Synonymical aspects of Genius and Humble Simplicity.

Recently while viewing a documentary about the ancient cultures of the Maya and Aztec in Central and South America it occured to me that society taken as a whole has become way over crowded with meddlesome, combative, egotistical effort and thought. We seem to be making mountains out of mole hills, in that our conscious variable-infested minds are prohibiting us from being maximally efficient.

Take the ancient civilizations on the high plateaus of Bolivia. They lived and prospered in one of the most inhospitable regions this planet has to offer. They grew immense crops with monstrous yeilds. And yet their growing season was a fraction of the time we have here in the States. Why? Because thier maximally efficient simple farming methodology allowed them to grow well after the first frost in late summer. By planting in rows with a irrigation ditch between each row allowed the sediment on the bottom of the ditches to provide vitamins and nutrients to the crops, and at night when the temp dropped the warmed water from the days sunlight would evaporate and keep the plants from drying out.

These peoples demonstrated an inner sensitivity to the natural rhythm of things. This is pretty much the only way I can describe the genius of simplicity that these people demonstrated. Its just…simplicity.

Why is it in todays society ‘we’ as a whole have to be innundated with variables crouding our heads to stop us from being efficient human beings? Of course this is a gross generalization of a population en mass but for the commoner what does this mean? Does the media and information superhighways prevent us from being maximally efficient? Do we simply have too many things rumbling around our modern head to actually take advantage of our simple genius as being human? Our natural order should be to operate on the principle of minimal effort, but we just don’t do this. I’d like to know from others what they think are the reasons we do not do this.

I’m trying to figure out where you are going with this one, Philosophr. Are you advocating a luddite society? A sort of commune with nature mysticism? or is it just a pining for a mythical “good ole days” when communication technology wasn’t as advanced?

As to agriculture, I would argue that our methods are vastly more efficient than those of eras past. Type in “green revolution” into google for more information on modern agricultural efficiency.

Ancient societies really didn’t operate on minimal effort anyway. Aesop’s fable about the ant and the grasshopper illustrates this better than anything I can think of.

Could you help me out here by clarifying your OP?

Beelblebrox
Well no I am not advocating a luddite type society. I am not suggesting we go out and sabbotage all farm machinery or anything like that, what I am suggesting is that we care more about the simple abundance and care more for the greater good. I do not want to butcher my point in the OP. That is for sure. What I see in our farming and agricultural endeavors is a supply and demand on a global scale. This is our natural progression towards feeding the masses and making a living. We were and still are destined to make more and more and yeild more and more from the food we grow. We have to take this route because the world is not getting any smaller and people of course need to be fed.

I suppose Beeblebrox I look at the ancient civilizations with a degree of envy. They took only what they needed and were maximally efficient with the techniques they mastered. On the one hand one can say they are no longer with us and their lineage has been saturated into the modern societies of their surrounding regions. And on the other hand they utilized very little to procure very much. But why are they no longer flourishing some 5000 years later?

I agree our methods today are quite efficient and we have successfully mastered the fine art of cultivating for the masses. And no I do not advocate living in a commun style world, I think that way of life has taken the path of the dodo. What I am possibly looking to suggest is that we look at the ancient cultures and examine their philosophies of land, culture and being and incorporate what we can into modern society. It will not be long before we can communicate in any language we wish from any location we wish be simply speaking into the cell phones of the future. What will this bring to us? And let your mind go and you’ll see the sci-fi of old, will soon be the norm of present, it already is. I look with envy and wonder at the melded societies of the past and look for how we can incorporate those into our modern now.

Also Beeble thanks for the idea of looking up Green Revolution on Google. That will most likely lead to a good amount of reading an possibly more to tell in the future…

The ancient civilizations also had life expectancies in the low 40s.

http://www.bartleby.com/100/160.html

I’ll take Complex Civilization for $200, Alex.

Hey. Long time reader yadda yadda.

DDG, Hobbes was referring to a theoretical state of nature there, not necessarily the state in which any historical society actually lived.

I also wouldn’t use the arguments of an absolute monarchist against the Mayans and Aztecs, of all cultures. .

Demosthenesian

Not sure what you mean by this. Are you saying the Mayans and Aztecs didn’t have absolute monarchs or that they did? I was always under the impression that the class sytem they worked with was a multi-tiered societal plane where the leaders were elder priests and not say a king or queen. Although I do not think you were saying they did in fact have a king and queen, I was just wondering where you were taking that last statement…

Well, I know the Aztecs, at least, had an emperor…the most famous of which was Montezuma II (the one who was “discovered” by Cortez), and in theory he had absolute power, but in practice, he had to balance the wishes of the nobility, the clergy, and the merchants, which, in terms of social structure, wasn’t all that different than most European societies from about the same time. And, I don’t know if the farming methods of the Aztec were really in tune with nature. They used extensive irrigation, slave labor, and the tribute of conquered peoples to feed themselves.

I intend here to coment on the subject of efficiency.

One reason I have observed that modern society is inefficient is that modern free-market capitalism is inefficient.
The driving force behind today’s ‘free-market’ economy is consumption. If no one consumed anything, the economy could not function; there would also be no reason for it to exist. But we do consume, whether we need to or not; and indeed, we need to (at least to some extent). Simply put, we need to eat. So we consume (in both the physical and economic sense) food and related commodities (spoons and toilet paper, for example).
The needed-consumption economy is bolstered by our wants. We want things, generally speaking. So we consume them. We buy tennis shoes, we go to movies, we get cable TV. We don’t need any of these things-- the Masai get along fine without them-- but we consume them.
But nothing amplifies the consumption-based economy like waste. Buy a frozen ‘TV’ dinner. That’s a wastage jackpot right there: the plastic film, the paper tray, the scraps you don’t scrape off the tray, the space in the landfill, the garbage bag, the electricity you used to heat it up. Sure, you counter; but preparing that all from scratch wuld have created just as much waste. No, not if you recycled the paper the meat was wrapped in, composted the potato peelings, and used the dishwater to moistem your plants. But who really does those things? Few of us. They take time. They take effort. They’re not fun. And if the dinner didn’t fill you up, you’ll soon consume something else-- a statement which reveals that it is logical for the manufacturer to make those meals just a little too small for the average palate.
Another example: a trip to the movie theatre. You drive there, of course. Gasoline and engine oil both consumed. Wear on the automotive components. You’ll have to buy more gas, an oil change, parts and service. You park in a vast, paved lot. Asphalt, curbs, paint on the ground-- is any of it really essential? The film in the projector. The projector itself. The popcorn, the paper cup holding the drink together, the straw, the paper towels in the washroom. It’s all accessory waste to the film.
The economy thrives on waste. A society of people that eat big macs by the million downgrade their health. Some of them buy exercise machines. Most of them use up health resources because their diets (and associated habits-- I’m not blaming this all on McDonald’s) have clogged up their arteries. Some pay for weight-loss plans, some pay for liposuction, some have to get counseling for the psychological effects of obesity. (I know-- thse are all a little extreme-- but expense begets expense, and that’s what I’m trying to say.)
So waste begets waste. And we’re stopped in our tracks by it daily; Road salt causes a lot of insidious damage, but it has only benefits to the economy. It corrodes your car, the sidewalk, the public fixtures? More money spent, more resources used on fixing them. It damages the ecology in surrounding wetlands? Government and private money spent on studies and cleanup. A child eats some snow containing salt and dirt? Even accidental ingestion? Child becomes poisoned? The economy thrives: parents drive child to hospital, consume gas. Health-care resources used to treat child, government or parents must pay (depending on where you live). Child’s condition worsens- child transferred to hospital in major centre- parents travel to be with child, expend money on travel, accomodation, stuffed animal for child. Worst-case scenario (I know, I know. Road salt, though poisonous, causes few deaths. Think of this as a illustration, rather than branding it hyperbole.): child dies. Undertaker gets more business. So do travel agencies when relatives come to funeral.
One’s emotional reaction to the above examples is of no consequence. Such events can and do occur-- people buy pre-fab food, they go to movies, they get sick. And all of these things are very good for the free-market economy. They are also very inefficient.

But the modern market economy, with it’s self-accelerating grip on consumption and everyday practices, is really just a symptom of something bigger. After all, the U.S.S.R. wasn’t a big centre of capitalism, but it had it’s share of inefficiency. And so do things that have little to do with economics.

I have begun to ponder a theory. And I’ve yet to find strong evidence to refute it. It is as follows:

Humanity is inherently inefficient.

And to argue this statement, I must now turn to the concept of belief. (But this may not be apparent for a short while.)

Is humanity indeed inherently inefficient? We need not look far for evidence to support the affirmative.

We do violence. We make war. Oh, how we make war: almost constantly since the dawn of civilization- and certainly before that, albeit in perhaps a different manner. We rape, and murder, and steal, and destroy, and terrorize, and lie. All of these things create disorder, be it psychological trauma that interferes with function, the destruction of a building, the scattering of a town’s residents, the loss of resources.
We socialize. We entertain ourselves. We play jokes. We sing. We dance. We make freinds. We pass through childhood. We explore, we build, we love. These too are inefficient, on the whole:

Socializing usually wastes time and resources, even if it’s only personal energy. It’s also a jumping point for economic consumption (ie, going to the theatre with some freinds).
Entertainment (including song and dance) is a use of energy, with no need. If a psychologist tells you we need it, take that as confirmation that humans are inefficient to the core. (If we need to waste energy…)
A practical joke aims to do nothing more than create disorder, at least momentarily.
Exploration leads to lost expeditions, great expense, distruption of that which is discovered, and so on. Building things uses resources, and they are usually irretrievable. And most buildings aren’t made to be efficient, but for aesthetics. Both of these examples do see gain, but inefficiency never fails to make it’s mark.
Children are perhaps the most inefficient of us all. They misunderstand, they make errors, they injure themselves, they more easily waste than a fully socialized adult (generally). They feed the plants milk, and colour on the walls.
Lastly, think of freindship and love. How much energy and effort is expended on each of these? How many people pursue someone, only to find out they’re going out with someone else? How many flowers are sacrificed, cards are sent, gifts are bestowed? How much inefficient behaviour is practiced? Have you ever stayed up late with freinds when you shouldn’t have? Have you ever spent a little too much on your significant other? The emotions, the social structures, and the related actions are all inherently inefficient.

In a similar manner, we go out of our way to experience things. We want to ‘try’ this and ‘feel’ that; we want to feel 'truly alive, or ‘fully human’. And so people break legs ski-jumping and necks bungee-jumping; teenagers get drunk and young girls get pregnant. It would be far more efficient to learn from the mistakes and triumphs of others-- isn’t that why we record information? Isn’t that the whole purpose behind books and letters and storytelling?

Why do we do all of these things (from war to love, ad everything in between)? Because of belief. (Oh, good, you might say; finally the point.)

Each of those examples of inherently inefficient human behahaviour stems from a single inefficient human practice: belief.

We go to war beause we believe our cause is just. So does the enemy.
We act on emotions such as love, hate, anger and joy because we belive they are worth acting on.
We create children because we believe we should reproduce, or because we want them, and belive our wants warrant action.
We go to the trouble of ‘experiencing things’ because we believe they are worth experiencing.
We want things because we believe they would bring some benefit- real or emotional.

So since it is the nature of humans to want, to emote, and to believe, humans cannot be efficient. Unless one is willing to cast off non-essential concumption, as well as love, war, and childhood, one cannot aspire to any real degree of efficiency. Unfortunately, most would argue that it is these very things that make humanity human.

To be human is to be inefficient.

Wolfstu

First of all nice analysis. Secondly, your explaination seems a little morbid. I know several people who live in quite efficient homes and who recycle everything and who utilize electric mobility so as not to pollute.

Every animal on the planet is to a degree inefficient. Our bodies waste energy when we walk. We are not going to all go out and buy the new Segway Scooter are we?

I also do not think technology is going to help or hinder our efficacy as humans.

We are inefficient. Yeah? And? The human body is designed to utilize energy producing goods to function and rejuvenate itself. We are naturally inefficient. But I am not sure where you were going with your proof. How about giving some ways to become more efficient. With the above explaination I would assume you could provide some sort of effective plan to be more efficient.

And here it be:

I have no solution to how humans can be efficient-- if I did, I would already have implemented it and won the Nobel Peace Prize ;).

Humans are by their nature inefficient. The aspect of their nature that most contributes to their inefficiency (besides bodily physics and chemistry) is their application of non-factually-based parameters of judgement; in short, belief and emotion.
The key to efficiency lies in the elimination of these. This means the abandonment of religion, emotion, and actions based on want or desire. However, I expect the majority of humans would be unwilling to cast off these elements; many would argue that it is these and similar traits that make humans what they are. The question is not “How does humanity become efficient?” but “Would we rather be human or efficient?”.

To deal with the problem of inefficiency due to “bodily physics and chemistry”, one presumably would have to do away with the offending party-- the body-- while retaining the desired efficient system (the human). I have no suggestion for accomplishing this, nor do I expect such would be desirable to most humans.

In more concrete terms, the question might be posed as to how we can eliminate forms of inefficiency that are not fundamental to our minds or bodies-- such as how to better use and produce materials, as the Original Post hinted.
There are a number of ways, but they require concerted effort on the part of the members of society. These suggestions are not mine; they’ve been made before: recycle more, use less, insulate better, build things to last, pay closer attention to individual production rather than mass-producing with a high failure rate. Unfortunately, these things don’t benefit the modern free-market economy-- the economy thrives on waste (I won’t reillustrate that point here). So if we want to make our society more efficient on the large scale, we need to modify, or better, replace the consumption-driven capitalism now in vogue. Of course, as I mentioned in my first post, we haven’t found a large-scale economic plan that does any better; communism and military rule are pretty inefficient themselves.

On the small scale, though, an individual can aim to maximize his personal efficiency. Buy only what you need. Use only what you need. Wear that sweater an extra day before laundering it-- and if that’s not feasible, decide why, and lessen that factor (for example, avoid spilling soup on yourself). Consider redistributing your surplus resources-- give unneeded money or too-small clothing to someone who needs it, for example. Accept hand-me-downs, and repair your clothes insted of buying new ones. Abandon fashion, and wear the same clothes until you or they fall apart, whichever comes first. Eat healthy-- if you don’t gain weight, you won’t have to lose it. Let your rate of consumption approach zero. There are many ways to practical, and efficient. Your body will always generate entropy, and you’ll always waste some energy. But you can do some things more efficiently, on the small scale. (Why do so many of my examples deal with clothing and food? Because little else is really essential, after all.)
I’ll leave it up to you to decide what you want to do about the “application of non-factually-based parameters of judgement”.

Related to all of this is the idea of ‘misalignment of goals’. Part of the reason the free-market economy is inefficient is because the goal of the producers is to maximize profit by producing as much as possible, while the goal of an efficient consumer is to consume only what is necessary. David Suzuki has made this point quite well-- that the economy places production above other potential benefits (though he uses this to show how capitalism places profit and production above social and environmental well-being). Similarly, a society where the goals of individuals or groups are not aligned with those of others causes some individuals to work counter to others. From this stems war, disagreement, and election campaign spending. But this is not a new point; those misaligned goals are simply due to humans acting on the belief that their own goals are appropriate.
To finish, then, the main point:

  1. The laws of thermodynamics state that everything is at least a little inefficient. So you can’t win. Entropy’s gonna get ya.
  2. Thermodynamics aside, it is our ‘humanity’ that makes us inefficient. We cannot retain that and truly be efficient beings.
  3. Humanity aside, the reason modern society is inefficient in it’s use of resources is the method we have devised for using and allocating them: the free-market economy.
  4. Economy aside, we can be somewhat more efficient, if we make the effort. But how much more efficient we will be depends on how much #2 and #3 have a grip on us.

My apologies if my point was insufficiently clear on the first try.

Sorry, I couldn’t get past the part where you claimed that the free-market economy was our primary source of inefficiency before shooting milk out of my nose.

The free market is the most efficient way to allocate resources that man has ever devised.

It used to take something like 90% of the population to produce the food required to live. Now, thanks to our inefficient free market, it takes less than 10%.

I would also suggest that it’s folly to use civilizations that lived in incredibly fertile areas as evidence of what living in harmony with nature will allow. When food literally grows like weeds all around you, you don’t have to be that clever to have a decent standard of living. But only so many humans can live in the Nile Delta or in lush areas of South America. I suggest you have a look at how peasant farmers got along in Europe for a better example of the joys that await us if we abandon capitalism and return to some mythical communal existance.

I think that people are getting elegant and simple confused with efficient.

In pre-industrial society most work was done by muscle power, with the simple technologies of wind and water power supplementing muscle. Most creations (buildings,dams, irrigation canals,roads, bridges, etc.) were designed and built with the maximum use of pre-existing natural forms in mind. The over all principles were one of two concepts, build it once solidly and forever or keep using the easily workable natural resources to regularly rebuild the structure. A large generalization, I know, but it holds up fairly well.

In the industrial society, and beyond, the work is done by fuel instead of landform. Sure it’s still easier to get water pressure by piping from an upland resevoir, but we also pump it up from wells into water towers. An artificial landform powered by fuel, not rain. Nothing wrong with that, in fact it is more efficient to dig and pump than run an aquaduct to every little city and town. The modern era measures its workforce not by manpower but by energy units. If it isn’t efficent, rip it out and replace it with something that is.

So hopefully you can understand my drift. The pre-industrial ways were simple and elegant because people always want to do things with the least amount of effort. Effort in this case meaning their personal (or animal) muscle. The modern way wants efficiency for the same reason, but its concern is about non-living power sources. Both are legitimate answers to the same question of how to get things done. No need to overly romanticize or praise either one.