Once upon a time, long, long ago, there was a gorgeous
tropical rainforest in Africa. Among the
many beings living there were three tribes of primates. They were the ancestors of modern chimps,
baboons, and humans. All of them were
tree dwellers. Primates, who evolved
whilst bounding from branch to branch in the forest, have highly developed
senses of sight and touch. On the other
hand, mammals that evolved for life on the ground have highly developed
senses of smell.
By and by, the climate cooled, the rainforest shrank, and
grassland expanded. The tree dwellers
were not amused. Living on the ground
was dangerous, because there were many predators eager to invite them to
lunch. There came a time, some say
between 4.2 and 3.5 million years ago, when the human ancestors became fed up
with the hardships of life in the trees, and began walking on the ground. Evolution had not fine-tuned them for
surviving in the midst of large predators, and they were easy prey. Unclever pioneers became cat food.
A bit later, between 1.5 and 2 million years ago, the human
ancestors evolved into Homo
erectus, a meat-eating, tool-using animal. Around this time, many large carnivores in
Africa went extinct. Some
believe that this was not a coincidence. Later, when Homo
sapiens emerged 250,000 years ago, we were tool-using hunters from
day one.
Now, let’s fast forward to the twenty-first century. The chimps, with whom we share 94 percent of
our genes, have remained close to the trees, where they build nests. They have both day nests and night
nests. The olive baboons have also remained
in Africa, and they inhabit rainforests and deserts, but most of them live in
grasslands near open woodland. The
humans abandoned tree dwelling, and have spread across the planet, spending
much of their time in manufactured nests.
All three tribes eat meat.
All three use tools, but those used by chimps and baboons are still very
simple and no-tech. Chimps and baboons
do not read or write. They have not
developed complex language or abstract thinking. Neither have exploded in numbers or ravaged
the global ecosystem. Both do their
hunting primarily with bare hands and teamwork, snatching small critters. They have found no need to till the soil or
enslave other species, because they live in accordance with natural law, and
never had an urge to become unusual smarty-pants.
Both chimps and baboons have remained in tropical Africa, the
ecosystem for which evolution had fine-tuned them, their home. Thus, they have no need for clothing, fire, substantial
shelters, cell phones, or psych meds. They
continue to enjoy a healthy, pleasant, and traditional wild life — in a
genuinely sustainable manner that could not be more intelligent. Their major challenge is the growing
destruction caused by exploding numbers of you-know-who.
Baboons have lived on the savannahs for a very long time,
without complex tools, in neighborhoods frequented by hungry large
predators. Hence, spears and javelins
are not necessary for the survival of ground dwelling primates. Thus, humans were not forced to choose
between tool addiction and extinction. Projectile
weapons were a half-clever experiment that resulted in colossal unintended
consequences that continue to multiply.
Evolution brilliantly encouraged a balance between predators
and prey. If the predators gradually became
one percent faster, the prey gradually became one percent faster, not two. Our development of complex tools blew this
ancient balance out of the water, because tools gave us powers that far
exceeded those provided by evolution.
They allowed us to kill megafauna.
As our hunting tools became more powerful, we killed more and more
animals, while our own numbers grew. Eventually,
this expansion inspired humans to migrate out of Africa, in search of happy
hunting grounds.
Leaping beyond our evolutionary boundaries was a risky move,
and the unfortunate result is the world you see around you, and the growing
storm that’s moving in on us. At this
point, a heretic who thinks outside the box must propose a core question. Is it better to live simply and sustainably,
or to have lots of amazing gizmos and live in a toxic, self-destructive manner
that has no future? The heretic is
asking what does it mean to be human?
Imagine a world map
that indicates where nonhuman primates live today. They live in sub-Saharan Africa, southern
Asia, Central America, and the warmer regions of South America — the
tropics. They do not inhabit Europe,
most of North America, or most of Asia, because evolution has not prepared them
for surviving in these cooler habitats.
The only reason that humans can inhabit non-tropical regions is because
we developed complex technology — clothing, warm shelters, fire, food storage, stone-tipped
spears, and so on.
I’ve been reading about shamans lately, old-fashioned healers
who could communicate with the spirit world.
In the tribal mindset, all misfortune is caused by evil spirits sent by
sorcerers via invisible projectiles, tiny darts. This belief is common to many places,
including Burkina Faso, Ecuador, Peru, Amazonia, and Australia. In Ireland, the darts are fairy darts or
bolts, and the victims are elf-shot. The
healer’s job was to locate the dart, and suck it out of the victim’s body.
Is it possible that this widespread belief in evil
projectiles reflects an archetypal truth?
Is there an understanding in the collective unconscious that our
addiction to spears, javelins, and arrows threw us out of balance and put us on
a bad path? Many old cultures also
perceived dark magic in reading, writing, and metal making.
It’s clear that there is an enormous gulf between the primitive
mindset and the industrial mindset. The
shaman Martín
Prechtel says that we all possess an original, natural, indigenous soul
struggling to survive, but it has been largely suppressed by the modern mind,
which we use to understand the world.
Healing requires us to rediscover our soul.
Carl
Jung talked about the archaic or original mind, which thinks in images,
like dreams. It is the mind of young
children. The modern mind is very
different, because it engages in directed thinking — thinking in words. Jung believed that our minds had many layers,
and the oldest layer was the unconscious. Maybe at some level our minds are similar to
those of chimps and baboons.
Our ancestors obviously perceived that humans were
unique. No other animals were killing
mammoths with spears, or sitting around campfires in stylish fur coats. Over the eons, we have been getting more and
more clever, and more and more out of balance.
Somewhere in the process, humans developed consciousness, which greased
the wheels of cleverness.
We are very proud of the wonders of consciousness, but Jung
thought that it was also our worst devil.
He saw the modern mind as unstable, infantile, and a dangerous loose
cannon. Near the end of his life, in
1963, he had a vision of global catastrophe, maybe 50 years away.
The domestication of plants and animals profoundly altered
our relationship to the family of life.
We developed the ability to redesign and dominate entire ecosystems. Chimps and baboons, on the other hand, are perfectly
happy to remain wild, free, and simple.
It’s easy.
In his book, The
Parable of the Tribes, Andrew Bard Schmookler
discussed the problem of power. It meant
forcing your will against the will of another.
Power was a new form of energy on the planet, and it led to conquest and
exploitation. Once a belligerent bully arrives, the party is over. Power can only be neutralized by greater
power.
Many, many tribal people around the world developed mindful
ways of living in balance with their ecosystem.
The tribes of the Pacific Northwest lived in a relatively sustainable
manner, and would still be living like that, if they hadn’t been overrun by bad
craziness that metastasized in the Fertile Crescent — on the other side of the
world! Power trumps mindfulness.
As we move beyond peak energy, peak food, peak people, and a
stable climate, much of our knowledgebase will become obsolete. Our glowing screens will go dark, our world
will shrink to the nearby locality, and survival will involve spending much of
our time outdoors. How badly will
ecosystems be damaged? Will gardening be
possible? Will humankind survive?
As we work to envision the path forward, it would be wise to
be wary of the dangers of tool addiction.
A century or two down the road, we might return to a life of pure jungle
simplicity, like Tarzancíto. If we did, I suspect that our complex and
chaotic modern minds will become much calmer and quieter. If farming and herding become impossible, or
if we abandon the habit, and outgrow our obsession with wealth and status, maybe
bully power, like patriarchy, will go extinct, too.
Importantly, we will no longer be able to live in a manmade
world, in isolation from the family of life.
We will once again become acquainted with our relatives in the family of
life, and learn to live with them. I don’t think we’re genetically flawed; we
just tried a new path, had a bad trip, and made a big mess.
8 comments:
Brilliant and kind essay. Thanks. I stumbled upon it when completing "The Wind Kicks up ...and the Wind Kicks Down" which benefited from linking to this "What Is a Human Being", at http://www.culturechange.org/cms/content/view/902/63/
I prefer Jung's insights over Freud's, but I enjoy Sigmund's take on the start of civilization:
He wrote that, while in the trees, human ancestors relied on smell like most wild creatures, and hence sought out sexual partners only when they were in heat.
But once on the ground, we were forced to walk upright and rely more on our eyes, and that led to the males being attracted to females for coupling all the time, which eventually led to the institution of marriage to "own" our sexual partners so that they would be readily available.
So, Freud insists, it was man's ability to be constantly erect that led to civilization.
Anonymous, thanks for the heads up. I met Jan in Arcata in maybe 2006. Way back in 1997, I got a major piece on Peak Oil published in his Auto-Free Times.
Oil and the Future
Riversong, I've never spent any time with Freud. Yeah, I'm also very impressed with Jung. Maybe Freud was right. Maybe the wildlife biologists are right. I'm not going to jump into that fight.
Thanks for sharing such this remarkable user friendly approach to growth
Here is something that might interested you:
The "Theory of Iceality on Environmental Arts" is a practical study on the aesthetics of the relationship between Humans and their Environment through Arts and Culture, ultimately promoting an effective sustainable global Culture of Peace between all Living Things ~ Human, Plant and Animal Kingdoms!
http://theicea.com/page22
Renate, thanks for the link. I'll take a look at it this afternoon. I like the image of "your comfort zone" and "iceality."
Hi Richard,
I'm with you on the modern mind being not so great as we like to think it is. However, I'm wondering what you think of the fact that chimps and other primates (aside from bonobos, if I understand correctly)have patriarchal and often violent hierarchies, maintained by a power structure based on physical male dominance?
I agree that Humanity has created cultures that remove the impetus for power structures based on physical violence, or at least made that strategy fairly unsuccessful, but they developed fairly rarely (to the best of my knowledge) and at this point aren't around much.
I certainly wish that wasn't the case, and find it very upsetting that an animal capable of recognizing a better alternative refuses to use it.
But to say it would be better that we stayed in the forest? I think that paints an overly rose colored picture of what it is to be a primate. Of course, if we had stayed in the forest, at least we wouldn't be destroying the earth. So I suppose it would be better, but I don't think it would be easy or necessarily pleasant just because it's what we originally physically adapted to.
I understand the argument that if we just hadn't left we wouldn't realize how 'comfortable' life could be with all our luxuries, but that cat is well out of the bag.
Anyway, thank you for your writing. I continue to enjoy it.
I bought Brian Fagan's books regarding the social impacts of climate change and have been enjoying them, thank you for the recommendation.
Ned.
Hi Ned!
<< I'm wondering what you think of the fact that chimps and other primates have patriarchal and often violent hierarchies, maintained by a power structure based on physical male dominance? >>
I don’t know enough about primate behavior to have a knowledge-based opinion. Many, many species have social hierarchies and conflicts. I don’t think that wild nature resembles a Disney utopia. Humans have definitely pushed hierarchy and conflict to new proportions.
<< I certainly wish that wasn't the case, and find it very upsetting that an animal capable of recognizing a better alternative refuses to use it. >>
Humans are NOT rational and ethical. I don’t think we ever will be.
<< Of course, if we had stayed in the forest, at least we wouldn't be destroying the earth >>
Right! That’s an extremely important consideration. No, living in the forest would not be easy. But if we could learn to live in balance once again, we might have a future. That would be nice! I don’t think that a dead end way of life is worth it, no matter how many gizmos it gives us.
Rick
Post a Comment