The conversation continues...
Colin Pistell Sunday, July 11, 2010 at 11:26AM
Josh, over at leegertrained, posted a great comment on my last entry. Here it is...
Why not do less with less? We always want to do more, but where does that cultural prejudice come from, that “more is better?”
We also say “less is more,” but what does that mean?
Is the problem the interface, the technology, or the way in which it is used, and the way in which we allow ourselves to be used by it?
Culture (and I think, the human mind, generally) is insidious in the ability to create a myth that is then forgotten as a “created thing,” and accepted as “fact.”
What is significantly different about life now, from life 100 years ago? 1000 years ago? 10000 years ago?
Agriculture is different. But not better. Masanobu Fukuoka produced higher yields on his “organic” (beyond organic, actually) plot than the surrounding “industrial” fields. So we don’t need “new” technology there…and we don’t need to do “more” in agriculture.
You might say “longevity,” or “life-span.” I might agree, to a point. The “masses” are living longer, but lifespan itself hasn’t changed that much. Plato lived to the ripe old age of 80, in the 4th C BC. Many more examples of 80+ year lifespans in the “privileged classes” throughout ancient history.
You might say “connectedness.” But what has that connectedness changed? Fundamentally?
Knowledge? What has it given us, this knowledge? I like it, you know that. I think it’s fun. It’s my main hobby. But more and more, I turn within for knowledge…
We don’t really need to do “more” of anything…less, I think, is in order.
Maybe if we need more of something, it’s active sensitivity…sense-itivity. Sensing our environment, and ourselves as continuous with that environment (or vice versa). Using “sense” to grow things, or to act in our lives. “Making sense” in ways that are consistent with a happy life…
Your thoughts?
And here's my response:
When I say "more," I didn't necessarily mean "more stuff." I absolutely agree that our current level of material consumption needs to stop. There is currently a resurgent austerity meme flying around in response to the global recession - hopefully this can merge with some of the "green" memes and create some meaningful cultural change.
But, no matter how clever we are, and how successful our memes, our genes are still boss. And we have a genetic directive that compels us to acquire as many resources as we can get our hands on. Rather than fighting the EXTREME uphill battle of getting people to not acquire as many resources for themselves, we would do better to perform some cultural aikido and help convince the world that material things are not the resources that matter any more. Knowledge and information are.
Think about it - without your ability to access, aggregate, and analyze information, would you have been able to develop your thoughts on human health to the degree that you have? We do indeed live in the Information Age and the Knowledge Based Economy.
True, I am a technology optimist, but I like to imagine a world in which people are satisfied with a simple material existence but are never satisfied with their level of knowledge, and spend their time and resources investing in additional knowledge.
In this scenario, more would be better, yes? Unless of course "more" was, for instance, ICBM launch codes... but that's a different issue...
So perhaps we can restate "do more with less" as "do more/better/more meaningful work with less material/temporal resources."
For example: email sucks. It really does - especially as a work/productivity tool. How easy is it to get completely overwhelmed by your inbox, spin your wheels trying to handle 15 different requests at the same time, and end the day hunched over your desk, with 15 unfinished tasks and a sore back? The "low tech" solution is to take a break from email, skip off to Esalen for a week and do some yoga. Fine, but when you get back you'll have 500 messages and the process of dealing with all that crap will stress you out even more.
Better if we took a "high tech" approach (point of order - this does not mean "more complicated"), and devoted some resources to creating a brand new system that allowed/assisted you to aggregate all messages, automatically generated and sent replies for more routine requests, and helped prioritize your tasks. All handled through voice and simple gesture commands. The AI and adaptive algorithms exist and many software companies are already experimenting with similar concepts. While the computer science behind such an idea is pretty complicated, the end result should be very simple to use and comprehend. I take more of a "design thinking" approach to technology and tend to think better technology should be simpler and faster to use, not more complicated.
Reader Comments (4)
I like it! Thanks for the response, Colin! Definitely interested to hear your thoughts on the other points in my comment.
I agree with your take. If I understand correctly, you're saying "we won't get rid of technology, might as well make it work for us..." Am I reading you right?
The idea of "performing cultural aikido" is very compelling. I'll definitely be sitting with this for a while...
My comment isn't entirely relevant to your blog post but I know that you will enjoy it anyway.
It involves trees.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y0fQomb7uKE
Colin, Is it odd that I know exactly what your facial expressions would look like (and morph between) throughout your entire response to Josh's comment? I found that amusing. And regarding "our genes are still boss," do you really like man is incapable of overcoming his genetic disposition? Or are we misinterpreting "genes" for something else? If we were to have a "genetic directive" so to speak, don't we also have the choice to not comply?
If that's not true, your lifestyle doesn't make sense, Mr. Re-User of aluminum-and-giant-blue-plastic-bags. And I say that with love.
"think" not "like" . . . oops!