Fascinating topic--one near and dear to my heart. I have a question for you, regarding your comment about my and Bret's book, A Hunter-Gatherer's Guide to the 21st Century. You say that it has "pro-technocracy" messaging. I'm surprised to hear that anyone could interpret what we wrote as such. Long before Covid, both Bret and I were skeptical of scientism, and of technology uber alles; I have long referred to myself as something of an intentional Luddite. But I may be missing something in the subtext of my own book--seriously--and am curious what you saw.
Your book is brilliant, and I found it has given me an expanded language of biology with which to consider many issues! The tinge of pro-technocracy I read -- and maybe misinterpreted -- appears in Chapter 13, "The Fourth Frontier." I know you wrote "This is not a policy proposal," but the idea that "we can engineer an indefinite steady state" prompted the question for me of, who's "we" that will be charged with engineering such a thing? The chapter then surveyed what were, if not specific policy proposals, general political and political-economy considerations and responses. The language was also one of collectivism.
When I read/hear collectivist language and a call for "engineering" on a grand, centralized scale, it strikes me as pro-technocracy. It was not inevitable to me that your book would reach that kind of summation, so when I interpreted it as such, it left an impression.
I'm likely much more sensitive to collectivizing, centralizing language and "engineering" things politically/economically than most of your readers. Still, none of how I interpreted the last chapter detracted for me from the amazing job you and Bret did in presenting the evolutionary considerations in the book as a whole.
Often though, the fiction I read is based on real events, so it's fuzzy. Is James Michener's work fiction? Is Ayn Rand's? How about Joseph Wambaugh? Leon Uris? Tolstoy or Dostoevsky? Often works of fiction include the authors personally philosophy or they tell you about a culture that once existed or exists currently. Fictionalized novels are among my favorite, especially Russian Lit. Heck even the cheapest pop culture novels written a hundred years ago will often do a better job of informing people of the past than a history book written by liars, that's if the author has kept it half way real.
I prefer something that makes me think or helps me understand something I'm interested in. History is particular can be very dry if it's not presented in the format of a story with a plot.
I started writing a non-fiction book called "The Pagan Gods of State" it's too dry, I can't seem to make it enjoyable to read, I've given serious thought to changing the format to fiction.
What would I call non-fiction? "Factual Lit." would be good but it doesn't cover philosophy, which is a search for Truth not Fact. Perhaps, "Fact and Truth based Literature"?
I share your struggles in getting away from a dry style of writing. This is probably, subconsciously, why I never wrote a book until it occurred to me to write about Jesus' Way of the Cross: There was a narrative structure there that I simply had to reveal, rather than create. And the result is a much more engrossing read than if I tried to write a straight philosophy/theology treatise. Having people engage in action within a time and place, was vitally important. Good luck to ya in discovering the story that goes with your material! :-)
Good story is good story
Fascinating topic--one near and dear to my heart. I have a question for you, regarding your comment about my and Bret's book, A Hunter-Gatherer's Guide to the 21st Century. You say that it has "pro-technocracy" messaging. I'm surprised to hear that anyone could interpret what we wrote as such. Long before Covid, both Bret and I were skeptical of scientism, and of technology uber alles; I have long referred to myself as something of an intentional Luddite. But I may be missing something in the subtext of my own book--seriously--and am curious what you saw.
Thanks for the kind words on the article.
Your book is brilliant, and I found it has given me an expanded language of biology with which to consider many issues! The tinge of pro-technocracy I read -- and maybe misinterpreted -- appears in Chapter 13, "The Fourth Frontier." I know you wrote "This is not a policy proposal," but the idea that "we can engineer an indefinite steady state" prompted the question for me of, who's "we" that will be charged with engineering such a thing? The chapter then surveyed what were, if not specific policy proposals, general political and political-economy considerations and responses. The language was also one of collectivism.
When I read/hear collectivist language and a call for "engineering" on a grand, centralized scale, it strikes me as pro-technocracy. It was not inevitable to me that your book would reach that kind of summation, so when I interpreted it as such, it left an impression.
I'm likely much more sensitive to collectivizing, centralizing language and "engineering" things politically/economically than most of your readers. Still, none of how I interpreted the last chapter detracted for me from the amazing job you and Bret did in presenting the evolutionary considerations in the book as a whole.
Also, good to converse with a fellow intentional Luddite :-D
'The Return of Neighborly Networking?' https://goodneighborbadcitizen.substack.com/p/the-return-of-neighborly-networking
I'm a fan of both although I read more fiction.
Often though, the fiction I read is based on real events, so it's fuzzy. Is James Michener's work fiction? Is Ayn Rand's? How about Joseph Wambaugh? Leon Uris? Tolstoy or Dostoevsky? Often works of fiction include the authors personally philosophy or they tell you about a culture that once existed or exists currently. Fictionalized novels are among my favorite, especially Russian Lit. Heck even the cheapest pop culture novels written a hundred years ago will often do a better job of informing people of the past than a history book written by liars, that's if the author has kept it half way real.
I prefer something that makes me think or helps me understand something I'm interested in. History is particular can be very dry if it's not presented in the format of a story with a plot.
I started writing a non-fiction book called "The Pagan Gods of State" it's too dry, I can't seem to make it enjoyable to read, I've given serious thought to changing the format to fiction.
What would I call non-fiction? "Factual Lit." would be good but it doesn't cover philosophy, which is a search for Truth not Fact. Perhaps, "Fact and Truth based Literature"?
I share your struggles in getting away from a dry style of writing. This is probably, subconsciously, why I never wrote a book until it occurred to me to write about Jesus' Way of the Cross: There was a narrative structure there that I simply had to reveal, rather than create. And the result is a much more engrossing read than if I tried to write a straight philosophy/theology treatise. Having people engage in action within a time and place, was vitally important. Good luck to ya in discovering the story that goes with your material! :-)
Fact Lit? Might have to workshop it . . .
Thank you!
Thank YOU for the book, and for the restack (just saw that!).