Tuesday, November 03, 2009
Zombie Culture
The Postmodern Conservative is still nattering on about teh "Culture Wars".
Sorry, Poulos, but there is no culture war in America.
There is only an evolution of culture event, like an ice age or the extinction event at the K-T Boundary.
From a First Things commenter on Poulos' post....I’m with Nietzsche. He was just observing what had become inarguable. Not that God was dead, but that He wasn’t to be found in cultural/civilizational forms out there. Sure the forms exist, but with a few exceptions these forms have as much relevancy to the spirit that once animated them as the New York St. Patrick’s Day parade has to the spirit St. Patrick. They are dead forms animated by the undead energies of nostalgia, jingoism, and other vulgar passions. Conservatives simply don’t want to face up to this truth, and keep fighting this battle for a zombie culture, and in doing so are looking for love in all the wrong places–out there in the mainstream culture. They are fighting for the preservation of cultural forms that were shaped by spiritual cultural energies that simply no longer exist.
A zombie culture defined by slavish adherence to irrelevent undead forms.
21st century American culture is multi-gendered, multi-religioned, multi-colored, multi-ethnic and multi-aged.
WEC zombie culture is old, white and christian.
All the bearers of cultural authority; music, film, science, academe, the MSM,
literature.....indeed, all the arts....have become colonized by liberal memetics. Let me repeat….there is no culture war…..there is only an evolution of culture event
Conservative efforts to “take back teh culture” are as useful as battling glacial flow with pitchforks and torches.
Conservative efforts to “take back teh culture” are as useful as battling glacial flow with pitchforks and torches.
// posted by Matoko Kusanagi @ 7:30 AM 
Comments:
<< Home
I agree. Sort of. But you are missing the wider point. All industrial civilization is in various degrees of advancement towards secularism.
USA, arguably one of the first states to make the initial transition to separation of church and state, is merely the last to begin the final transition to total secularism.
But as the Pew survey shows:
"The share of the unaffiliated more than doubled between 1974 and 2004, from 6.8% to 14.2%"
So I don't agree that the future is multi-religious. I believe the overwhelming weight of evidence suggests it is secular.
Furthermore I believe the growing secularism at the international level constantly raises the ante due great power competitition in science and technology.
As for multicultured and multiethnic. I'm not so sure there either. I think it depends on timescale. In time the various forms will possibly interbreed and mingle and a single unitary American culture will evolve.
On a timescale of a century you might be right about multicultural. On a timescale of a thousand years I am more skeptical.
The issue is that while not everybody interbreeds, the existence of even a small percentage of mixed race individuals constitutes a genetic bridge between the ethnicities, that allows a steady current of genes to crossflow and mix. The end result is that the multimodal distribution eventually becomes unimodal. Also as the differences diminish, the rate of mixing increases. The end comes swiftly.
What particular genetic blend will emerge from the melting pot in the end, is in the final analysis, a matter for natural selection.
USA, arguably one of the first states to make the initial transition to separation of church and state, is merely the last to begin the final transition to total secularism.
But as the Pew survey shows:
"The share of the unaffiliated more than doubled between 1974 and 2004, from 6.8% to 14.2%"
So I don't agree that the future is multi-religious. I believe the overwhelming weight of evidence suggests it is secular.
Furthermore I believe the growing secularism at the international level constantly raises the ante due great power competitition in science and technology.
As for multicultured and multiethnic. I'm not so sure there either. I think it depends on timescale. In time the various forms will possibly interbreed and mingle and a single unitary American culture will evolve.
On a timescale of a century you might be right about multicultural. On a timescale of a thousand years I am more skeptical.
The issue is that while not everybody interbreeds, the existence of even a small percentage of mixed race individuals constitutes a genetic bridge between the ethnicities, that allows a steady current of genes to crossflow and mix. The end result is that the multimodal distribution eventually becomes unimodal. Also as the differences diminish, the rate of mixing increases. The end comes swiftly.
What particular genetic blend will emerge from the melting pot in the end, is in the final analysis, a matter for natural selection.
BTW Matoko,
I posted a comment on your Postmodern Conservative discussion thread. We'll see if it gets through moderation, and what is the response. I am not all that interested in the blog, but the Neitzsche thing is too obvious.
Keid A:
“I can’t credit your line of argument until you deal effectively with Nietzsche’s critique of ‘evolution’, namely, there is no correlate between ‘fitness’ and ’success’, and oftentimes precisely the strongest and smartest die soonest”.
The ’strongest and smartest’ is an insufficient definition of darwinian fitness. The fittest variation is the one that leaves the most surviving descendants. So it is possible to be too smart or too strong, if that is at the expense of other vital considerations, like breeding rate or survival of your children.
In other words it is a matter of cost vs. benefits.
e.g. Having a large brain carries a large metabolic cost. What does it profit you to have the largest brain, if your children die in the next famine, because even with all your smartness, you can’t find enough food to feed your energy-hungry brains?
Likewise, for a given resource budget, you can have bigger muscles or more children. Natural selection favors the variation that best balances the constraints of your environment, and leaves the most surviving descendants. That variation is the fittest.
So when it comes to smartness, or strength, or any other single, instrumental consideration; there is always a point of diminishing returns.
Natural selection favors the variant that, in your particular environment, maximises the number of surviving descendants."
I posted a comment on your Postmodern Conservative discussion thread. We'll see if it gets through moderation, and what is the response. I am not all that interested in the blog, but the Neitzsche thing is too obvious.
Keid A:
“I can’t credit your line of argument until you deal effectively with Nietzsche’s critique of ‘evolution’, namely, there is no correlate between ‘fitness’ and ’success’, and oftentimes precisely the strongest and smartest die soonest”.
The ’strongest and smartest’ is an insufficient definition of darwinian fitness. The fittest variation is the one that leaves the most surviving descendants. So it is possible to be too smart or too strong, if that is at the expense of other vital considerations, like breeding rate or survival of your children.
In other words it is a matter of cost vs. benefits.
e.g. Having a large brain carries a large metabolic cost. What does it profit you to have the largest brain, if your children die in the next famine, because even with all your smartness, you can’t find enough food to feed your energy-hungry brains?
Likewise, for a given resource budget, you can have bigger muscles or more children. Natural selection favors the variation that best balances the constraints of your environment, and leaves the most surviving descendants. That variation is the fittest.
So when it comes to smartness, or strength, or any other single, instrumental consideration; there is always a point of diminishing returns.
Natural selection favors the variant that, in your particular environment, maximises the number of surviving descendants."
Dreams of power.
FWIW,
The reason Australia has a smallish population, is because so much of it looks like this.
And only a very advanced scientific civilization could do anything to change that, I think.
FWIW,
The reason Australia has a smallish population, is because so much of it looks like this.
And only a very advanced scientific civilization could do anything to change that, I think.
US Full.Spectrum.Dominance types may be fantasizing about using their thrust into Central Asia as a tool to encircle and disrupt Sino-Centric "pipelinistan".
For myself, I think theirs' is a pipedream of a different sort. Realistically, USA cannot hope to hold Central Asia for long against the rapidly-growing power of USA's Chinese bankers.
I really think it may be wiser to pay attention to your own backyard.
For myself, I think theirs' is a pipedream of a different sort. Realistically, USA cannot hope to hold Central Asia for long against the rapidly-growing power of USA's Chinese bankers.
I really think it may be wiser to pay attention to your own backyard.
And for another thing. I'm starting to wonder if Pipelinistan may be less important even to the Chinese, going forward, as a result of rapidly advancing unconventional gas technology. Shale gas, coalbed methane, etc.
China may find most of the clean energy supplies it needs, for the next few decades, within China. Or say at most, China and Russia.
China may find most of the clean energy supplies it needs, for the next few decades, within China. Or say at most, China and Russia.
The implications of a world awash with natural gas, for the next generation or two, has got to be pretty grim for countries like Iran too.
Given that Iran was already facing serious declines in oil exports in the next few decades. If they're not going be getting good prices for the gas either, then what they gonna do?
My advice to Rafsanjani:
You should pay close attention to your family's Pistachio nut business.
Even Russia is not going to be quite the power it dreamed it would be. Abundant natural gas literally changes everything.
Given that Iran was already facing serious declines in oil exports in the next few decades. If they're not going be getting good prices for the gas either, then what they gonna do?
My advice to Rafsanjani:
You should pay close attention to your family's Pistachio nut business.
Even Russia is not going to be quite the power it dreamed it would be. Abundant natural gas literally changes everything.
UK Telegraph is also reporting that Major Nidal Malik Hasan may have had contacts with suspected extremist groups
Again they are saying this contact extending back to at least 2001.
Note that this would have been before the US "War On Terror" started post-9/11.
Again they are saying this contact extending back to at least 2001.
Note that this would have been before the US "War On Terror" started post-9/11.
I just found a very important chart on the web. It pretty much agrees with my own projections, and indicates why the coming decade will be the key decade when mankind's energy problems will be solved forever.
During this coming transitional decade, it is likely that now-abundant natural gas will be the "gap-filler" energy source - For those times when renewables are not available - because of natural variability.
I believe that in subsequent decades, the energy storage problem will also be solved; allowing renewables to become the 100% energy source. But by that time, solar will be very cheap indeed. That will be the incentive.
Ultracheap energy can be harnassed for transport, by either using it to create synfuels, or by means of electric cars. Whichever succeeds best technically and in the marketplace.
Conclusion: We will have a difficult decade, but the problems are solvable.
Burn this chart into your mind. It is the key to the future of our species.
With unlimited cheap energy, Man is a god. A type 2 civilization is within our grasp.
During this coming transitional decade, it is likely that now-abundant natural gas will be the "gap-filler" energy source - For those times when renewables are not available - because of natural variability.
I believe that in subsequent decades, the energy storage problem will also be solved; allowing renewables to become the 100% energy source. But by that time, solar will be very cheap indeed. That will be the incentive.
Ultracheap energy can be harnassed for transport, by either using it to create synfuels, or by means of electric cars. Whichever succeeds best technically and in the marketplace.
Conclusion: We will have a difficult decade, but the problems are solvable.
Burn this chart into your mind. It is the key to the future of our species.
With unlimited cheap energy, Man is a god. A type 2 civilization is within our grasp.
If you want to see what is so dangerous about current US financial policy, I think this is an awesome cartoon.
BUT
In case you think I am always critical of current government policy......
Let me tell you how much I love the new US-DoE ARPA-E.
The list of fantastic research projects that are being undertaken by this agency are breathtaking. Any one of them has the potential to change the world.
BUT
In case you think I am always critical of current government policy......
Let me tell you how much I love the new US-DoE ARPA-E.
The list of fantastic research projects that are being undertaken by this agency are breathtaking. Any one of them has the potential to change the world.
Hi Mitchell,
That's why I really want us to spread out as soon as possible.
All eggs in one basket, as long as we are all on one planet.
I was a Cold War baby. I will never feel safe here.
That's why I really want us to spread out as soon as possible.
All eggs in one basket, as long as we are all on one planet.
I was a Cold War baby. I will never feel safe here.
Mitchell,
This is the kind of trouble you can get into, when you are living on a type 13 planet.
Very funny video clip. 6 minutes.
This is the kind of trouble you can get into, when you are living on a type 13 planet.
Very funny video clip. 6 minutes.
I agree with you partly. Your viewpoint is interesting. Keep blogging!!
This is Ibrahim from Israeli Uncensored News
This is Ibrahim from Israeli Uncensored News
wallah! calculator?
is it you?
my new blog
well spock, aziz threw down a gauntlet, so i must needs post a bit longer.
is it you?
my new blog
well spock, aziz threw down a gauntlet, so i must needs post a bit longer.
Matoko,
I think maybe you posted these two comments on the wrong thread. They belong on the "Rough Magic" thread.
But if I were you, I'd seriously consider joining my Google Group experiment. In future I will be posting my entire link library there, so you will have access to all the cool links I find.
Also you would be able to post any interesting links you find.
The Group will be private, invitation only, and I promise to consult with you before I allow anyone else to join.
It's only an experiment. If you find you don't like it, you can "unjoin".
I won't be posting much anywhere else for some time, except on your blogs, and even when I do post, many of my interesting links will have been posted to the Group weeks or months earlier.
I think maybe you posted these two comments on the wrong thread. They belong on the "Rough Magic" thread.
But if I were you, I'd seriously consider joining my Google Group experiment. In future I will be posting my entire link library there, so you will have access to all the cool links I find.
Also you would be able to post any interesting links you find.
The Group will be private, invitation only, and I promise to consult with you before I allow anyone else to join.
It's only an experiment. If you find you don't like it, you can "unjoin".
I won't be posting much anywhere else for some time, except on your blogs, and even when I do post, many of my interesting links will have been posted to the Group weeks or months earlier.
And BTW the main advantages of a Google Group compared to a blog are:
1. It is very low maintenance. No need for giant essays. Everything is a minor comment. Yet you can view it through a sophisticated branching thread structure.
2. In the New Google Groups iteration, you can upload attachments, which means I can post graphics files of my own Excel charts, etc, with any comment. This can make comments much richer. I can post my own research.
3. You can control access to just trusted friends. You can ban anyone and they lose access to even read what you write.
1. It is very low maintenance. No need for giant essays. Everything is a minor comment. Yet you can view it through a sophisticated branching thread structure.
2. In the New Google Groups iteration, you can upload attachments, which means I can post graphics files of my own Excel charts, etc, with any comment. This can make comments much richer. I can post my own research.
3. You can control access to just trusted friends. You can ban anyone and they lose access to even read what you write.
OK experiment finished.
I've run into a few problems with the way the application handles deleted comments.
I think I'll look for a different solution.
Post a Comment
I've run into a few problems with the way the application handles deleted comments.
I think I'll look for a different solution.
<< Home
