I've just finished reading Nature Cure by Richard Mabey. This is a delightful and insightful account of the author's recovery from deep depression which did, along the way, involve his moving to Norfolk and a re-engagement with nature. I recommend it: it's beautifully written.
What did leap out towards the end of the book was this sentence:
The natural long term tendency of any eco-system is to become progressively more plural, complex, sociable.
This opinion does, of course, challenge the idea of some who think survival of the fittest might suggest otherwise. I strongly suspect Mabey is right: the evidence is all around us if only we are willing to look.
But that is not what economics is seeking to do. There is monoculture in our economy: a persistent belief that only the market can deliver and only material reward matters leading to concentration on a singular approach to decision making and so to the form in which society is developing.
We need an economy that is more plural, complex and sociable. It so happens that nature has worked out that this is the basis for sustainability. The economy we have is the opposite of that.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
The phrase “survival of the fittest” is associated with Charles Darwin. It was adapted by the Nazis to justify their eugenic and racial policies-which resulted in the Holocaust. Yet in 1871 in the “Descent of Man” Darwin wrote “those groups with the most sympathetic members were likely to flourish the most and rear the most number of offspring.”
The ability to co-operate and have empathy even with non-kin, enabled Humankind to evolve away from the animal. It is still true.
The quote “survival of the fittest” was made by Herbert Spencer, not Charles Darwin.
Thanks for this post. I have (and still) battled with depression for much of my life and although it is a very individual affair it is often supportive to read other’s descriptions. The economy we now have is far from sustainable – the monomaniacal obsession with the financialisation of everything is self-destructive and turning us into vacuous vessels of self-interest.
I have not (at least as yet) suffered from depression.
But I am all too familiar with its impact on too many I have known to take the issue lightly
It may have worked for Mabey, however I do not believe a mass return to agrarianism is the answer for what ills most. For one, most are not interested in having a feudal overlord swanning around while the bulk of humanity toils in the fields.
We have a neo-feudal system now
Most toil without the advantage of the commons
Maybe you have not noticed
It fits with research in the 90s (I’ll have to look it up, but I found it in a David Korten book) that found that the rise of great civilisations was marked by diversity and creativity and variance, whilst archeological records show their decline corresponded with cultural and industrial homogenization.
It make sense when you think about resilience in all strands of life. Variance and pluralism is not only creative and innovative, as ideas bounce off of each other, but it is secure as it means there are multiple options if one fails. Homogenisation is incredibly dangerous from a survival point of view. If you rely on one crop then crop failure is devastating. If you rely on one friend then social exclusion and loneliness is only one step away. If you have one supply line for goods you are in a risky position. Similarly, if you have one political or cultural expression then if it fails you have a dangerous vacuum.
The comparisons to draw between this and the dominance of our globalised, homogenized economic and cultural systems where the value of anything and everything is measured only by it’s monetary worth as privatised property, is hopefully too obvious for me to spend work time expanding on…