The Future of Humankind

Many people around the developed world speak today about “envisioning a real, sustainable, post-industrial future.”  Like them, I too prefer conditions of greater reciprocity among peoples and with the earth.  A ‘post-industrial’ economic platform certainly sounds tempting, but it seems somewhat difficult to imagine given the history of human consciousness and how the transformation of consciousness has significantly impacted our globe – socially, politically, economically and ecologically. 

Certainly, it is not impossible to visualize a world with electric cars, windfarms, and less-destructive, more earth-friendly agricultural methods.  It may even be possible to dream of a world with little, if any, nuclear threats and fewer wars.  However, even these alterations in behavior will require a deeper transformation of human self-understanding and of our place in the world. 

As a species, we have made a series of perhaps unalterable choices beginning approximately 10,000 years ago with the birth of civilization, the effects of which have positioned us as we now find ourselves in the world; and these choices have molded our expectations and our requirements about what life should be like – in short, the purpose or ends towards which we feel human life and culture should be directed.  

The overarching vision, with its underlying assumptions and expectations, has peaked and crystalized itself in the now-taken-for-granted concept of ‘American exceptionalism’, our self-proclaimed political, economic, and moral superiority, and the apparent hegemony of our cultural values.  It is these expectations and values that have been spread across the globe like wildfire, as we have pursued a policy of global dominance and cultural transformation or occupation.  Some groups, nation-states and countries find these values desireable, others abhorent.  Some try to mold themselves to the vision ennunciated by such expectations, while others arm themselves to the teeth to fight-off its insidious occupiers. 

Having planted our flag at the foreftront of western civilization and declared our own ‘manifest destiny,’ we Americans continue to believe that we have set the right example for mankind to follow, and that we are justified leading the rest of the human race to fulfill its proper role in our civilization.  We set ourselves up long ago as  protectors of moral virtue, cultural innovation, political power, economic progress, and human rights.  And much of the western world has followed our lead in this myopic belief, unchallenged until very recently. 

Do not misunderstand me, we have indeed achieved a great deal, especially in terms of medical treatment, communication and other advanced technologies.  But, can our unflinching drive for innovation and progress, for complete dominion over the uncertainities of our natural environment and animal natures – a drive that began ages ago with specialization, spurred on by investment capital and individual risk taking, motivated by the acquisition of private property and wealth – can this rocketship of science and technology, fueled by the resources of capitalistic expansion, be brought to a stop; can it be slowed down, can we alter or reverse its trajectory?

I believe the answer to this question is not simply an economic nor even a political one; and this is because the question that it begs is deeply philosophical.  Can human consciousness and human self-understanding be changed significantly enough to alter the social, political and economic trajectory of modern society?  That is the more fundamental question.  But, if we seek an affirmative answer to this question; then further questions must be asked of modern man, if the future is to be transformed in the manner we hope.

Can we reintegrate the nuclear and the extended family within the framework of a worldview that is overtly driven by radical individualism?  Can we rebuild social networks based upon consanguinity, personal relations and mutual respect, rather than upon the authoritarian forces of an anonymous political power elite, whether elected or otherwise? 

Can we learn to live without the expectation of highspeed worldwide travel on demand, and instead be more content to live a peaceful life in proximity to where we were born, with those we know and love close to us? 

Can we restructure our spatial expectations about towns, villages and communities so that we do not need individual transportation vehicles (cars) just to live normal everyday lives?  Can we ever become comfortable again with the idea of walking places, or using reliable public transportation when necessary?

Can we adjust our expectations about money, wealth and comfort, and be content to live more simply, more modestly on the earth?  Can we adjust how we understand ‘work’, and learn to accept less productivity, perhaps zero economic growth, and begin to enjoy life more on a daily and hourly basis?  And, can those countries that are finally beginning to taste the apple of American capitalism that has been shoved down their throats be convinced that it was all a mistake, that tasting this will really be the root of their destruction?

Can we learn to sing and dance, and to feel our bodies again, without shame or embarrassment?  Can we stop ‘tweeting’ for virtual friends, while demanding ever new gadgets and technologies of ourselves and our technical masters, and just be content with fewer ‘prosthetic’ parts, and try not to be superheroes?

Can we be honest with ourselves and with one another, that we have in fact been arrogant and devisive, and not just American’s with their ‘exceptionalism’, but all who partake in the special traditions of our civilizations, past and present, that have culminated in this unique story that we call human history?

Can we step back enough to reclaim a more natural place within the animal kingdom, and recover from our early civilized need to dominate nature, and the substantial hangover that really came in to its own with Francis Bacon and the scientific method, and our transition into the modern era of infinite progress?

These are some of the hard questions that must be asked.  The answers are still uncertain, as we seek to simplify our own lives and our households, to better reflect the realities we find immanent and already beginning to imping upon us.

 del.icio.us  Stumbleupon  Technorati  Digg 

 

What did you think of this article?




Trackbacks
  • Trackbacks are closed for this entry.
Comments

  • 4/15/2009 7:25 AM Yodood wrote:
    If we could realize its devastating results and control our population explosion the excuses for the growth of industrial overproduction and loss of species variety with ownership of land for food, homes and each other would recede. Our problems wouldn't amount to a hill of beans if we weren't such a mountain of beings. American exceptionality is a natural result of the cultural myth that the world was created especially for our human pleasure under our stewardship over the inferior rest.
    Reply to this
    1. 4/15/2009 10:54 AM kulturcritic wrote:
      Yodood:

      American exceptionalism is an outgrowth of the belief in infinite progress, spurred on by the scientific revolution and historical analysis, which had its birth pangs in the development of specializtion emerging in the wake of urbanization, large scale agriculture and nation building.

      And you are right Yoodood, it is a myth that began to establish itself very early-on in civilization with specialists of the sacred.

      But which came first the people or the means of production? I think the move to increased output with agriculture and storage facilities came before enlarged populations...it made them possible.
      Reply to this
    2. 4/18/2009 6:58 PM kulturcritic wrote:
      Couldn't agree more Yodood; but I would argue that overproduction, beginning with large scale agriculture was the precipitating cause of overpopulation
      Reply to this
      1. 4/19/2009 12:30 AM Yodood wrote:
        You wouldn't be arguing with me on the role totalitarian agriculture (the precursor to all surplus providing industries) plays in humankind fulfilling the natural tendency of any species to rise and fall with the food supply. The UN proposes to produce twice as much food by 2050, insuring only that twice as many people will starve.
        Reply to this
  • 4/27/2009 9:44 PM troutsky wrote:
    I think the population growth question is less critical than the consumption footprint question. Impacts are so unequal that a just accounting requires this differentation. In any case, lowering food production is not an answer to this Malthusian distraction from the real issue.
    Reply to this
    1. 4/28/2009 3:58 AM Yodood wrote:
      How can consumption be more critical than the quantity of people consuming? Real issues and their distractions are as interchangeable as ones political bias while the consumption increases with each additional mouth faster than each old mouth increases its ability to consume.
      Reply to this
      1. 4/28/2009 11:41 AM kulturcritic wrote:
        Well - Troutsky, I must agree with Yodood on this issue of population control v consumption patterns (foot prints?). And I never said we must reduce food production to fix the problem. I only said that increased production commensurate with large scale agriculture was a precipitating factor in population growth.
        Reply to this
  • 4/28/2009 1:47 PM Yodood wrote:
    Trout, neither of us said reduce food production! All I am saying is that we have yet to face the fact that we could discontinue considering the starving an excuse to justify the inevitably unsustainable increase in food production (thus polluting the earth with pest and herbicides and diluting species diversification down to naught but humans and their food) and suffer through the inevitable period where the population becomes sustainable at the rate of present food production either by birth control or starvation.
    Reply to this
  • 4/29/2009 12:21 PM troutsky wrote:
    By footprint I mean "that left behind". 60 peasants on a farm in Bangladesh use less resources and leave less footprint than 1 average Westerner, think about waste, transport, chemicals. "Control" the reproduction of Westerners to save eco-systems. Better yet, change our consumption patterns.
    Reply to this
    1. 4/29/2009 1:20 PM kulturcritic wrote:
      I would certainly agree with you on consumption patterns; but it truly is necessary that we seek ways to moderate the population growth. But, again, I am not much into political programs and social engineering visions. I see myself more as a critic, and less as a expeditor.
      Reply to this
  • 4/3/2010 3:11 PM WEB Source wrote:
    This page added to Google cache Cached: http://google.com/search?q=cache:http://blog.kulturcritic.com/2009/04/14/the-future-of-humankind.aspx?ref=rss&ei=AFQjCNHajN_OX0kgxzx7UGA1yBfhQ poRndfWq
    Reply to this
  • 7/16/2010 8:35 PM azanbbs wrote:
    a>: http://hi.baidu.com/azanbbs">azanbbs
    New a>: http://hi.baidu.com/azanbbs>azanbbs
    url]: [url=http://hi.baidu.com/azanbbs]azanbbs[/url">http://hi.baidu.com/azanbbs]azanbbs[/url]
    a]: [a/]http://hi.baidu.com/azanbbs[a]azanbbs[/a">http://hi.baidu.com/azanbbs[a]azanbbs[/a]
    link]: [link=http://hi.baidu.com/azanbbs]azanbbs[/link">http://hi.baidu.com/azanbbs]azanbbs[/link]
    纯: http://hi.baidu.com/azanbbs /1.html azanbbs
    リンク>: <リンク:http://hi.baidu.com/azanbbs>azanbbs
    Reply to this
  • 7/23/2010 5:07 AM Infusionsoft Training wrote:
    Living a life is a not an easy road. As you observe in today's time, you will notice that the changes of our life go to modernization. We are not exempted because all of us were experiencing the same situation. But, we have to improve our living.
    Reply to this
Leave a comment

 Enter the above security code (required)

 Name

 Email (will not be published)

 Website

Your comment is 0 characters limited to 3000 characters.