During
our November intensive, we had an afternoon dedicated to the discussion of
living systems. Our guest lecturer was Stuart Cowen. Over the course of the
afternoon we talked about many things including the structure of the universe,
taxonomy of different types of systems, fractal geometry through emergent
systems, autopoiesis (self-organization), the conservation economy, and how
these all play into resilient local living economies. What captured my
attention (and imagination) was the discussion on different system types, namely
Newtonian Systems and Living Systems.
The
distinction made between these two system types enhanced the idea that our
current economy functions to meet short-term goals and does so in a massively
destructive way. When Mr. Cowen questioned our class, “Who is in charge of our
system (our economy)?”, a few major players were offered including governments,
corporations and top executives of the major money-making institutions around
the world. While any of these may be partly true, it is quite clear that there
is really one entity that governs not only our economy, but every action of
every living being. From fundamental particles to individual organisms to the
way our planet interacts with the solar system, nature ultimately controls all the processes take place. This becomes evident when one observes how the natural
world reacts when pushed to the limit by humankind. Through our economic
system we have achieved great success in speeding up the destruction of the
natural world. This is forcing us to face the
problems we have generated.
The
living systems model proposes a benign relationship with nature and was
described in Mr. Cowen’s presentation using the following terminology:
Wholeness
Networked Open
Resilient Non-Equilibrium Nonlinear Adaptive Threshold/Bifurcation Autopoiesis Fractal Geometry Chaotic Emergent Properties
These qualities paint the picture of how an economy,
surrounded and governed by the environment and focused on the long-term, could
thrive. However distant we may be from a system that demonstrates these traits,
I do believe it is achievable. We are enveloped by nature which provides for us
an endless array of resilient patterns and adaptive models that have existed
from time immemorial. This does beg the question again though, “Who is in
charge of this system?”, and how does it work so perfectly without human
involvement? It seems there is one major principle that reigns in nature. Each
organism pursues it’s own propagation until it is no longer beneficial for the
larger system in which it resides. At that point any number of forces will keep
that organism in check to maintain the balance which nature so beautifully
strikes.
If
we are to modify or completely create a new economy focused on living systems
and the ideas mentioned above, then I believe we will have to abide by the same
key principle that nature abides by. We have attempted to create “forces” as I
refer to above in order to maintain balance in our current economy. Our
individual pursuits and societal laws, regulations and enforcement are too
fragmented and have not fundamentally benefitted the system in which they
reside, which is and always will be nature. I leave this post with a few
questions for any readers as I am curious to hear your thoughts:
1.
What are the forces in nature that preserve its
longevity, yet allow for such a diversity of organisms to flourish?
2.
What forces keep us in check, individually or collectively?
3.
While nature is extremely complex, I would argue
that it is governed by fairly basic laws. Have humans created too complex of a
system to abide by laws of nature?
“We didn’t earn any of the things that really keep us alive or
make life good. We didn’t earn air. We didn’t earn being born. We didn’t earn
conception. We didn’t earn being able to breathe. We didn’t earn having a
planet that can provide us food. We didn’t earn the sun. If we know that life
is a gift, then the natural response is gratitude.”
-Charles
Eisenstein
Kevin thanks for your thoughts. I also found Stuart's remarks really interesting. Hearing him speak was a fascinating pivot from an outlook that feels bleak to one that is filled with more possibility all with just a shift in your perspective. I also really liked the way he spelled out the list of adjectives to the two systems. It made is so clear to see how different assumptions feed into both ways of "running" the world.
ReplyDeleteJust to (sort of) answer one of your questions - nature does have a seemingly unmovable trajectory or longevity. But I think that if you look a little closer things in nature are moving and changing all the time. I think it's easy for us to look at the natural world and view as something that is static or a "thing" because it's supposedly distinct from "us" and it's time frame is almost incomprehensible to us. But it does move and change, and as you note there is a crazy amount of diversity - and really even innovation - from which we could do a much better job of drawing inspiration. I would argue that our Newtonian system has predisposed us to a type of thinking that makes us view nature as still and distinct from who we are.
Hi Kevin,
ReplyDeleteGreat post. Thanks for sharing. I love the Charles Eisenstein quote, I wrote that one down after watching his video and reading his book.
I also love Stuart's lecture, it resonated with me and inspired me.
I think that nature has ways of keeping many things in check, including humans, despite all of our efforts to conquer her. Change is happening constantly and while we "control" and "manipulate" many natural resources, there are still diseases, and natural disasters, that can humble humans very quickly and thoroughly.
Actually, I don't know if you listen to the NPR show Radiolab but there is a great episode that talks about the latest theories of how dinosaurs went extinct... it's worth a listen.
http://www.radiolab.org/story/apocalyptical-live-paramount-seattle/
Anyway, I'd love to dive into this topic with you more deeply during an intensive perhaps. I think that there are many limitations to the Newtonian way of thinking, but we have to allow for our collective thought process and intelligence to evolve as it will. Newton was a totally dynamic and progressive thinker in his time... we just have to be open to innovating our own systems and changing our beliefs as new discoveries are made.
Thanks for the thoughts!
Maren