#9 Diamond - The World Until Yesterday

"Traditional societies in effect represent thousands of natural experiments in how to construct a human society. They have come up with thousands of solutions to human problems, solutions different from those adopted by our own WEIRD (Western, Educated, Industrialised, Rich and Democratic) modern societies. We shall see that some of those solutions […] may strike you, as they do me, as superior to normal practices in the First World. Perhaps we could benefit by selectively adopting some of those traditional practices. […] But we should also not go to the opposite extreme of romanticising the past and longing for simpler times. Many traditional practices are ones that we can consider ourselves blessed to have discarded."
- page 9

The World Until Yesterday, by 'America's most famous Geographer' Jared Diamond

Jared Diamond is, to be quite frank (and as explained by The Daily Mail), a master storyteller of the human race.

The thing I love most about Diamond's writing (from what I've read), is the way in which he doesn't give you all the summative answers; he provides the base for the answers in his vast scope of analysis and personal insights, and depicts his opinions on the answers (I say 'answers' in both senses but really refer to subjective answers i.e. what you think the answers to X are), however inevitably he leaves it up to you. Despite the immensely persuasive nature of his own opinions, he doesn't enforce them upon you. The tone and language of his narrative is such that Diamond allows you to formulate your own opinion as well as encourages you to THINK for yourself. Such a style makes his work both engaging and challenging - I couldn't recommend it more.

The World Until Yesterday is a comparative exploration of the differing lifestyles inhabited by Westerners and more traditional societies, and the respective benefits and detriments of both; what could we learn from traditional societies in areas such as child-rearing, treatment of the elderly, and health? What does a study of their approaches to life highlight as preferential in our Western societies? What should we be more grateful for? What could we adopt to improve our quality of life? 

'Over the past 500 years, the West achieved global dominance, but do Westerners necessarily have better ideas about how to raise children, care for the elderly, or simply live well? In a sweeping journey around the globe, Jared Diamond explores how tribal people approach essential human problems, from health and diet to conflict resolution and language, and discovers that they have much to teach us. These traditional societies offer an extraordinary window into how our ancestors lived for most of human history - until virtually yesterday, in evolutionary terms.' - blurb

Diamond's central argument is that neither the West nor traditional societies should be romantically acclaimed as 'better off'. He seeks to dispel the common illusion (and egotistic ignorance) that The West Knows Best, along with the associated stigma of traditional societies needing our help to solve their Backward Ways; at the opposite end of the spectrum, he is additionally adamant that one shouldn't seek to loathe the West, dreaming of a simple way of life similar to that led by our ancestors. Rather, Diamond argues, there are many areas of life in which we can learn from traditional societies who perhaps possess higher qualities of life in those respects, just as in other areas they could learn from methods of life that we have adopted, which provide us conversely with higher qualities of life. 

"In some respects we moderns are misfits; our bodies and our practices now face conditions different from those under which we evolved, and to which they became adapted." - page 9

The World Until Yesterday is structured into 7 sections: the Prologue / Setting the Stage by Dividing Space / Peace and War / Young and Old / Danger and Response / Religion, Language and Health / the Epilogue. In each section, Diamond lays down the fundamentals of the area in subject prior to exploring the characteristics of modern and traditional societies with respect to the sections title - for example, in Peace and War, he opens by defining war and different methods of maintaining peace, prior to writing of the different ways in which traditional societies and the West approach war/peace. In an attempt to make sense of the mess of notes I made whilst reading the novel, I'll structure this blog post into a similar composition (disregarding reference to the Prologue having already essentially covered it in the quotes and thoughts above). 

Side note #1: I would thoroughly recommend reading Guns, Germs and Steel also by Diamond prior to reading The World Until Yesterday, merely to provide a basis with greater depth and scientific breadth for understanding the areas referenced in The World Until Yesterday and hence enhance what you gain from reading the latter.

Section 1: Setting the Stage by Dividing Space 

(Friends, Enemies, Strangers and Traders)

The shortest of all the sections, this one essentially covers three elements: travel, relationships and trade.  

1. Travel - we in the West take freedom of travel for granted. So much so, that we don't even acknowledge the ability to travel as a liberty of freedom worth gratification. How easy is it for us to commute to the next village? Or to visit our family located an hour away? Or even in another country? Encountering strangers is no big deal - we'll probably never see them again and we'll probably never have to acknowledge each other. Now imagine living in a society where you ran the risk of probably being killed if you encountered a stranger (whom you were unable to find a common relationship with i.e. blood, name, friendship etc.) or wandered into another tribe's territory. Such is a fact of life in many traditional societies. Be grateful for that if nothing else the next time you're stuck in traffic on the way somewhere! See pages 37 and 43.
2. Relationships - our friendships and relationships in general are based upon chemistry; if we like that person or share common interests, we're likely to form a relationship with them. In the West, a large majority of relationships tend to be formed based upon such elements in school, work or on travels. On the contrary, in many traditional societies, relationships are based upon whether the tribes are politically allied, or other such mundane requirements. See pages 50 - 53.
3. Trade - so far, it appears to be West 2 : Traditional 0. However, in trade, the West proves slightly more cynical in nature; whilst we trade largely for our personal requirements and desires, in many traditional societies trade partners are formed not based upon things needed, but upon forming and maintaining a good relationship with said trade partner. See pages 74 and 75. 

"Evidently, traditional trade has social and political as well as economic functions: not merely to obtain items for their own sake, but also to 'create' trade for advancing social and political goals. Perhaps the foremost such goal is to strengthen an alliance or bond on which one can call if the need arises." - page 74

 

Section 2: Peace and War

 

Fundamentally, before further analysis, it is important to acknowledge that we are no less 'barbaric' than traditional societies, despite wars appearing to feature far more heavily in their lifestyle given our peace-providing state government systems; our wars are merely more 'sophisticated' i.e. nuclear weapons rather than bows and arrows. But then again, just look to the 20th century - repercussions from both World Wars are still felt in several countries, be it demographically (Germany) or economically. And after all, we're all human, right?

Diamond explains that the current state justice system is highly beneficial and with the introduction of European colonisation in several traditional societies (leading to the implementation of such systems), warfare is generally suppressed (if after following an initial surplus). However, there are still things that can be incorporated and learnt from traditional methods of peace - in cases where a relationship between two people is concerned, in compensation and in the main aims of the system. The state justice system of the Western world is predominantly concerned with establishing right from wrong, is henceforth very black and white and consequently objective; while it is very effective at maintaining higher levels of peace, the justice system lacks consideration subjectively for the emotions of people concerned.

 

"The traditional compensation process [...] has as its aims the dispute's speedy peaceful resolution, emotional reconciliation between the two sides, and the restoration of their previous relationship." - page 87

 

Such is in complete juxtaposition to the aims of the traditional justice system; here the emphasis is placed upon the restoration of a peaceful relationship (even if the previous relationship was a non-relationship i.e. between two strangers) leading to greater relief from emotional baggage in the future. Diamond persuasively suggests that such an ideal could easily be implemented into the state justice system in the form of mediation - the opportunity to talk through the problem in greater depth/establishing a better relationship between say two divorcees for the benefit of their children/allowing the criminal and victim to meet if both sides want to in order to release mental baggage etc.

 

Inevitably, War and Peace parallels Diamond's recognition that neither Western societies nor traditional societies are completely better off than the other. On page 116, he explicitly alludes to this acknowledgement, writing that both state justice systems and traditional justice mechanisms consist of two prongs:

• Traditional justice mechanisms - "one prong is admirable peace negotiation and the other prong is regrettable violence and war."
• State justice systems - "one is peaceful negotiation, but the state's confrontational second prong is merely a trial."

Hence, although the state justice system lacks a substantial support system for relationships and people's emotions, it would be foolish to romanticise the traditional justice mechanisms, which, in the failure of peaceful compensation, resort to wars in order to seek justice for the wrong. See also pages 81, 87, 92, 99, 116, 149, 183, 156 and 162 for further references.

 

"Western adjudication is a search for what happened and who did it; Navajo peace-making is about the effect of what happened. Who got hurt? What do they feel about it? What can be done to repair the harm?" - Chief Justice Robert Yazzie, page 103

 

Section 3: Young and Old

 

This section is the one of the two (the second being Religion, Language and Health) that I found most intriguing given the radical differences between Western methods and traditions, and those of traditional societies. As the name suggests, it focuses upon methods of child-rearing as well as treatment of the elderly.

 

There are countless methods of child-rearing employed in traditional societies which sound like something out of a science-fiction novel and ensure one feels heavy relief at living in a Western society; to list a few, these include the routine infanticide of children when they are born with a defect/within 2 years after the previous child/when twins are born, the expectation of mothers to give birth outside of the village alone, the lack of privacy within homes wherein parents routinely have sex in front of their children leading to much sex-play of the children amongst themselves, the late weaning of children (often only after they've reached the age of 4) and the free-will awarded to children in that in some societies parents can't tell them what to do, but rather the children are able to scream at moreover hit their parents/babies are left to play with fire and knives!

 

However, don't let what I've just translated taint your perception of traditional societies - there are many things that we could adopt in our own child-rearing practices that reap multiple benefits in later life. These include the position of babies throughout the day (upright, facing forwards, with physical contact, rather than as in the West where they are routinely left in prams lying backwards and without contact) which leads to later feelings of greater social stability in adult life, the response to crying babies (in traditional societies, the average response is 3 seconds, after which the child is physically contacted by hugging etc. whereas in the West they are regularly left to cry so as to 'teach them independence'), allo-parenting and educational/play methods (in traditional societies both education and play are combined - this leads to greater mental stimulation and earlier neurometer development etc. This is due to children playing in mixed age groups, beneficial to both the younger and older children, as well as them spending greater time outside, emulating their parents and discovering the world around them, moreover having to build their own toys thus reaping the educational benefits in addition to the fun).

 

"He burst out accusingly at me, 'You throw away your old people and your own parents!'"

- Diamond's Fijian friend after visiting the US, page 210

 

Similarly to the conflicting elements of child-rearing practices in traditional societies, so too can we both learn from and reap gratification from their treatment of the elderly. The bold (in both senses - !) statement above refers to the reaction of a Fijian upon encountering old-age homes/the isolation of the elderly in the US, and underlines one of the darker shades to the Western treatment of the elderly. The chief way in which we can sustainably emulate the treatment of the elderly in traditional societies is through utilizing their invaluable knowledge and experience; in one society, the remaining elderly woman was in effect their encyclopaedia, helping to sustain their food supply with her knowledge of what foods the tribe had to resort to eating following a cyclone in 1910. In Western societies such experience of the elderly could be manifested in child-care, relaxed retirement policies (often workers are forced to retire at their peak performance - make retirement optional), and education (for example, rather than being forced to retire, surgeons could stop practicing and instead focus on teaching younger surgeons). Such will aid in reducing the strain of ageing populations so prevalent in Western societies, like the UK, Germany and Japan, both economically and socially.

 

To satisfy your appetite and yearning to know of all the kooky methods of treating the elderly in traditional societies, I shall name a couple: treatments most certainly not to be emulated in Western societies range from the routine murder and abandonment of the elderly, and the strangling of widows to join their late husbands.

 

For further references on both child-rearing and treatment of the elderly see pages 174, 185, 189, 203 - 212, 226, and 231.

 

Section 4: Danger and Response

 

You'll be pleased to hear that I have little to comment on this section; it largely speaks for itself thus I feel I have few of my own thoughts to contribute to Diamond's. Overall, unlike other sections, this section maintains that in the area of Danger and Response, the West can learn more from traditional societies than vice versa. In all I have only two points to make; the first is that we could economically benefit from emulating the farming methods of traditional societies, which seek to reduce the effect of crop failure and famine, in our investment methods. See page 306/307 for further information on this. In essence, many traditional farmers do not farm one large section of land, but rather several smaller sections scattered in different environments, such that if one plot of land is affected, he won't suffer a total loss of crops (as he would if all the crops were in one large plot) but only a lower yield.

 

The second concerns constructive paranoia. To all you adrenaline-junkies this paradoxical term may sound like a ridiculous way in which to lead a monotonous, reserved life; on the contrary, Diamond explains that it is merely an attitude whereby one is more aware of one's surrounding environment and the associated risks, and thereby takes greater care to avoid routinely putting oneself in harm's way. On a larger scale, such of a societal one, constructive paranoia would be a beneficial adoption with regards to obvious dangers like Climate Change, which is routinely dismissed and ignored.

 

"Are we WEIRD moderns especially prone to misestimate risks because we get most of our information second-hand from television and other mass media that emphasise sensational but rare accidents and mass deaths? Do traditional people estimate risks more accurately because they instead learn only from the first-hand experience of themselves, their relatives, and their neighbours? Can we learn to think more realistically about dangers?" - page 319

 

Section 5: Religion, Language and Health

 

For fear of composing a post longer than Diamond's own book (note the use of hyperbole here...), I'll attempt to condense my page-long notes on this section into three points. If I have thus far failed to entice you into reading Diamond's book, at least read this section; words don't justify how interesting it is. I almost wish Diamond would write a book merely on Language and Health!

 

Point #1: Religion.

I didn't make many (1) notes on this section partly because I feel it was aimed more at those who lack a religion or are at a stage where you're searching for meaning or questioning your faith. I still found Diamond's exploration into the definition, origins and constituents of religion interesting. Inevitably, Religion is not something to emulate from another society hence it was more an analysis of differing religions and their geographical prevalence, than a stark contrast of the West and traditional societies.

 

Point #2: Language

In primary school I had to learn French, which at the time I thought awful and odious. Then in high school (up until the AS level) it was compulsory to learn a modern language - either French or German. I learnt both simultaneously prior to dropping French in year 9, and taking German to GCSE level; again, I couldn't wait to be free from the necessity of learning a language largely irrelevant to me. However, now a year later (or two, if you count school years (I'm now going into year 13/Upper Sixth)), I find myself missing the ability to semi-fluently write and converse in a language other than my native, English. Diamond's section on Language has further convinced me of the absolute importance, and benefits, of being multilingual/bilingual.

 

In the world there are currently around 7000 languages, the vast majority of which are situated in traditional societies and rapidly growing extinct as native languages aren't taught to children for fear of holding them back socially and economically. However, as Diamond articulates, being bilingual has far more benefits than initial detriments (of which mastering a single language at a slower pace is the principal one); it has been scientifically proven that being bilingual reduces the risk/onset of dementia by around 5 years, brings greater mental growth and stimulance (is that a word? It should be.) given that executive control is exercised more, and a stronger sense of identity leading to greater performance socio-economically. The things largely cited as being the cause for the extinction of languages are globalisation and the spread of state governments. If you fail to see the importance of preserving languages, Diamond is sure to convince you otherwise; if for no other reason, preserving languages will in turn preserve many different cultures through literature, art, and practices. See pages 405 - 408 and 370 - 397. 

 

Point #3: Health

Basically, what we die of (predominantly non-communicable diseases such as cancer and diabetes), are largely unheard of in traditional societies. Similarly, what a large proportion of traditional people die from (communicable diseases such as malaria, and murder), are of minimal concern in Western societies. So, in terms of health, we mustn't revert entirely back to traditional ways of life, but rather incorporate features of their lifestyle, such as the healthier lifestyle in terms of diet and exercise, into our own. Diamond focuses his exploration into the effect of the Western lifestyle (sedentary with excessive consumption) on our health on Diabetes and diet, with natural experiments (developing countries such as India and China, as well as smaller traditional societies who are introduced to the Western lifestyle) providing the evidence for the lifestyle being a fundamental source of many NCDs like Diabetes type 2.

 

 "But the same NCDs are virtually non-existent in traditional societies. What clearer proof could there be that we have much to learn, of life-and-death value, from traditional societies? However, what they have to teach us is not a simple matter of just 'live traditionally'. There are many aspects of traditional life that we emphatically don't want to emulate, such as cycles of violence, frequent risk of starvation, and short lifespans resulting from infectious diseases. We need to figure out which specific components of traditional lifestyles are the ones protecting those living against NCDs. Some of those desirable components are already obvious (e.g. exercise repeatedly, reduce your sugar intake), while others are not obvious and are still being debated (e.g. optimal levels of dietary fat)." - page 450

 

See also pages: 370 - 404 (language); 411 - 451 (health)

 

Phew! Finished but for the prologue; this has taken 3 times as long as I anticipated to write.

 

The prologue is itself a summative comment upon Diamond's thoughts based upon the evidence compiled in the preceding 450 pages of his novel. Rather than merely reiterate his conclusion and spoil the novel, I'll leave you in suspense (GO READ IT!) and conclude with my comprehensive thoughts.

 

Overall, what I gathered from The World Until Yesterday was that first and foremost, despite our egotistic opinionative stance, we, the West, are not superior to traditional societies in all aspects indefinitely. Rather, we have much to learn from traditional societies, just as we could bring them many benefits too; it is also not a case of reverting entirely back into traditional lifestyles, but incorporating beneficial elements into our lifestyles to enhance both our quality of life and standard of living sustainably. The second most principal point I gathered from Diamond's novel, is that with regards to a lot of things in both types of society, it comes down to our respective attitudes. Our attitude is at the root of so many things, hence inhabiting different attitudes than those currently exercised may be a starting point, as individuals, to utilize the things of traditional societies highlighted as useful.

 

I resume school on Tuesday, hence my posts may grow more irregular both in length and frequency :(

 

Until next time,

C

P.s. I realised I forgot to mention the role of technology overtaking that of elderly in Western societies, especially in terms of things such as 'encyclopaedias' and the environment in which children are being  brought up being technologically-orientated. But I think to discard the first-hand knowledge and wisdom of the elderly in favour of the objective second-hand information of the media would be a cultural loss. 

#8 Davidson - Tracks

"I had also been vaguely bored with my life and its repetitions - the half-finished, half-hearted attempts at different jobs and various studies; had been sick of carrying around the self-indulgent negativity which was so much the malaise of my generation, my sex and my class. So I had made a decision which carried with it things that I could not articulate at the time. […] And it struck me then that the most difficult thing had been the decision to act, the rest had been merely tenacity - and the fears were paper tigers. One really could act to change and control one's life; and the procedure, the process, was its own reward." - page 37

Tracks by Robyn Davidson

Tagged as one woman's journey across 1,700 miles of Australian outback, Tracks is a depiction of so much more than Davidson's long walk with the company of four camels, a dog and her psyche across endless miles of Australian outback desert; it is an articulation of the rawest form of both physical and human nature. A critic from The Observer summarises it perfectly:

"It gets to the heart of landscape and solitude and becomes a venture to the interior of more than one dimension as its author approaches the hinterland of her own thorny psyche."

Davidson's trek across the desert is born as an idea largely left to the recesses of her mind in its legitimate existence as she spends several years in Alice Springs tending to/learning the ways of/gaining camels, preparing herself and inevitably prolonging the actuality of leaving for the journey. Eventually in 1977, having obtained her three camels, Zelekia, Dookie and Bub (the fourth, Gabriel, is the result of Zelekia turning out to be pregnant) and accepting a grant from The National Geographic magazine, she finally feels ready to embark upon (around) eight months spent travelling from the Glenn Helen Tourist Camp in the Northern Territory to Hamelin Pool in Western Australia. Across the 1700 mile stretch of a sandy ocean, narrated through a largely enjoyable self-deprecating, engaging and analytical literary voice, Davidson sheds her civilised self, loses the so-called European facade of identity and heart-acheingly her most valued companion, moreover seduces the reader into falling impotently in love with the rawness of Australian desert, her camels' personalities and a way of life free from labels and constrictions. 

Side note: this is beginning to sound like the thematic constituents of a John Fowles novel, namely The French Lieutenant's Woman. Moving swiftly on...

I was surprised at the end to find that for her, it seemed, the journey was not one that irrevocably altered her life path or gave birth to a newly ambitious, strong, feminist woman as suggested by the synopsis and her given label - The Camel Lady. She writes in the novel's 2012 Postscript that she is not the same woman as she was when she began or ended the journey, that it was not intended to be a symbol for the world of the capability of women or of breaking boundaries; it was a journey intended to escape the banal rituals of everyday life and to rediscover herself, as it were, as she was at her core.

"The question I'm most commonly asked is 'Why?' A more pertinent question might be, why is it that more people don't attempt to escape the limitations imposed upon them? If Tracks has a message at all, it is that one can be awake to the demand for obedience that seems natural simply because it is familiar. Wherever there is pressure to conform (one person's conformity is often in the interests of another person's power), there is a requirement to resist. Of course I did not mean that people should drop what they were doing and head for the wilder places, certainly not that they should copy what I did. I meant that one can choose adventure in the most ordinary of circumstances. Adventure of the mind, or to use an old-fashioned word, the spirit." - page 256

Indeed reading Davidson's novel is itself an adventure of the mind - through her musings and thoughts. It was fascinating to explore snippets of her ideas on such a variation of topics as Feminism, Colonialism, Racism, the Environment etc. I particularly enjoyed her detailed discussion of the divide between Aboriginal and European Australians (although it's important to recognise that in the almost thirty years that have passed since then, such a relationship has shifted in its dynamics) as well as on the   sheer stupidity of things regarded so cynically and importantly in our society. I won't expand dramatically on both points for fear of producing a monotonous, endless essay/rant. So instead, I'll list the pages which seemed of most note to me as I read, and briefly summarise my musings upon her propositions/observations. 

I shan't expand upon the treatment of the Aborigines, but will leave you with a quote applicable in its connotations (underlined) to many wider areas other than Australia, that will occupy your sub-conscious paramountly. See pages 46, 121, 165, 167 and 192. The quote (page 46):

"It is my thesis that Aboriginal Australia underwent a rape of the soul so profound that the blight continues in the minds of most blacks today. It is this psychological blight, more than anything else, that causes the conditions we see on reserves and missions. And it is repeated down the generations." - Kevin Gilbert, Because A White Man'll Never Do It

I will expand, however, on the latter comment - the tantalisingly labelled stupid things of society. My favourite thing to read in Tracks was the psychological transition Davidson underwent; she begins the journey overladen with endless amounts of baggage - the photographer partnered with her for her National Geographic feature even buys her a portable exercise bike, despite the 30+ miles she'd be walking each day! - both of physical and mental weight. But by the end of the journey, she is down to the bare minimals; physically - a sarong, some socks, a jumper, the clothes on her back, an emergency kit, things to eat/drink with, and mentally - an innate understanding of the world and relief from constraining things such as time and social identity. See pages 191-192 and 196-197.

"Back there, there was no nakedness, no one could afford it. Everyone had their social personae well fortified until they got so drunk and stupid that their nakedness was ugly. Now why was this? Why did people circle one another, consumed with fear or envy, when all that they were fearing or envying was illusion? Why did people build psychological fortresses and barriers around themselves that would take a Ph.D. in safe-cracking to get through, which even they could not penetrate from the inside? And once again, I compared European society with Aboriginal. The one so archetypal paranoid, grasping, destructive, the other so sane." - page 197

How true is that? How many people are we truly ourselves with? In reality, don't we all have a school-personae, a home-personae, a work-personae, an alone-personae: we're only really ourselves when we're with ourselves. Therefore, how many of our relationships are legitimate, if they are formed upon facades and masks? It's such a challenging yet very real and relevant thing, that it seems to take ostracising oneself from all human contact, in the middle of the Australian outback and an outsider-looking-in perspective to recognise it for what it is. It's a very challenging concept, and I don't know if it's even viable to be 'ourselves' in all situations. In addition to highlighting this farcical element of society, Davidson underlined the often complete idiocy of the constraints we place upon ourselves through time and schedule and routine. As you can gather, Tracks makes for very interesting psycho-analytical reading. 

Another predominant theme expressed by Davidson's experience is that of tourism, and the culture that it is developing into. I physically cringed at the depiction of how tourists and the media hounded Davidson and Aborigines she encountered throughout her journey, as well as their oblivious effect on the environment, decimating the wildlife and their habitats in the outback. In her Postscript, Davidson writes that 

"The early seventies saw the beginning of group tourism and of the fashion for buying four-wheel drive vehicles to go bush in. It struck me even that the people in those vehicles, for the most part, were sealed against their environments, which they sped through without really seeing, without really connecting. Their cars bristled with two-way radios, they had sun creams, air conditioners, special bush clothes, refrigerators - they seemed burdened with stuff, and the stuff cut them off from the place they were in. For when you understand that country, it is the easiest thing imaginable to wander through it with minimal equipment." - page 259

It related to what I found from reading Palin's novel, Himalaya - that often the materialism of todays society detracts from our quality of life physically, and from our relationship with/understanding of the world around us. By this, I refer to the stupidity of things we cynically refer to as unequivocally important in our society.  

To conclude this post on a lighter note, a random list. 

A list of random books from my 'to-read' list:

1. Africa: Altered States, Ordinary Miracles - Richard Dowden
2. Chasing the Dragon - Jackie Pullinger
3. The Global City: New York, London, Tokyo - Saskia Sassen
4. I Know Why The Caged Bird Sings - Dr Maya Angelou
5. Out of Africa - Isak Dinesen
6. Nineteen Eighty-Four - George Orwell
7. Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Survive - Jared Diamond
8. Pole to Pole - Michael Palin
9. Mood Indigo - Boris Vian
10. Last Words of Notable People - Mr William B Brahms

Note: I said they were random. Hence the incongruous themes and topics.

Now to watch the movie! Until next time,

C

#7 Palin - Himalaya

"What the Sahara is to desert, the Himalaya is to mountains. Both share the same contradictory attractions, appealing and appalling, tempting and terrifying in equal, and ultimately irresistible, measure." - page 1

 

 

Disclaimer: I do read authors other than Palin - promise!

 

Over a printed spread of merely 293 pages, Himalaya follows Palin's 125 day journey through numerous countries, cultures and landforms, all situated within the South Asian mountainous range, the Himalayas. The underlying theme central to the novel resonates strongly with that of another of Palin's travel publications, Sahara (see here for my review) - the coexistence of ancient and unique cultures amidst the tantalizingly powerful forces of nature. Palin's narrative voice and knowledgeable insight combine to produce a depiction respectful of both the locals and their traditions, as well as enlightening as to the existence of different values and ways of life away from the cries of Western globalisation, neon lights and fast-food restaurants.

 

An interview with my 12 year old self:

 

Presents 12ME with a book titled 'Himalaya' and a cover suggestive of a guy travelling around some large mountains on a red train

 

12ME: How BORING. A book about a mountain, which, other than being large and world-renowned, offers nothing much of interest or relevance to me. What's the point? Who in their right mind wants to read about some guy and his altitude sickness, freezing nights and encounters with random people on the other side of the world, of which I'm never going to experience and who I'm never going to meet? Why read this when I could be reading a fictitious romance story?

 

Side note #1: I've nothing against fictitious romance stories; many of them rank amongst my favourite novels. Their inclusion merely adds to the allusion of highlighting such travel books as Himalaya as unappealing.

 

Himalaya has added strength to my opinion that non-fiction books of such nature are not only of great relevance, but in our day and age of high accessibility and globalisation, of great importance. I understand that at face value these books appear utterly boring - I've had many sardonic smiles and comments whilst walking around reading such books from my fellow teens; "ooh, why are you reading THAT? Eugh!" (Elderly people are my saving light - "how intellectual!") - but when you take the time to sit down, ignore the internet and actually read them, the world opens up to you.

 

I'll narrow my two-page-long notes on the book into three points:

1. Nature
2. People
3. Culture

1. Nature:

 

"I wonder if we aren't all in danger of falling into the romantic delusion that by staring at these great massifs of rock and ice we achieve some form of communication with them, as if something so forbiddingly colossal must be somehow friendly. The mountains are far more likely to be enemies than friends. We take them on at our peril and, despite all nature's warnings, long to go higher. And the higher we go the more the mountains tighten their grip, squeezing the life out of most people, gently in some cases, more severely in others. The locals who see the mountains as gods to be appeased are only translating pragmatic experience. Human beings are not meant to live at these heights and they should expect trouble if they do." - page 129 

 

About a month ago, I went on a trek through a gorge in South Western France, where we were staying in an old cottage high in the Pyrenees mountains; I'd obviously encountered such landforms before in my GCSE and AS Geography, as distant things illustrated in textbooks and slideshows, and requiring arduous memorisation for my exams. Hence I approached our day-trip to the gorge with a feeling of Geographical superiority, for I knew all about this landform and its history.

 

Nature handed me a slap in the face with its beauty and power.

 

Walking through the features of the river, namely the gorge and waterfalls, I was genuinely taken by just how amazing it was, especially since such raw beauty was the manifestation of the Earth, with no 'help' from humans. The result was a realisation of my incomparable size against that of the Earth.

A picture from said gorge trip in France; August 2014. If you ever get the opportunity to walk through a gorge, do it.

 

Back to the main point; Palin's Himalaya reinforced the reality of nature vs. humans for me. I think that in this day and age of human dominance and rapid developments, it's easy to regard nature as something to be controlled, possessed and governed. In reality, as the quote referenced above suggests, the roles are in reversion. This point could easily develop into arguments about Global Warming, Pollution, etc. but basically: nature is not something to own, it is something to co-exist with, to co-exist amongst. I loved Palin's depiction of his absolute bewilderment at the beauty and ability of the nature he encountered through the Himalayan mountain ranges, moreover revelled in his narration of the frequently harmonious relationship between the people who inhabit the ranges and their surroundings; the relationship between said people and nature is a stark contrast to where I live where it's all people, people, people, and an enticing reminder of the many natural wonders that exist in the wider world outside of my concrete one. Pages 181, 183 and 260 have great illustrations too, if you do happen to read this book.

 

2. People:

 

"In the last words of this last shot, I say that, despite all the wonders I have seen, the majestic scenery of a half-dozen countries, the power and majesty of the highest mountain range on earth, it is the people I've met that will stick in my mind. The enjoyment of the world is immeasurably enhanced not just by meeting people who think, look, talk and dress differently from yourself, but by having to depend on them." - page 293

 

Given that such is Palin's summative comment, I couldn't not talk about people despite my aforementioned mini-rant about not dominating people over nature. [Side note #2: this is turning into a really long post for a short 300 page book - sorry!]. One of the most exciting things about Geography is, for me, the encountering of different peoples around the world, rather than focusing on a little bubble of wherever you may live. I find the diversity that exists within the world, within continents, even within countries themselves, absolutely fascinating - isn't it amazing how every individual naturally develops their own handwriting? And how much more so amazing how despite being of the same species and living on the same planet, so many different cultures, traditions, and lifestyles have developed? Can you tell how excited I am by this? Ah!

 

If nature ceases to excite your interest, then read Palin's travel series for the range of people he meets; no two peoples are the same. It's an engrossing thing to be able to travel the world through his words and meet people incomparable to those you encounter in day-to-day life, and experience existences juxtaposing to your own. If you yearn more information on why such differences exist, or prefer a more scientific approach, read Diamond's work too. A fun snippet to ignite interest (or attempt to do so in any case): in Pakistan, Palin visits a dentist practice where you'll be charged £1-3 for an extraction, 50p for a filling and a full set of acrylic dentures from £15! - page 13.

 

I think I'll interpose the third point here, since the second is swiftly drifting into it...

 

3. Culture:

 

"'The Buddhist version of poverty is a situation where you have nothing to contribute.' He feels that in Bhutan there is still a strong sense of, as he puts it, 'unison with the earth.' 'In San Francisco I felt lost. Everywhere you go you have billboards telling you that you need to buy this or that, or the latest Cherokee four-wheel drive, but here we have different kind of billboards. [...] We have prayer flags, we have the temples. These are our markers, you know, reminding you, in the Buddhist way, that you are not here for ever.'" - page 254

 

"'We're not romantic or idealistic enough to think that things will always be the way they are now, but we'd like to slow the development process up to a degree that we can handle when it comes.'" - page 255

 

"Of course, there are telephones and cars and satellite dishes and laptop computers, but they are inside traditional buildings and used by people wearing traditional dress. Bhutan sees no contradiction between its past and its present. Its history is not to be found on display in tourist-friendly heritage parks, but on the street and on the countryside, as a part of everyday life." - page 245

 

Side note #3: apologies for the heavy overload of quotes!

 

Culture is defined as the ideas, customs and behaviour of a particular people or society. What particularly challenged me in Palin's book were the ideas expressed by people living in Bhutan (see above quotes), and their ideas surrounding the stigma of globalisation/development away from tradition. In much of the West, we are able to travel where we please (or have the access transport wise to do so) and live much the same lifestyle in destinations as we do at home, with the only difference being the environment. So much so that with our 'technological generation', individual tradition and unique culture has been blindly sacrificed. I don't aim to romanticise less developed or globalised areas and cultures - globalisation has been beneficial in innumerable ways - but merely seek to underline the unfortunate side-effect of a loss of individualism.

 

To what extent should development be fully implemented and controlled by an aiding country, or be the provision of tools and facilities to allow the individual country to develop at a rate suitable to its own requirements and traditions?

 

I also loved the importance placed by the people Palin encountered upon religion and holding to their traditions - in the 'world' I inhabit, technology/the internet has arguably grown into its own religion. How sustainable is that? What will be the result of this for future generations - I wouldn't like to inhabit a world in which 90% of the places are synonymous with the neighbouring areas (doppelgangers) and where the thing heralded as most important is technology. We weren't born with technology, hence surely it isn't fundamental to our existence. Of course it helps and has been invaluable to improving our quality of life and standard of living, but when it becomes a dominant force over such constitutional things as religion and nature, perhaps our view of it/lifestyle in association with it (dependence) needs re-evaluation?

 

Just a thought - of course, I wouldn't be writing this without technology. I don't wish to glorify a backward lifestyle with no technology and rant about the few detriments to a widely positive thing, only to address our attitude. By this I refer to our resulting attitude of neglect or ignorance of things like physical interaction, nature and exercise, to name a few examples. 

 

ANYWAY. Himalaya is another engaging and thought-provoking read amongst Palin's other travel works.

 

C

#6 Diamond - Guns, Germs and Steel

'Why were Europeans, rather than Africans or Native Americans, the ones to end up with guns, the nastiest germs, and steel?'

 

Yet another blurry picture of a book. They don't look blurry when I take them. Ergo, Blogger hates me.

 

Warning: although fascinating, this book is very scientifically heavy.

 

When asked to consider why Europeans, rather than any other given race, so dominate the world, despite the obvious racial discriminations of the thought, the idea that Europeans must naturally be somehow better throws itself forward as a solution. How else could they have achieved the colonization of Australia, the Americas and parts of Africa? Jared Diamond convincingly and thoroughly dispels such an illusion in his novel, condensing 13,000 years of history into 400 pages to highlight that 'Geography and Biogeography, not race, moulded the contrasting fates of Europeans, Asians, Native Americans, Sub-Saharan Africans, and aboriginal Australians'.  

 

In my first AS Geography lesson last September, the class was asked to compile a list on a scrap of paper: name, subjects taken, what you'd like to study at university and whether you preferred human or physical Geography. I began to construct my list - Chloe; English Lit/Geography/Maths with Mechanics/Physics; English/Geography... - but then I reached the final question. Obviously human and physical Geography were separate, and obviously you had to pick one. Everyone else had; everyone preferred human Geography. I wasn't so sure they existed as such separate spheres, nor was I adamant that one held preference over another. Nevertheless, I obliged the influence of the class and scribbled down my answer before any hesitation became too apparent: Human Geography (I think, I like both pretty equally though. Perhaps a ratio of 60/40.).

 

Your subconscience: great. And what is the moral to this story?

 

I narrate such a story because it reflects the underlying theme echoed throughout Diamond's novel; human and physical Geography aren't all that separate. Their relationship is rather more diverse than widely considered, and dependent upon one another. For me, it highlighted the importance of learning both areas of Geography, at least initially to provide a foundation for further study. Continuing the allusion of two separate spheres, perhaps their spheres are depicted more accurately by a Venn diagram (where A = human, and B = physical Geography):

 

 

Back to the original question raised by Diamond's book: the disparity of dominance across the world. His feat of summarising 13,000 years into 400 pages grows ever more impressive as I try to summarise the ideas expressed/inspired by those pages! I'll start by borrowing his own words.

 

'In short, Europe's colonization of Africa had nothing to do with differences between European and African peoples themselves, as white racists assume. Rather, it was due to accidents of geography and biogeography - in particular, to the continents' different areas, axes and suites of wild animal and plant species. That is, the different historical trajectories of Africa and Europe stem ultimately from differences in real estate.' - page 401

 

'Guns, Germs and Steel' opens initially (following the preface and prologue) with a chapter depicting the development of humans, homo sapiens, originating in Africa prior to their migration around the globe to inhabit different continents and henceforth diverge in characteristics. Diamond then begins to answer the question, as first proposed to him by his friend Yali, a New Guinean, in the 1970's - "Why is it that you white people developed so much cargo and brought it to New Guinea, but we black people had little cargo of our own?"

 

Fundamentally, Diamond points to a chain of environmental factors:

1. Domesticable plants available - linked to climate, the relative superiority of farming to the hunter-gatherer lifestyle
2. Domesticable large mammals - used to further develop farming, linked to extinction and nature of animals (do they exist in herds? do they kill humans? etc.)
3. The axes/alignment of the continents - SO INTERESTING. I'll expand upon this later.
4. The climate and geographic features of the continent - i.e. location, desert areas, mountainous obstacles etc.
5. The population size and density - linked to farming and hence the suite of domesticable wild animal and plant species

Initially, the world population was made up of hunter-gatherers existing in small groups and always on the move. Then, some areas began to domesticate plant species and introduced farming as a way of life; the first 'food package' of domesticated crops is thought to have arisen in the Fertile Crescent and then spread from there. Farming meant that people stayed in one place to tend to their crops, and therefore a larger community could develop into a big tribe, or chiefdom. The availability of large mammals suitable for domestication further enhanced the farming lifestyle, by providing more food and more efficient techniques for farming, amongst other things. Eurasia happened to have the largest abundance of domesticable plants and large mammals, including the horse, pig and chicken. This farming lifestyle (entailing both animals and crops), in contrast with that of a hunter-gatherer, meant that the community was able to develop better Guns, Germs and Steel; greater sustainable food meant that parts of the community could specialise in things such as pottery, tattooing, or developing writing, hence leading to greater rates of development. The domesticated plants and animals enabled such societies to build up immunity to diseases sourced from them, as well as from living in large, dense populations. Larger populations meant more competition for development and inventions, therefore yielding a greater rate of development - including the introduction of guns and steel. Where communities entailed a hierarchal set-up and a common religion, there was greater incentive to fight wars - Are you willing to die for King and Country?

 

The spread of such developments then relied upon the geographical composition of the continents; where the axes alignment, like Eurasia, is East-West (horizontal), the spread of things such as food packages, domesticated animals and writing is accelerated. This is due to the climate being more similar across the continent hence the food/animals are environmentally suited to growing (right rainy season, immunity to the same diseases etc.) given the location around the hemisphere, and there being fewer geographical barriers that are insurmountable (mountainous ranges, deserts, a sea). Where the alignment conversely is North-South, like the Americas and Africa, the spread is decelerated given wider regional environmental disparities in climate/diseases/barriers. Additionally, the location of the continent plays a role in its share in developments like guns; for example, Australia, located across a large stretch of sea bar a few Indonesian islands around it, is largely isolated. Thus, its aboriginal population developed independently and wasn't immune to the same diseases as the European invaders, lacked the weaponry of germs and steel, and remained hunter-gatherers.   

 

I hope my jumbled summative paragraphs actually made sense; they look rather daunting to check through. If not - READ THE BOOK! It's much clearer! Anyway, thus overall, Diamond points to environmental geographic and biogeographic characteristics being the source for the different levels/rates of development internationally, and the eventual dominance of one people over another.  

 

'Third, don't words such as "civilization", and phrases such as "rise of civilization", convey the false impression that civilization is good, tribal hunter-gatherers are miserable, and history for the past 13,000 years has involved progress toward greater human happiness? In fact, I do not assume that industrialized states are "better" than hunter-gatherer tribes, or that the abandonment of the hunter-gatherer lifestyle for iron-based statehood represents "progress", or that is has led to an increase in human happiness. My own impression, from having divided my life between US cities and New Guinea villages, is that the so-called blessings of civilization are mixed. For example, compared with hunter-gatherers, citizens of the modern industrialized states enjoy better medical care, lower risk of death by homicide, and a longer life span, but receive much less social support from friendships and extended families.' - page 18

 

I wonder how different the world would be if Europeans had remained confined to Europe. It's a very interesting investigation into how history unfolded and why, enthusing for Historians, Scientists, Geographers... everyone.

 

C

 

Venn diagram image sourced from http://infoproc.blogspot.co.uk/2008/11/venn-diagram-for-economics.html

FFT (3) What constitutes/validates intellect?

Are straight-A's the only validation of intellect?

 

Lately I've been thinking about what constitutes/validates/connotes intellect, and if the widely accepted form for said intellect is perhaps too one-dimensional. Be it the smog of exam results and university applications and predicted grades etc. so heavily tainting the air this year, but such has been the topic of many conversations between myself and friends during lunchtimes spent anticipant of the revision awaiting us in the evening. 

 

The fundamental root of such musings (besides the obvious nerves surrounding personal results) stems from the ideology that school exams, at the most basic level, test one type of intellect - how book-smart you are. They give no indication of creative intellect (bar a small sampling in English Language and the Arts), or interactive intellect, or so forth; essentially, intellect is arguably more four-dimensional than school education leads us to believe.

 

Prospective Four Dimensions of Intellect: 

 

1. Book-Smart

Definition: good exam/school grades.

 

Obviously, given their wide implementation in education and the conspicuous fact that not everyone achieves 100% or straight-As, conventional tests of intellect clearly do test some form of intellect. However, the reason I object to this being the only validation of intellect is that a large percentage of success in such exams comes down to external factors (often) independent of one's intellect. Such includes the quality of teaching received, the motivation of the student to put in the work throughout the year, and the student's revision abilities.

 

Take my GCSE Chemistry result for example - in all frankness, I never really understood the subject and found it predominantly dull. However, given the high quality of my teaching, and the long hours I spent memorizing the syllabus contents, I was able to obtain an A*. Surely such a grade validates that I'm clever at Chemistry, right? Wrong. Such a grade validates that I have a good memory and revision skills - that I have book-smart Chemistry intellect. Such was demonstrated when my younger brother asked me to check his mock Chemistry paper a few months ago and, having pushed all the memorised facts to the dusty corners of my mind, I was completely lost.

 

Nevertheless, conventional exams do test intellect with regards to analytical, numerical, literate, responsive and such related facets. Book-smart is hence not to be dismissed as either the only form of intellect, or on the other end of the spectrum, as no indication of intellect whatsoever; I believe it, as suggested by Da Vinci (see below in reference quotes), to be a widely essential primary foundation upon which to build and develop further intellect. This is so given its provision of a base from which one has the understanding/knowledge to think for oneself effectively and nourish a greater enthusiasm for their surrounding environment.

'The acquisition of knowledge is always of use to the intellect, because it may thus drive out useless things and retain the good. For nothing can be loved or hated unless it is first known.'

- Leonardo da Vinci

 

'And not only the pride of intellect, but the stupidity of intellect. And above all, the dishonesty, yes, the dishonesty of intellect. Yes, indeed, the dishonesty and trickery of intellect.'

- Leo Tolstoy, Anna Karenina

 

2. Creative Intellect

Definition: creative ability with regard to creating and thinking

 

I've always admired creative people; their ability to create something unique from the world, to portray their perception of something in new ways, and to harbour new ideas fascinates me. I believe that the ability to think for oneself is one of the purest, rawest forms of intellect. It's one of the most predominant facets of the Four-Dimensional Intellect that convinces me that being One-Dimensionally Book-Smart is not the correct, solitary validation for possessing intellect. Such elements are the reason I love Geography and English Literature, as well as reading and writing - the analytical challenge of thinking for yourself. Creative intellect can further be subdivided into two categories: Interpretation and Invention.

 

a) Interpretation - this constitutes engaging with something, such as a piece of literature or an area of study, to produce ones own opinion and understanding of the matters presented. Rather than merely accepting something and learning it (ahem, parrot fashion), interpretive creative intellect regards questioning and analysing the something. This may then result in a written or constructed (drawing, painting, sculpting, inventing etc.) response. Again, here the crucial element lies in thinking for yourself, not being a subjugated learner.

 

b) Invention - you guessed it. This too involves thinking for yourself. The thing distinguishing Inventive Creative Intellect from Interpretive Creative Intellect is that it results in a more fictitious creation i.e. translating their ideas and thoughts into new things be it a new world or character in a novel, or a new invention, or painted landscape of a vision.

 

Both subdivisions of creative intellect are equally as important a validation of intellect as it's other dimensions; thinking for yourself provides the depth to the proposed dimensional intellect.

 

'Because there are three classes of intellects: one which comprehends by itself; another which appreciates what others comprehend; and a third which neither comprehends by itself nor by the showing of others; the first is the most excellent, the second is good, the third is useless.'

- Niccolo Machiavelli, The Prince

 

'The greater intellect one has, the more originality one finds in men. Ordinary persons find no difference between men.'

- Blaise Pascal, Pensees

 

'The intellectual attainments of a man who thinks for himself resemble a fine painting, where the light and shade are correct, the tone sustained, the colour perfectly harmonised; it is true to life. On the other hand, the intellectual attainments of the mere man of learning are like a large palette, full of all sorts of colours, which at most are systematically arranged, but devoid of harmony, connection and meaning.'

- Arthur Schopenhauer, Parerga and Paralipomena

 

3. Interactive Intellect

Definition: awareness and knowledge of your surroundings; an ability to effectively interact with your surroundings, be it with the environment or people

 

This third constituent of the Four-Dimensional Intellect is perhaps the most subjectively unorthodox; it is the norm to attribute intellect merely to brain power, ability and capacity alluded to through scientific, mathematic and creative achievement. However, the relationship of someone with another person or the environment I believe speaks volumes of that person's intellect too; Interactive Intellect manifests itself as an interest, an enthusiasm, a curiosity, to learn about one's surroundings leading to an intimate knowledge and understanding of said environment, in addition to a deep comprehension and unique perception of other people. As with Creative Intellect, Interactive Intellect can therefore be subdivided into a further two categories: Natural Environmental Interaction and Social Environmental Interaction.

 

a) Natural Environmental Interaction - as aforementioned, such entails an interest in the world around and subsequently results in a deep understanding and knowledge. What separates this from Book-Smart Intellect is the way in which the intellect is utilized - first-hand rather than spoon-fed. I think this idea may be best illustrated by the depiction of a case study: I'm currently reading 'Guns, Germs and Steel' by Jared Diamond, wherein he attempts to justify why history unfolded so geographically disparately with some continents dominating others despite our shared ancestral beginnings. In one chapter he says that he believes New Guineans, disregarding their universally common label as 'backwards', to in fact be amongst the smartest people he knows - the only thing holding them 'back' is unequal opportunities to be great Einsteins and Aristotles. One way in which he describes them portraying their unique intellect is in their harmonious understanding and interest in the world around them; he describes the ease with which they are able to identify different plants and animals, and their unparalleled interaction with the natural world when he travels with them. Another example is that of Shailene Woodley, one of my favourite actresses, who continues to amaze me with her utter fascination with the world and her understanding of the natural environment. Just watch this interview. Recap: a knowledgeable understanding and interaction with our environment.

 

b) Social Environmental Interaction - rather than an understanding and interest with the environment, this comprises an ability and talent with people. It could be illustrated by a social worker, a baby sitter, a teacher, or a political leader and so forth. In late April I led a group of girls across year groups at my school in a challenge entitled Global Issues, Global Solutions, but that's beside the point - I mention this because of a conversation I had with one of the members in my group who was three years younger than I and had two sisters, one in the year below myself and one a few years older than me.

 

"My sister just got __ A*s and __ As in her mocks!"

"Wow congratulations! Do you have any other siblings?"

"Yeah, I have one older one. But she's not that smart."

"Oh."

"I mean, she didn't get very good grades. But she's so good with people. She works with children now, and I think she's so smart in that way - I could never do what she does, or interact with them the way she does. I think different people are smart in different forms."

 

Those may not have been her exact words, but they capture the gist of what she was saying, and what she was staying has stuck with me. Social Environmental Interaction I believe is deservedly a form of intellect; the ability to effectively cooperate and work with people, to build and sustain harmonious relationships with them and to possess an understanding of others is a sure sign of both intellectual capacity and ability. 

 

'Some people think only intellect counts: knowing how to get by, knowing how to identify an advantage and seize it. But the functions of intellect are insufficient without courage, love, friendship, compassion and empathy.'

- Dean Koontz

 

'The truth is that personality inevitably bleeds into all forms of our intellectual life. We all extrapolate from our own lives in order to understand the world.'

- Siri Hustvedt, The Shaking Woman/A History of My Nerves 

 

'Our intellect is not intended to be an end in itself, but only a means to the very mind of God.'

- Ravi Zacharias, Jesus Among Other Gods: The Absolute Claims of the Christian Message

The fourth dimension? Typically four-dimensional things have three components of space (length, width and depth) and one of time. Ergo, the fourth dimension of intellect is wisdom, developed over time by the growth and maturing of the aforementioned dimensions of intellect.

I hope this has made you consider generally accepted things with greater questioning and thought, just as the comment from the girl in my group stimulated my thoughts upon intellect.

If the only form of 'intelligence' was the ability to regurgitate a textbook, what a one-dimensionally boring world we would live in! 

C
 

FFT (2) Malthusian vs. Boserup

Malthusian Vs. Boserup Future

One area of my AS Geographical study that particularly captured my attention was the conflict between Geographical theories and the use of such theoretical assumptions to aid in both our future development and our present understanding of sustainability. I've been particularly enthused by the juxtaposing Malthusian and Boserup theories about our future. 

Side note #1: explanation time for the "non-Geographically-obsessed" i.e. a definition of those two words that keep popping up with capital letters. 

A Malthusian Future:

The Malthusian theory suggests that, as population grows at an arithmetic rate and food production at a numerical rate, we will, quite frankly, eventually run out of food. Inevitably, in the Malthusian future, population growth will overtake that of food production, leaving us with too little food to sustainably support the world population. 

A Boserup Future:

The Boserup theory suggests that despite the differing growth rates of population and food production, we as humans possess both the knowledge and the resources to both sustain and maintain an accessible supply of food, be it in the form of GM (Genetically-Engineered) crops, different forms of food (scientists are presently producing liquid food, taking the constituents of dietry requirements down to a molecular level - see the National Geographic feature from early 2014), or using land space more creatively (for instance, building tall greenhouses). 

What intrigued me the most about their conflict was how urgently relevant it is - what with the world population having almost trebled in the last 50 years. Isn't that amazing? Crazy. It was strikinginly contextualised in Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth where he explains that the population had grown by such an astonishing rate within his lifetime, progressing from 2 billion to nearly 8 billion. 

The (arguably) ambigiously suggested assumption of both theories that present food levels (acknowledging that they were suggested in the 20th and 18th centuries) are satisfactory and evenly distributed was also interesting, given the obvious abundance of food in some areas as well as the disturbing lack in others. 

 

Personally, I believe both are of equal importance. 

I think that a Malthusian future is inevitable and may indeed be where we are heading. However, I also believe that the Boserup theory is applicable to our future; the difference between our future existing as one theory or the other lies in our willingness to act. I initially drafted the preceding sentence with the word 'ability', but then that would lead indefinitely to both the Boserup and Malthusian future - we may possess the knowledge, skills and resources to manage food production, but without the willingness to act upon such possessions, we will reach a Malthusian future anyway. 

 

I think success in a lot of things regarding our future and the like all come down to the fundamental foundation of our willingness to act upon them. In fact, everything comes down to the possession of will; it's what Al Gore stresses in his campaign to combat Climate Change, it's essential to accomplishing any goals, it is, in most cases, the source of success. 

So, I think rather that we may be looking at a Boserup-Malthusian future presently, but as to which theory we indeed attain, our willingness to act is where we should look for sustainability and success. 

Although there remain obstacles, such as The Big Name - Climate Change, the fact that what may be accessible and effective in one country or region may not be so in another, and that perhaps present areas of drastic imbalance between food production/access and population should be approached as a stepping stone for tackling our future.

 

In the end, what we are willing to work towards is the limit to what we are able to achieve.

So, what will it be? 

A Malthusian catastrophe? 

Or a Boserup triumph?

C 

[Written during holiday: 01/08/2014]