Social change: How we got here, how we get there

    Today I'm presenting two extraordinary lectures with overlapping themes. Both involve theories of co-evolution specifically in development of our social relations, our technological advances, and our place in the natural world . The first is a 25-minute commentary by David Harvey. The second, much longer one is from Jeremy Rifkin filmed at the Ross Institute.

"We have masses of capital and masses of labor, unemployed, side by side in a world full of social need. How stupid is that?"

    
    In this film Mr. Harvey comments on the importance of bringing together a mental conception of the world that includes understanding our relations to each other, the technology we use and the natural world order. He suggests we consider how these correlate and form an evolutionary theory of social change. Mr. Harvey, a scholar of economic history, notes that Marx understood these connections, and if we want to imagine a way out of the current crisis we need to investigate this "dialectical configuration".

    Don't be put off by his academic rhetoric. You'll hear some very important concepts brilliantly woven together.

"Nature changes in its own way. We have to cope with that, even as we see that the natural things that seem to be occurring are partly a consequence of what we do."
 

     For a much more granular look at human history and the progression of consciousness and social organization, listen to Rifkin's lecture. He lays out this chronology in terms of how humanity has evolved socially in ever increasing levels of awareness. For example, during the time of foragers, hunters, and centralized agriculture, theologic consciousness formed the bonds of family through religious affiliation. When a greater convergence of communication came about through the invention of the printing press, an idealogical consciousness emerged. This in turn brought about a fictional domain known as the nation state. Presumably, the connection with a larger social identity known as my country, my nation, is more powerful than the limits of family. However, the key ingredient to Rifkin's talk is empathy and he asks if we are capable of evolving to a level of biosphere consciousness within the next 25 years. In other words, can we care about ourselves and each other enough to extend that empathy to the earth.

"When energy and communication revolutions come together they change consciousness, they change temporal/spatial orientation, they change dwelling habitats."

    

I occasionally find Mr. Rifkin hyperbolic, or over extended in his reasoning, but I cannot argue with how he characterizes how we got here and the ways in which it may still be possible to get "there".

Evolution of the world of work

Last week the New York Times published an article by Ross Douthat entitled "The world of work". It is an interesting thesis, but what I found more compeling was a comment following the article that was brilliant in its simplicity. Posted by Douglas from Minneapolis it reads:

We have reached the point at which what most people do for a living is not truly necessary anymore. We've managed to continue by means of heavily marketing all of those unecessary goods and services to convince people to spend their excess purchasing power on them. When times are good that keeps purchasing power circulating. When times are bad though, the only things people truly need to buy are made and distributed by a tiny fraction of the workforce. The circulation becomes limited to those sectors of the economy.

A society that doesn't need workers requires an entirely new economic system - one for which there is no model in existence.
 

In six simple sentences this comment sums up a self-evident force of our economy that few often speak about, but it will remain an unavoidable truth until such time as we create new models on which to base our economy.