Guest essay by Eric Worrall
According to an Oregon State Professor of Environmental Ethics and Philosophy, if we re-embraced the ancient indigenous worldview of living spiritual life in every tree and rock, we would be less likely to bulldoze the sacred grove.
How ideas from ancient Greek philosophy may have driven civilization toward climate change
October 20, 2021 11.43pm AED
Michael Paul Nelson
Professor of Environmental Ethics and Philosophy, Oregon State University
Kathleen Dean Moore
Distinguished Professor Emerita, Oregon State UniversityWildfires driven by increasing winds and unprecedented heat surrounded Athens, Greece, this past summer, blanketing its ancient marble monuments and olive groves with ash and acrid smoke. These are the same places where philosophers gathered almost 2,500 years ago to debate questions about the nature of matter and morality.
…
The Atomists’ perilous path
The early Greek philosophers were primarily interested in two kinds of questions. The first kind was metaphysical: What is the world? The second kind was ethical: What is a good person? The two sorts of questions were intertwined, as the physical description of the world shaped humanity’s place in it.
…
If the world is only matter, it has no purpose or intentionality, no divine design or intervention, no spirit or sanctity. It’s just stuff moving around or not, crashing or not. The particles operate according to mechanistic laws, as expressed by the principles of geometry. Consequently, the world has no emergent qualities – soul, mind, consciousness – that cannot be expressed in numbers.
In that view, the world is profane, a word that comes from “profanum,” meaning “outside the temple.” There is nothing special about it, nothing inspiring respect or veneration.
…
An open door to exploitation and waste
Before the Atomists, early Greeks generally did not draw a sharp distinction between the material and the spiritual worlds. In their view, everything – river, mountain, child, tree – is enlivened by a life force.
But the mechanistic, reductionist, matter-in-motion worldview stripped the spirit from the natural world. In doing so, it also stripped the world’s inherent value. The world became unremarkable, reducible, explainable, ownable, for sale. And so, the mechanistic worldview opened the door to exploitation, waste and abuse.
Over time, this worldview became deeply embedded in Western thought. And so human enterprise, following this view, could damage and destroy the matter of the world and offend no god, value or sacred place.
…
With a new worldview, or one inspired by ancient Indigenous cultures, we believe it may be possible for Western civilization to free itself from the old materialism and restore life, spirit, purpose, value – and thus, some measure of protection – to the substance of the planet. Consider alternative answers to the two great questions:
Reconsider: What is the world?
…
Read more: https://theconversation.com/how-ideas-from-ancient-greek-philosophy-may-have-driven-civilization-toward-climate-change-169714
I strongly suspect the Greek innovation was an effect rather than a cause.
The origins of engineering are lost in the mists of time, a few fragments such as the name Imhotep, an ancient engineer who lived 3000 years ago and likely pioneered the use of columns in large buildings. But something changed.
For most of the 300,000 year history of homo sapiens, the lifestyle of our ancestors was pretty much the same – hunter gatherer, crude farming or fishing villages. But we went from building crude huts to pyramids and wheeled vehicles in an eye blink of time.
Part of that may have been greater availability of resources with the end of the last ice age. Perhaps something in humans changed, a new way of thinking, or perhaps even a mutation which changed us, which drained the nature spirits from our worldview, gave some of us at least the ability to appreciate the world from a functional perspective.
My point is, I doubt we could turn back the clock even if we wanted to. The age of sacred groves, dryads and fairies is all but gone. The climate movement, with its yearning for personified nature, is perhaps the last gasp of this ancient tradition. The age of marvels is upon us.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
So it is all about yet another fake religion. Got it.
Eric W. mentioned Rousseau’s “noble savage” in a comment above. That is exactly what this reads as to me. A glorification of the past. In reality it was hard, dirty, short, and only the strong survived. The authors would want us to believe that cattle were treated equal to humans, and in a way they were, as humans were routinely put into slavery.
The more modern incarnation (although also quite old) of the “life force in everything” concept is panpsychism – that consciousness is a fundamental force of the universe and in everything. But very important to note that this does not mean all matter is conscious in the same way humans are, and therefore not of the same moral importance. The theory is not saying that a spoon is self aware with an inner narrative or a feeling of free will.
Also interesting to note, if we’re being honest, panpsychism is actually a much simpler solution to the so called “hard problem of consciousness” than the strong emergence required for information processing and related theories.
This short paper by Phillip Gof provides an argument for panpsychism:
Panpsychism is Crazy, But it’s Also Most Probably True
This paper by Anil Seth provides a critique of panpsychism:
Conscious Spoons, Really? Pushing Back on Panpsychism
‘My point is, I doubt we could turn back the clock even if we wanted to. ‘
but what is climate skepticism if not a desire to stop/turn back the clock?
Greta clearly said the industrial revolution caused all her nightmares. Rolling back the industrial revolution is not an option.
That’s what you think skepticism is?
You are right, griff!
But you are right IF, and only IF, you call “climate skepticism” to YOUR religion, that openly ignores and refuses to understand that climate is something of the realm of the “hard” (aka “exact”) sciences, and NOT one more post-modern social “science” playing with words which meaning they do not understand.
Yes, it is YOUR climate “science” that is “skeptical”, radically skeptical, of the physics and the other sciences of nature, it is YOUR “science” that rejects observed data when they do not fit its ideology, that cancels explanations that do not support YOUR irrational fears.
That’s the green position, Griffy. The Greens appear to want to take us back to a medieval society where the most advanced piece of technology is a windmill or water wheel. Grow up you delusional eedjit.
You have just demonstrated that you do not understand the issues! Those of us who consider ourselves climate skeptics complain about alarmists not rigorously following the Scientific Method by making assumptions and then looking for cherry picked facts to support the a priori assumptions. We want to “go boldly where no man has gone before” by inventing new technology without constraints of moral judgements or unsupported complaints about the negative impacts of technology. It is the alarmists such as yourself that want to rely on the obsolete technology of windmills and inefficient batteries to replace the wonder of a modern internal combustion engine. Alarmists are characteristically critical of power from nuclear fission, and typically are distrustful of thermonuclear fusion. Just because something is new does not mean that it is automatically better. But, we are willing to actually let the consumer try the new inventions and pass judgement with their credit cards, rather than emotionally reject things based on a quasi-religious dogma of what is good and bad.
Who is it that wants to put the climate back the way it was?
No. They want to put the environment back the way they imagine it once was. They are fantasists.
Good point, Richard. What’s funny is that they can never tell us what that desired end state actually is.
Gobekli Tepe pushed back to 12,000BP, shows something else about so-called hunter gatherers. This is the oldest ¨temple “site known, with full complex organization and engineering already fully developed there. Evidence of building at 14,500BP is reported.
This dates to just the Younger Dryas period.
Discovered by Klaus Schmidt to be much more than a Neolithic hill.
From 2020 new info :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GNYTuD0KfsA&t=2s
For some Prof. to pronounce upon gods, etc, at this site, predating Stonehenge by 9000 years, is foolhardy.
Here is a debate :
https://astronomy.com/news/2020/09/gobekli-tepe-the-worlds-first-astronomical-observatory
Here is Pillar 43 :
And now a settlement older than nearby Gobekli Tepe : Boncuklu Tarla
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351451879_ON_THE_ARCHITECTURE_OF_BONCUKLU_TARLA%27s_TEMPLE
From the article: “Perhaps something in humans changed, a new way of thinking, or perhaps even a mutation which changed us”
I read several article headlines yesterday claiming the human brain has gotten smaller since ancient times.
And my first search item a minute ago was this:
https://www.discovermagazine.com/planet-earth/the-human-brain-has-been-getting-smaller-since-the-stone-age
This should not cause concern. We know that small animals pack more neurons in a given space than does the human brain, so maybe the human brain is going this route. We are not getting dumber, we are just shrinking the thinking space. 🙂
Some people *are* getting dumber, but I doubt it has anything to do with their brain size. It’s CO2 that’s doing it.
There is a historically unprecedented selection for stupidity going on right now so the smaller brains might just be the result of this. Never before that I know of were intelligent productive persons able to support the most intellectually, physically and morally inferior human beings.
The San Francisco homeless druggies situation reminds me of a mentally ill cat lady who keeps feeding cats until they eventually overrun her house.
The behavior would seem to be their emotions preventing them from looking into the future and imaging the long-term consequences of their actions.
Eric Worrall,
Prof. Moore should refer to history before imposing her prejudices on her accounts of the past. Greek philosophy did generate the basics of experimental science but it did not initiate the need and desire for industrialisation.
The greatest inventor of all time, Heron (aka Hero) lived in Alexandria while Christ was conducting His ministry in Israel. Born in 10 AD, Heron devoted his life to science and technology until he died in AD 70. He is often called ‘The father of physics’ because he concentrated on learning through conduct of experiments instead of the then more traditional philosophical studies.
Heron recorded detailed descriptions of his many inventions and their mechanisms. They included
automata and automatic theatres,
a self-trimming oil lamp,
the hypodermic syringe,
the fire engine,
automatic doors,
and
coin-operated slot machines.
Temples used Heron’s devices to amaze worshippers. An especially impressive one of these was his coin-operated slot machine that dispensed precise amounts of holy water for cleansing the hands of worshippers.
Heron’s hypodermic syringe used tubular glass needles. Modern manufacturing methods enable metal syringe needles to be made and which, for example, are being used to inject vaccines against Covid-19.
Perhaps Heron’s greatest invention was his aeolipile or ‘wind ball’. This single device is the first known example of a steam engine, a gas turbine, and a jet engine (yes, all of those in one device!). A large, sealed cauldron of water was heated by a fire. The water boiled and the resulting steam left the cauldron via two pipes which vented into a hollow metal sphere. The sphere had a pair of bearings through its wall and these were on either end of the sphere’s diameter. The pipes passed through the bearings which formed pivots that supported the sphere while the pipes injected the steam into the sphere. Vents on the side of the sphere enabled the steam to escape. The vents directed the escaping steam as jets of steam which pushed the sphere so it rotated around the pivots.
A web search provides videos of several operating versions of Heron’s ‘wind ball’.
So, steam power existed since the time of Christ but nearly two millennia would pass before the industrial revolution happened. Some may ponder why this delay existed, and they are right to ponder because the reason is important for adoption of technologies to this day.
Societies adopt technologies that provide net benefit. Adoption of steam power would have been an economic disaster for the ancient world. That world depended on slavery and would have been unable to cope with the disruption of many slaves being displaced from employment.
Our world is very different from the ancient world. Our society benefits from full employment and obtains productivity increase from use of mechanical slaves. For example, I keep a mechanical slave in my kitchen: I put my dirty laundry in it and it does my washing. A modern manufactory uses a variety of mechanical slaves that are tended by people.
Transition from the ancient world to industrial civilisation required large adjustments of infrastructure, employment practices and social structures. Many were hurt by the several changes and, for example, this is why the Luddite movement tried to stop mechanisation.
But we did achieve the transition, didn’t we? Well, some of us did, but not all of us. The developing world now wants the benefits of energy use and mechanisation which we in the developed world take for granted. Attainment of those benefits requires much adjustment.
Transfer of technology is not easy and is not cheap. The ‘Nigerian tractors’ example is instructive.
Nigeria decided to increase its agricultural production by use of tractors. Many tractors were purchased and distributed to farms. The immediate result was impressive: agricultural production soared. But tractors require maintenance and that needs training for mechanics and funds for replacement parts. Slowly and surely the tractors failed, but before they failed their weight had compressed the farmland which hindered use of the land for non-mechanical agriculture. Five years after adopting the use of tractors agricultural output had fallen in Nigeria and the farms had broken tractors by their fields.
The G7 economic summit was held recently and a UN CoP (i.e. climate conference) is imminent. Such conferences talk about doing difficult things as though those things were easy. For example, adoption of a few coal-fired power stations for electrification requires minimal staff training and infrastructure construction: that is why we used that method for electrification of our country. But the G7 claimed – and the CoP – will claim wind and solar power should be used for electrification of the developing world. That is an immoral excuse for keeping the poor in poverty. If wind power were economic then oil tankers would be sailing ships, and people want to switch their lights on – not off – when the Sun goes down.
Richard
Trying to understand the past by focusing only on an aristocratic elite who had time to sit and ponder their navels in temples is like trying to understand modern life by studying the wealthiest idiots in Hollywood. Trying to emulate that elite existence is essentially ignoring the mainstream of human society and putting our whole existence at risk. Sense apparently isn’t common after all.
What changed? Agriculture and storable Grains. not everyone was working to sustain the population, there where now people who were free to build and innovate. In other words life was no longer as hard and dangerous, yeah lets go back to that.
The distinction between non-living and living (or what the Greeks called material and spirit) has definitely evolved over time. Of the four examples given in the article (river, mountain, child, tree), only the child and the tree are truly alive, and it is not clear whether plants actually have a “spirit”, while a child certainly has a sense of self that could be considered “spirit”.
In today’s understanding of nature, air, water, soil, and rocks are considered inanimate matter, while plants, animals (including humans), and microbes are considered to be living. We also separate plants (which are normally considered to be fixed in one place) to be different from animals (capable of independent movement).
There are definite interactions between the inanimate matter and living organisms: plants can absorb inanimate CO2 from the air, water and other nutrients from the soil to produce sugars (for food) and leaves and flowers; animals can eat living plants and drink inanimate water for their sustenance, and animal excretions and dead organisms can be decomposed into inanimate materials. So it can be asked, at what point do six CO2 molecules and six water molecules develop a “spirit” when they are photosynthesized into sugar in a leaf?
Beyond paganism, the more recently developed religions also guided people’s attitudes toward other life and “spirit”. The God of the Old Testament asked the Hebrews to kill and burn animals to atone for their sins, while Hindus believe that the spirits of deceased relatives may be reincarnated in animals, particularly cattle. But modern religions do not believe that air, water, or rocks can have “spirit”, and most of their followers will cut down trees for use as fuel, and grow crops for the sole purpose of eating the fruit.
But re-imagining spirits in the air, water, or ground will not help humanity survive, because today’s large population needs “exploitative” agriculture to feed itself. We obviously don’t want to over-pollute the air and water that sustains us and turn them into poison, but we don’t need to worship them either, just use them wisely.
Steve Z,
You say,
“The distinction between non-living and living (or what the Greeks called material and spirit) has definitely evolved over time. Of the four examples given in the article (river, mountain, child, tree), only the child and the tree are truly alive, and it is not clear whether plants actually have a “spirit”, while a child certainly has a sense of self that could be considered “spirit”.”
Sorry, but that assumes ‘spirit’ is self-aware and that is a misunderstanding of the Greek model of reality which was pantheistic (see https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pantheism/ ).
In that Greek model everything contains ‘spirit’ which controls its nature. For example, blacksmith’s were observed to have mystical powers because they had control over which ‘spirits’ inhabited an item made of iron so it could be hard and brittle or soft and ductile. Our world view uses a model that the properties of a piece of iron are established by its molecular structure which can be altered by heat treatment. Both understandings are what the scientific method calls models.
Reality is what it is but our understanding of reality is fashioned by the models of it which we construct with our minds. The Greeks had a different world view from us because their models of reality were different from ours.
A present day example of different models of reality is use of the phrase “the science”.
(a)
All real scientists know ‘science’ consists of temporary models. This is because science is a method to obtain the closest possible approximation to ‘truth’ by seeking evidence that refutes existing understanding(s) and altering the understanding(s) to accommodate the findings. So, there is no “the science” for real scientists: there is only our best available explanation at present.
(b)
Pseudoscientists mistakenly think ‘science’ consists of permanent models. This is because pseudoscience is a decision that existing understanding(s) is ‘truth’ and seeks anything to bolster that decision (e.g. evidence, consensus, assertion, etc.). So, “the science” is important to pseudoscientists because they think it is ‘truth’ (i.e. it is reality).
Richard
Not likely. Stone columns are stone versions of tree columns. With the expectation that the stone column would last a lot longer.
Keep in mind, that after the owners of stone dwellings are dead, it is normal for locals to borrow stones for which they see a purpose.
The only reason the pyramids are still standing is because the locals, which includes the Greeks and Romans didn’t get much further than the outer polished limestone casing.
If the pyramids were normal buildings, the romans would’ve repurposed the lot.
Really?
Which of these sacred trees is 2,500 years old or older?
I doubt any of those trees are much more than a hundred years, if that.
Instead, it is all bluff and hubris where because an author calls the grove sacred, it must be so.
So much for sacred.
“https://youtu.be/k4v8BVKlAfM?t=136”
The original article cheering on animism is pretty much a crock. Go to any animistic culture and see how they have preserved the earth around them. Not the temple grounds, but everywhere else. Then compare it to the U.S. Compare national parks in any animistic culture to ours in America.
Part of the difference is due to wealth, but most of it is that the American ethos was built on man as the caretaker of the earth. Yes, exploitation happens, but looks the result. People who worship trees will always be poor. And they will not take care of themselves or the environment.