[Ibon]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mos6507', '
')So I think, rhetorically speaking, it's useful to raise the question of whether we are Kudzu ape (or smarter than yeast) but to make the leap and classify us as such is to forfeit any illusions of trying to fix things.

[rangerone314]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mos6507', 'O')nce you slap a derogatory label on us as a species then it removes any illusions of freewill. If there's no freewill, then there is no right and wrong.

[Ludi]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ibon', 'I') don't see climate change really causing widespread global ecosystem collapse.

[Ludi]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mos6507', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('papa moose', '
')One question "Kudzu ape"

[Ludi]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ibon', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mos6507', '
')So I think, rhetorically speaking, it's useful to raise the question of whether we are Kudzu ape (or smarter than yeast) but to make the leap and classify us as such is to forfeit any illusions of trying to fix things.

[Ludi]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mos6507', '
')The reason these labels are evoked is to shame all of humanity, kind of like the original sin argument. It's done in order to get on the moral high-horse and evoke hellfire and brimstone.

[SeaGypsy]

Why is it so hard to accept a conflictory state Mos?
I guess you won't answer. Obviously being human is something you are still coming to terms with.
To me your argument sounds immature.
Haven't you ever introspectively doubted yourself, yet defensively found redemption in this same self?
We are the Kudzu ape.
We are also the musical ape.
It is in your free will which aspects of yourself you want to focus on.
You don't have to believe in human sanctity to believe in free will.

[mos6507]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ibon', '
')When an alcoholic attends his first AA meeting he has to stand before the audience and state quite clearly, " I am an alcoholic". That is the starting point to deal with a disease that is all about denying that one has a disease.

[mos6507]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('rangerone314', '
')Both freewill, and right and wrong are human inventions.

[Ibon]

Kudzu Ape is what we have become but not necessarily who we are. What we have become truly resembles an invasive species.

The topic of whether Kudzu Ape can redeem his former position as an integrated part of his landscape instead of a dominating invasive is why many here are so committed to this topic of overshoot, climate change, peak oil etc.

These last posts raise the question whether this invasiveness is intrinsic in human nature or if it originates from cultures that formed since around 13000 years ago and have dominated the cultural landscape since.

I do agree that labeling humans as an invasive species intrinsically and as a fixed component of our nature is not completely correct. On the other hand concluding that our current culture is solely to blame is equally incorrect and I will share my thoughts on this below.

First a quick word on invasive species. All invasive species today on the planet are native species somewhere and ecologically well integrated in their place of origin. It is only when they are introduced that they create havoc. The European rabbit in Europe is a native but in Australia this agile placental mammal dominates its marsupial competitors in ways it never could in Europe and became very disruptive as it bloomed into a plaque since its introduction in the 19th century. These events have happened naturally and are not always caused by man. For example around 3 million years ago when the isthmus of Panama was formed it connected North and South America. The placental mammals headed south causing the extinction of marsupial ground sloths and the only marsupial that went north was the opossum that is still found today in North America.

What makes humans an invasive species today has its origins way back beyond the cultural evolution of civilization, centralized authority and agriculture. This is where Ludi and I probably disagree and where I am not completely in agreement with Daniel Quinn. Humans are ingenuous, they tinker, they invent and they are adaptive enough to become the top predator and dominate in almost all habitats. This was already true long before the advent of agriculture. Sea Gypsy pointed out some of the impacts of our tinkering human ancestors. But these ancestors where not yet Kudzu Ape. They may have caused some isolated extinctions of mega fauna and they may have created savannas using fire etc. but they still functioned in an integrated way within their environments. They mostly followed the law of limited competition as outlined in Quinn's book (Ishmael). They may have been the ultimate beavers in how they could change their landscapes but they were by no means invasive anywhere on the planet. Ludi, a little inside Quinn joke here.......humans then could be named "Leaver Beavers"

These ingenuous humans had an appointment with destiny back then. That their incessant tinkering and ingenuity would eventually lead them to discover tools that would empower them to depart from living within the limits set by their ecosystems and enable them to begin to "take" from their environments in ways that would lead them all the way to where we are today. Quinn explains this "taking" beautiful in Ishmael and it is a great read. For me however the book is greatly flawed in one very important aspect. In order to create the classic narrative of good and evil It sets up a false dichotomy that all humans previous to the agricultural revolution where "leavers" and egalitarian and intrinsically harmonious in their tribal cultures (good) and that the human culture that emerged after the agricultural revolution was a departure taking us all down this road of dominance (evil) . From Quinn's point of view Kudzu Human Culture began with the flawed dominance social hierarchy that came once we settled in large population centers enabled by agriculture which also enabled societies with central authorities. This lead to the arrogance and hubris of modern humans. Where as invasive species like the rabbit become disruptive when taken from their native habitats and introduced into new habitats creating havoc Quinn believes humans became invasive when we left our native habitat (pre agricultural tribal leaver culture) and were introduced into a new habitat that he calls "Taker" culture.

Sorry, as lovely a narrative as this story is it is a little too black and white in setting up this dichotomy solely on the basis of the introduction of a flawed culture. So there were really no seeds of Kudzu Ape in our early ancestors as they were tinkering with fire, stones and burning the savannas? Agriculture was discovered independently in southwestern Europe, China and Mesoamerica thousands of years ago. Was this discovery convergent because all these early modern humans adapted a flawed culture independently or was it simply the result of this incessant tinkering and ingenuity applied to your surroundings?

We are Kudzu Ape today not only because of our flawed culture but also because of our brains. It is a combination of something in our nature that tinkers so well together with this dominance. It is not quite the simple narrative of Ishmael. We are sentient mortal beings. When our sentient nature became aware of our mortality we applied our tools to try to control and mitigate this fact. This wont change by a change of culture. We are stuck with this. We are a marvelous species. Our humanity is capable of godliness. And yet we are a flawed species. The truth of this deeply wounds and hurts the sentiments of those that want to preserve a deeper concept of our humanity as idyllically integrated within the community of our fellow species on the planet and therefore we put all the blame on our current flawed culture. Dolphins and elephants and dogs and chimps may have the beginnings of sentient self awareness but even if they were aware of their own mortality they don't have the apposing thumbs to make tools to mitigate this. Why would a dolphin make a tool even if it was aware of its mortality when it lives in this aqueous habitat where it is so easy to catch fish with your smart dolphin brain. Humans didn't evolve in this type of environment. We evolved in environments that favored our apposing thumbs and brains and creating tools and this selected for intelligence until the unintended consequence happened; we woke up one day and became sentient and self aware and realized one day we will die. That truth has given us the greatest depths of our compassion but also the greatest hubris in trying to mitigate what cant be mitigated.

We will never achieve any semblance of sustainability if we don't govern the part of us that is flawed. We cant put this pre sentient "leaver beaver" humpty dumpty back together again.

I do believe the catalyst of consequences coming this century have the potential to embed in our culture the humility to self impose limits. It will come from the same sentient part of the brain that tries to control our environment because we fear our mortality. We will just become more rational in understanding the common sense in not exceeding carrying capacity. To tame the hyper individualism and submit to this consensus we will need a cultural revolution that will be as far reaching as what agriculture was 13000 years ago. But this new revolution has to weaken, threaten and start to undermine the foundations of our physical infrastructure first. In other words it has to throw our mortality back full circle into our face. We will only embed governance of sustainability in large populations of humans through the catalyst of consequences.

Until then we remain the Kudzu Ape.

[Homesteader]

Ibon,

That is a wonderfully written and thoughtful post.

Whether or not we get a second chance will become more apparent in the next couple of decades.

[rangerone314]

I am inclined to think that Darwin-style survival of the "fittest" favors high populated, technology-oriented, domination-centered "civilizations" that obliterate "barbarians" (tribal, small-scale agricultural, hunter-gatherer, etc), before consuming that which sustains them like a fire.

I am wondering if it is an eternal cycle that humans cannot break.

[mos6507]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ibon', '
')Sorry, as lovely a narrative as this story is it is a little too black and white in setting up this dichotomy solely on the basis of the introduction of a flawed culture.

[Ludi]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ibon', '
')Sorry, as lovely a narrative as this story is it is a little too black and white in setting up this dichotomy solely on the basis of the introduction of a flawed culture.

[Ibon]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ibon', '
')Sorry, as lovely a narrative as this story is it is a little too black and white in setting up this dichotomy solely on the basis of the introduction of a flawed culture.

[Ibon]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mos6507', ' ') I guess where I diverge from the "Lite Transition" crowd is I think you can't really have much useful action without first having an awakening.

[Ibon]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mos6507', '
')When you use the word "believe", some here groan. It reminds me of the Mike Brownlee "Deep Transition" vs. "Lite Transition" bru-ha-ha. That incident has had a very strong impact on my viewpoints lately.

[SeaGypsy]

My vision quest suggests this sense of awe and sensitivity to nature is the primordial key with which we initially opened Pandora's box. Curiosity and the cat. Calling it sacredness is correct for those who have not some connotation about organised religion and this word. Those who own their sense of sacredness, rather than the spoon fed variety. There is the problem with using such language. It has been perverted and subverted to serve the dominant collective and their paradigm. Often it will inspire the exact opposite of awe and sensitivity to nature; paranoia and withdrawal. This keeps the consumer animal consuming.

[mos6507]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ibon', '
')I read through this conundrum and my interpretation comes back to the missing catalyst of consequences. Putting so much emphasis on consequences might seem an intellectually lazy position and a refusal to engage in all the nuts and bolts required to get transition started.