientific method which is here's this new technology; how is it being used; what’s happening; and what can we learn about it? Both sides, pro and con.

Said another way, our current drive towards reductionism has left out the other side of it all which is the mystery and sacredness of things we do not and may never comprehend fully.  

Technology is a really often a blind alley of egoic domination which is alluring and seems to offer a form of final control which is really not possible.  The universe is constantly changing, and evolving, and we're just a part of that impulse, wherever it is headed.

The belief that we can ultimately understand and control anything, let alone everything has proven, over and over again, to be an illusion.

With humility comes awe, and wonder, and connection. Or perhaps reconnection to the grand mystery of life.

And what happens when we dare to actually ask what all of our technology has actually given us?  What happens when we are brave enough to peek at the statistics of our age with an open mind?

We get answers like this:

Our descent into the Age of Depression seems unstoppable. Three decades ago, the average age for the first onset of depression was 30. Today it is 14.

Researchers such as Stephen Izard at Duke University point out that the rate of depression in Western industrialized societies is doubling with each successive generational cohort. At this pace, over 50 per cent of our younger generation, aged 18-29, will succumb to it by middle age.

Extrapolating one generation further, we arrive at the dire conclusion that virtually everyone will fall prey to depression. By contrast to many traditional cultures that lack depression entirely, or even a word for it, Western consumer culture is certainly depression-prone. But depression is so much a part of our vocabulary that the word itself has come to describe mental states that should be understood differently.

In fact, when people with a diagnosis of depression are examined more closely, the majority do not actually fit that diagnosis. In the largest study of its kind, Ramin Mojtabai of Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health sampled over 5,600 cases and found that only 38 per cent of them met the criteria for depression.

Contributing to the confusion is the equally insidious epidemic of demoralization that also afflicts modern culture. Since it shares some symptoms with depression, demoralization tends to be mislabelled and treated as if it were depression. A major reason for the poor 28-per-cent success rate of anti-depressant drugs is that a high percentage of ‘depression’ cases are actually demoralization, a condition unresponsive to drugs.

In the past, our understanding of demoralization was limited to specific extreme situations, such as debilitating physical injury, terminal illness, prisoner-of-war camps, or anti-morale military tactics. But there is also a cultural variety that can express itself more subtly and develop behind the scenes of normal everyday life under pathological cultural conditions such as we have today.

This culturally generated demoralization is nearly impossible to avoid for the modern ‘consumer’.

Rather than a depressive disorder, demoralization is a type of existential disorder associated with the breakdown of a person’s ‘cognitive map’. It is an overarching psycho-spiritual crisis in which victims feel generally disoriented and unable to locate meaning, purpose or sources of need fulfilment.

The world loses its credibility, and former beliefs and convictions dissolve into doubt, uncertainty and loss of direction. Frustration, anger and bitterness are usual accompaniments, as well as an underlying sense of being part of a lost cause or losing battle. The label ‘existential depression’ is not appropriate since, unlike most forms of depression, demoralization is a realistic response to the circumstances impinging on the person’s life.

(Source)

Demoralization is the flip-side of the smart phone.  It is what happens when you trade meaning for baubles.  

It is also a perfectly normal, expected and probably healthy response to being asked (or forced) to participate in a completely meaningless existence.

It's the reason that the #1 complaint we hear at our seminars is from people who feel like they are living two lives; the one they are actually leading, and a different one they should be leading.

The above article lays out the case that people's discomfort and depression are more accurately labeled as demoralization.  It says that there's room for improvement in our cultural map and practices.  It says that technology alone is not only insufficient for bringing happiness, but actually counterproductive.  

All of which means that simply rebuilding our technological achievements as rapidly as possible is perhaps not a worthy goal.  It may be simply fueling the fatal flaw that lies at the heart of the human ego; the conceit that we can operate from a place of pure intellect, and no heart, and somehow navigate ourselves to some promised but never achieved land of happiness.

 

davefairtex's picture
davefairtex
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 3 2008
Posts: 4849
the path vs the destination

So I suspect the act of rebuilding civilization would be fantastically interesting, at least for me.

That's because I really enjoy the path, as well as enjoying the destination.  I enjoy the act of creation substantially more than the having of any item I have created.

I forget who said it - we spend 99% of our time on the path, and only 1% at the destination, so its probably a good idea to enjoy the process as much as possible.

Hotrod's picture
Hotrod
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 20 2009
Posts: 175
Adoption of technology

At the present time technology is adopted if it is seen as being profitable or, if enough people can be convinced, buying the technology with borrowed money and hoping like hell it will pay for itself before it is obsolete.  No other aspects or repurcussions are considered.  We worship new tech instead of carefully examining it.

This is way out there but my prediction for the future is quite bleak:  I believe that robots and AI will become dominant and the Predator Class will sell the rest of  us out to conserve dwindling resources.  In other words, AI will determine that humans are a pox on the Earth and their numbers will have to be drastically reduced.

Sorry to be so fatalistic this morning.

sand_puppy's picture
sand_puppy
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 13 2011
Posts: 1688
Ancient Sacred Myths have been damaged

A theologian defines Sacred Myths as

the stories that tell us who we are, where we come from, and what we must do.

These are what we have lost.

Yet many of our ancient sacred stories have been dismantled as a result of evolving scientific understanding and moral thinking.  Consider one:

And God said: 'Let there be light.' And there was light.

And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness.

And God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.

The modern view of light as electromagnetic radiation and darkness as shadows from that radiation really undoes this story.

And the psycho-social construct of the equality of all peoples undoes other ancient Sacred Myths--caste systems, unequal powers of monarchs and priestly classes, slavery, chosen people myths, the right to dominate, etc.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men [humans] are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights...

With these evolutionary advancements in thinking, we lose the Ancient Sacred Myths that tells us who we are, where we come from and what we must do.

I see in myself a hungering for a Sacred Myth that holds up.

 

Rodster's picture
Rodster
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 22 2016
Posts: 12
Re: AI and Robots

World renowned Stephen Hawking on many occasions has warned us about robotic AI and the dangers of them taking over. Hawking's both foresees and predicts that AI advancements will be such that robots will be able to manufacture themselves and eventually will turn against humans.

Elon Musk predicts that AI technological advancements will result one day in humans being hunted down by robots i.e. Planet of the Robots.He cites some of the disturbing AI advancements by Boston Dynamics who have created a Militarized Dog that can NOW do "backflips". This is the same company who designed Petman the Robot. At first Petman could not avoid obstacles while attached by cables on a moving treadmill. That was until the AI logic in Petman taught him to "learn how to avoid those obstacles". Petman is crude technology. Now there are robots who can run, jump and open doors. Now imagine being tracked down by an angry robot who can do backflips, has machine guns strapped to it's side who can run, jump and open the doors you frantically closed to avoid it's gunfire?

And Boston Dynamics and the other robotic AI companies won't stop advancements in AI development until it's too late because guess what? They are part of the power structure, i.e. the military industrial complex. Something tells me that Robotic AI advancements are even more advanced that what Boston Dynamics is showing on YouTube.

https://youtube.com/results?search_query=boston+dynamics+robot

Sweet Dreams !

Uncletommy's picture
Uncletommy
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: May 3 2014
Posts: 432
Peer reviewed myths are not handed down!

As long as we allow the youth of the world to look to their peers for identity, knowledge and direction, we will reap the results of disconnectedness and disorientation. The recent article in the Atlantic, The Coddling of the American Mind, highlights this trend and demonstrates how we are tribal-izing our relationships and losing any civility that once was the cornerstone of democracy. Logic is rarely taught in the major universities anymore and most of the discourse today is on Facebook. Youtube, Podcasts and MSM are the go to sources of most of today's information. Rational discussion has given way to rants and perceived victimization. Traditionally, wisdom was gained through experience and passed down through familial connections. Many of the "myths" were sound allegories of the human condition and imparted a guiding influence with a wary outlook.Whether a "Kunstler-esque" result is in store for us or we manage to come to our senses, remains to be seen.

Snydeman's picture
Snydeman
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 6 2013
Posts: 381
Hmm.

I really don't think it should be rebuilt.

 

Maybe the next species will do better, but we've had our chance and we appear to have blown it.

Matt Holbert's picture
Matt Holbert
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 3 2008
Posts: 82
CRISPR technology

As it happens I first heard about what I assume is CRISPR technology this morning. I caught the end of Explorations in Science on a local radio channel. The guest was someone singing the praises of a gene technology. He indicated that it could raise IQ by maybe 20 points. My thought was that maybe this is something that we in our current state of development can't handle. I had the same thought later when reading an article online about the imminence of fusion energy. Just imagine the mess that we can make with "unlimited energy."

As Chris and others in this thread express, we have to have wisdom/heart in order to achieve happiness. And...in a two thumbs down to the idea of residential assisted living as described by Gene Guarino, we need to have those with wisdom integrated into the broader community -- not hanging together in isolated homes. Granted, there is little wisdom in a baby boomer cohort who have been indoctrinated by the boob tube and aren't critical enough to process the reality of a building in free fall. We have to create institutions that are structured in ways that help develop wisdom. Although I have never been accused of being hopey, I think that there is enough firepower in the PP community to get it done. 

dcm's picture
dcm
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 14 2009
Posts: 191
Rebuilding from Scratch and Sniff

At the risk of sounding medieval, I think the most challenging thing about technology is that it is NOT nature. And while we built it out of nature, we did so because we were scared of nature. And as it grew, it did more than makes us warm. It changed us. Technology reached a point where we think it has actually  replaced NATURE. It not only confuses us about WHERE we are but WHO and WHAT we are. It makes us think GMOs, Carbon Deposits, AI and Nuclear Weapons keep us fed and safe.

Now where's my mead?

Sorry sir, the bees are all dead.

On a tip to Snyderman, here's one of my dumb office cartoons. 

http://tinypic.com/r/3589ff7/9     

Cariolian Starfighter's picture
Cariolian Starf...
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 31 2017
Posts: 3
Scientists using CRISPR discover hundreds of unintended mutation

Hate to be a bummer, but - be careful what you wish for....

http://cbc.ca/radio/quirks/trump-exits-paris-accord-finding-genes-li...

 

Cariolian Starfighter's picture
Cariolian Starf...
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 31 2017
Posts: 3
Scientists using CRISPR discover hundreds of unintended mutation

Hate to be a bummer, but - be careful what you wish for....

http://cbc.ca/radio/quirks/trump-exits-paris-accord-finding-genes-li...

 

nigel's picture
nigel
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 15 2009
Posts: 133
Your reply Chris

Thank you for the reply, and thank you for getting Lewis on, his book was thought provoking and interesting.

richcabot's picture
richcabot
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 5 2011
Posts: 127
This was reported long ago

The problems with gene splicing being less precise than advertised has been known for quite a while but suppressed.  I first encountered this in "The World According to Monsanto" by Marie-Monique Robin.  It's a great book for examining the ugly underbelly of the GMO world, cancer causing pesticides, etc.  It was first published in 2010.

richcabot's picture
richcabot
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 5 2011
Posts: 127
Another though experiment

Many of the discoveries we have made over the years provide immense benefit when used as originally intended but their subsequent unlimited use creates new problems or ultimately negates their value.  Most often the profit motive is at the root of the hijacking.

Take as an example the discovery of antibiotics.  When used to treat disease in humans they had a profound impact on medicine.  Eventually someone decided that we could use them in vast quantities to prevent disease, in livestock.  After feeding literally tons of them to pigs, cows, etc. so we could pack them in unsanitary conditions and not worry as much about the otherwise inevitable spread of disease.  The result has been development of antibiotic resistant strains of microbes.  

I think any societal reboot that does not learn from our mistakes in the economic and social spheres will ultimately be doomed.  The technology isn't the issue, it's the moral structure of society.

Many native American tribes had that part of things well under control before Europeans came and disrupted their social structure.

pinecarr's picture
pinecarr
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 13 2008
Posts: 2220
Ted Talk, Chris?

You mentioned Lewis's Ted Talk, which got me thinking... have you (Chris) considered doing a Ted Talk? 

If angled well, it might be a good venue to share some "new" mind-expanding PP ideas with more people...

newsbuoy's picture
newsbuoy
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 10 2013
Posts: 222
Plasticity vs Survivability

Entertaining interview. Especially appreciated Chris's gratitude mind-set. Guy McPherson has the same effect. I guess Love has nothing to do with it [sic]

The environment changes our brains which change the environment which changes our brains...

Before the light bulb we had to go to sleep, but only for four hours:

https://ww2.kqed.org/science/2015/01/20/how-electric-light-changed-the-n...

Sadly, if such a collapse did occur, so many nuclear reactors would go critical that most of the arable land would be radioactive for a very long time.  Unless or until all nukes are places with technology that can completely and safely shut-down without any outside source of electricity or human intervention. [snicker]

billphil1964's picture
billphil1964
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 25 2014
Posts: 9
Robinson Caruso

Singing all alone on his island?

Cornelius999's picture
Cornelius999
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 17 2008
Posts: 363
Us and Them

Also, there's this gap between the human relationships world and technological world. Manipulating things (and people ) and using energy is normal in the tech world. In the human as well as the moral and legal worlds the word "manipulation" sounds bad. And you can just be "with people" and hardly need energy.

Also, to manipulate things and use energy I think you need a dualistic ( as opposed to a monistic) universe which philosophers worry about. And notice that even  in a tech world, less energy use and less (moving ) parts is considered better. Hmmmmmmm........

Yes, I may even write a magnum opus  on it.......and what was that about an " unmoved mover "

 

 

 
Empirical Spiritual's picture
Empirical Spiritual
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 1 2012
Posts: 11
Sacred Myths

For me, the answer probably lies in cultivating an ethical path grounded in awe / deep contemplation of the incredible improbability that a product of universe's physical process has become sentient. However, I know I am stumbling around like an infant trying to grasp it....

Empirical Spiritual's picture
Empirical Spiritual
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 1 2012
Posts: 11
As far as we know we are the

As far as we know we are the best the universe has come to evolved consciousness. Maybe AI will supplant us, but surely we have a sacred duty to prevail - we have to find a sustainable way.

Bytesmiths's picture
Bytesmiths
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 28 2008
Posts: 200
Knowledge is not Practice

Knowledge is not practice. And a book is not a civilization.

You want to rebuild civilization after a collapse? Better start actually doing it now, not relying on some book after the fact.

Mark_BC's picture
Mark_BC
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 30 2010
Posts: 408
Quote: With these
Quote:

With these evolutionary advancements in thinking, we lose the Ancient Sacred Myths that tells us who we are, where we come from and what we must do.

I see in myself a hungering for a Sacred Myth that holds up.

Science is incapable of explaining consciousness or biological evolution.

The "mystery" is still there, it hasn't gone anywhere. The ancient scripts were just their interpretation of it given their rudimentary level of scientific understanding at the time (of reductionism).

The thing about modern science, is it reveals that reductionism only goes so deep in explaining the world. It reveals that there is a genuine basis for spirituality and that is not at all in conflict with modern science, but in full agreement with it. Some scientists refuse to acknowledge this however, most notably the reductionists and hardcore atheists; they are the modern day equivalents of the ancients who took offense to Copernicus for suggesting the Earth revolves around the Sun given the scientific evidence. They do a disservice to science. Most people equate science with reductionism but they are not the same thing.

Swampmama3's picture
Swampmama3
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 28 2009
Posts: 62
Boston dog and AI

I've seen Boston Dynamics and the AI robot they've now made a Saudi citizen.  Yes, indeed, nightmares and creepy.  I do think that we'll have our 'time of the machines', but I think in the end, DNA and metabolic energy will prevail. 

If you think about it, for what reason would AI want to exterminate humanity?  Because we use too many resources?  Because we pollute?  Because we are war-like?  Based on logic, humans are better than machines in all this, because the only resources we need are plentiful ones we use for our natural metabolism.  We can survive on simple, plentiful elements like hydrogen, carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, etc.  Machines need energy intensive ores and rare earth elements, which are even worse for the environment in their extraction and refining, and all of that requires high density energy sources, which are costly and wasteful.  Human waste is compostable and harmless to the environment, and we run on energy from the sun, which is gained by our own harmless metabolic labor.  When we die, we return to the earth, instead of becoming toxic chemicals or radiation waste, as a machine would.  And as for our war-like tendencies, surely machines would know that in exterminating us, they are no better than us, and actually worse because their acts would be genocidal extinction of an entire species. 

Plus, what desire would drive machines (AI) to do these things?  People act on desires, whether they be prompted by hormones, emotions, or necessity.  A machine will never feel hunger, cold, the annoyance of mosquitoes, the desire to mate, nor the love or loss of family.  I would think AI would rather quickly come to the point of determining it's all pointless, existing merely to exist.   Their presence will merely add to the pollution and destruction of the planet, even more so than we do. 

AI will not feel the higher purpose of knowing and loving God and their neighbor.  Science doesn't believe in God.  It has deconstructed God and faith, so that life is pointless.  Therefore, why would an AI wish to exist merely for the sake of existence? 

I do fear AI and an age of machines, but I believe it would be short-lived once the AI learned that existence is pointless, from its perspective.  Only for naturally evolved humans of faith does life have any meaning or desire beyond life itself.

 

Swampmama3's picture
Swampmama3
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 28 2009
Posts: 62
Caveman Chemistry

I ordered The Knowledge and while I was online, I also found a book called Caveman Chemistry. Certain processes and substances have been vital to making civilization possible. 

I want to know how to maintain sanitation, the making of soap, and purification of safe drinking water.  Protection of livestock from predators and fertilizer for the garden crops are more vital than we realize when it comes to feeding ourselves. Written communication, time keeping, law and order, and pride of craftsmanship are all things which will help us feel human and more than merely animals hoping to survive.  A few fine things like art, music, and storytelling would go nicely with a glass of wine in front of the fire.

Without the ability to have these necessary and pleasant things, I think morale would be low.  I hope that with a copy of the Bible, the Constitution, Amendments and Bill of Rights, and books like The Knowledge and Caveman Chemistry, we've got a good start at making a go of it if things collapse. 

Of course, knowledge isn't everything.  You also need manpower and work ethic.  So people have to be hopeful enough to have children and teach them well, and willing to work as family and community to make it all go.  

Cornelius999's picture
Cornelius999
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 17 2008
Posts: 363
Evolution and Science

About Evolution: see Gunter Bechly on Youtube.

Also the book " The Delusion of Evolution " seems reliable - I think.

For me " What is life? " is perhaps THE question. Maybe I should have said " What is Consciousness? "

Then there's Process Theology where God is thought to be evolving in and through us and nature. David Ray Griffin is one such theologian who also has an esteemed book, " The New Pearl Harbor " about the Bush administration and 9/11.

Of course, we're also probably the animal most capable of self - delusion so maybe bliss is ignorance.

Just playthings of the gods the Greeks thought. But too much thinking's bunkum.

 
 
 
 
 
 
Cornelius999's picture
Cornelius999
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 17 2008
Posts: 363
On reflection, the last post

On reflection, the last post of mine might seem too negative so I'll just throw in a thought from some(East) Indian philosopher:  " The Path of Compassion is the best. "

 
apismellifera's picture
apismellifera
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Jul 8 2010
Posts: 58
Can't help but mention Open Source Ecology

The goals of the Open Source Ecology project seem to embody a lot of the specifics discussed here.See: http://opensourceecology.org

From Wikipedia

Open Source Ecology (OSE) is a network of farmers, engineers, architects and supporters, whose main goal is the eventual manufacturing of the Global Village Construction Set (GVCS). As described by Open Source Ecology "the GVCS is an open technological platform that allows for the easy fabrication of the 50 different Industrial Machines that it takes to build a small civilization with modern comforts.

Ever since I heard about it, I've been fascinated by OSE. Anyone else here interested? I wish If I were 30 years younger, I'd probably make the trip to MO. and see how I could contribute.

PaulJam's picture
PaulJam
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 4 2016
Posts: 54
culture and technology

For me the highlights of this were Chris's points about culture being incapable of regin in/manage the unintended consequences of technology.  I've always been convinced that the use it first and ask questions later mode of technological adoption in our culture will prove to be our undoing.  

Any effort to revive a technological society after a crash will need to incorporate radical changes to technological adaptation protocols, cultural narratives, values, etc to avoid a rinse/wash/repeat cycle of excess and misery.  These are more important than reviving the know-how and complexity embedded in our current predicament.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
or to post comments