I love this photo of the top of one of the standing stones at Stonehenge, featured in the Guardian this morning.
The two 'Lego-like' knobs were, of course, human-made, and were intended to fit into recesses in the lintel that sat on top of this stone.
It must have taken extraordinary effort to create these joints.
The only explanation for that effort was a belief in the importance of the work, and a desire that it last.
Of course that effort was not apparent in all the work of that era, most of which has gone forever. I know that. But in the finest creation of the time, the cathedral of that age, it was there, even if hidden from view.
What are the cathedrals of our age? If we as a society worship anything it is money. Our large companies are the vehicles for doing so. On the hour, every hour, the news tells us of their changing fortunes.
In that case it's fair to ask if they are places where the value of work, the importance of enduring design, the desire for lasting value, and its significance are respected?
I doubt anyone could claim that. Our largest companies treat work as dispensable. Obsolescence is built into their product design. Vast fortunes are spent persuading consumers that what they so recently acquired from the company is now no longer fit to meet their needs, whether that was ever true, or not. And the significance of the entity itself can be swept away at the whim of a shareholder sale of all its represents to those who might take a fancy to acquire it.
We have very different values from those who carved those standing stones. Or from those who built our cathedrals. But maybe they knew more than we do about the significance of their work, and so of real value.
What they knew, and which we now have to rediscover if we are to survive the climate crisis to come, is that what we worship now is destroying our chance of life in the long term as much as coronavirus is seeking to do so in the short term.
And if we really value our lives - and it seems that we do - then we have to take that threat to our long term survival seriously and change how we think about what we worship, and how that is reflected in our work, design and enduring values. The makers of Stonehenge might have much to teach us.
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:
What’s the price of weirdos and misfits running the show rather than people who know their trades? [1]
[1] “Ventilator standards set out for UK makers ‘of no use’ to Covid patients
Ministers’ challenge to manufacturers sets basic specifications that are not suitable to task, say experts.” Headline from the today’s Financial Times, 15th April, 2020.
You raise a very interesting philosophical (anthropological?) point. And, unusually, I will take issue. Not on the principle of enduring values but on the way they have been manifested throughout history. While the architects and master masons who created such amazing works may have had lofty ideals determined by their personal spirituality, the edifices they designed were constructed by slave labour – be it Stonehenge, the Pyramids or Ely cathedral. They had little or no regard for human rights. The impermanent aspect of much of current materialism isn’t in itself un-spiritual. In fact, from a Buddhist perspective it is the very essence of spirituality – haha. However, what’s important is both the integrity of the creator/designer and the means of production which are the two sides of the same coin. Without labouring the point (pun intended) I suggest that the great architectural feats of the 20th & 21st century are better examples of human potential and ideals than, say, the Taj Mahal or Notre Dame. While still not fully rewarded for its effort and skill, at least the workforce is unionised and not enslaved.
I’m not dissing the valid point you make about the negative impact of disposable mass consumption (much of which sadly still does involve slave labour) which is in the greedy hands of global corporations & so destructive of the environment. However I believe new technology provides us with better tools than ever could’ve been imagined by prior generations with the power to liberate and not enslave, e.g. 3-D printing, in conjunction with AI, will totally revolutionise the production of everyday products more so than Josiah Wedgwood could ever have imagined. It’s how technology (knowledge) is exploited – that’s the issue, isn’t it. Economic ideology in cahoots with the marketing industry is the devil incarnate. I’m pretty sure the priests who decided to construct a temple in Wiltshire had little or no regard for the welfare of the poor wretches who had to lug the beautiful blue stones across the 200+ miles from Carn Goedog!
I always remind people when they admire great buildings to consider the cost in human suffering. Much to the chagrin of many, it’s difficult not to bring Marx into any discussion about human activity.
Noted
John D.
I agree.
And you could add to that, all the beautiful buildings in Bristol and Bath, that were built with the proceeds of the Atlantic Slave Trade.
That would appear to be the top of Stone 28. http://www.stonesofstonehenge.org.uk/2014/05/stone-28.html
Pounding and grinding techniques (with a stone hammer, and sand) can be quite effective for stoneworking, extending techniques used for monumental woodworking, albeit time consuming. For example, some of the lintels were joined with tongue-and-groove. For example http://www.stonesofstonehenge.org.uk/search/label/Stone%20107
In 3000 or 2500 BC, considerable community effort would be required to move and erect two 25 ton stones, and then put a third on the top. Thirty in the ring, plus thirty lintels, and 15 for the huge trilithons. With modern tools, we could reconstruct Stonehenge in a matter of weeks or months, but what would be the point?
What have we built in modern times that might last 5,000 years? No doubt there are some stone and concrete structures that might survive at least that long. (To put this “finest creation of the time” into context, the Egyptians were constructing the Great Pyramid about the same time as Stonehenge, around 2500 BC. Now, *that* is a monument.)
@ Andrew:
“With modern tools, we could reconstruct Stonehenge in a matter of weeks or months, but what would be the point?”
There would be no point. These long-lasting structures are simply a few remaining symbols of the time in which they were built. They are of historical & sociological interest and, for many, appreciated for their beauty. But their durability per se, while testament to craftsmen’s skills, is not an indicator of ‘human vales’ (for want of a better phrase).
Thanks to the great 19th and 20th century advances in construction & engineering – e.g. reinforced concrete, plate glass and pre-stressed steel – it became possible to design and construct edifices hitherto unimaginable. The old rules relating to stress that were the foundation of every previous building – which became the secret knowledge of masons – were literally chucked out as they no longer applied. Now it became possible literally to sculpt space, viz. Le Corbusier, Frank Lloyd Wright, Mies van der Rohe, et al. So while the ingenuity of and skills of earlier architects & builders is still worthy of our wonder and appreciation, what we can now accomplish far, far exceeds anything they were able to. And let’s not forget that these stone monuments were always for the enhancement of prevailing ruling powers. For anyone who shares an interest in the topic the Wiki entry is pretty good (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_architecture).
That aside, and more relevant to the blog, I’d like to suggest that there is a corollary with macro-economics. MMT is akin to the new architecture. The old rules no longer apply nor are necessary (at least for the most-part … but I’m not going down that rabbit-hole!). MMT opens up a new vision for society that didn’t exist before – just as the traditional laws of stress & materials restricted the type and scale of building that was feasible as well as the imagination of the builder. Clever architects pushed the rules to the max, as one sees with the flying buttresses of Gothic cathedrals, but there was eventually a limit. And so to MMT. The resistance towards accepting its insights is in some way comparable to the reluctance of masons to come to terms with the new technologies and the unprecedented opportunities they offered, which is where I think J D Alt is coming from.
Just some random musings on yet another long day of incarceration 🙂
You’re welcome John
I appreciate them, and I’m working flat out
Humanity is facing it’s greatest challenge in climate change.
But the challenge is of our own making. Ultimately the challenge is whether we can change our behaviour or not.
The economy is a creation of our collective imaginations, not some external force that is acting on us.
If we can not re-imagine it, we are “toast”. The existing economomic model is going to eventually collapse due to the pressures of climate change anyway.
The growth model is doomed. Exponential growth is unsustainable. (3% growth and the economy doubles in size every 23 years!!!) The planet can’t take it.
We need a “sustainable” economic model, but I’m not sure people really “get” what that means.
It means:
NO interest bearing loans.
NO interest bearing savings accounts. (Actually, no savings!)
NO pensions.
NO mortgages.
NO hedge funds.
NO private banking.
NO financial industry.
NO PROFIT.
NO expansion of the money supply.
NO endless consumption.
NO population increase.
NO work for lots of people.
Feel free to add to the list.
A world very different to the one we live in now.
All living things face the same evolutionary rule.
Adapt to changes in the environment or become extinct.
Has humanity got the understanding of the changes that we need to make, or is our fate already sealed!?
Sorry. Not very upbeat!
Off to paint the shed!
Sorry Vinnie
But there is no way that is true
Of course we need to change radically
And I think massive containment of finance is necessary
But this list of claims is simply wrong
Of course we can expand the money supply
Of course we can make profit (try avoiding it)
And yes, people will save
I am sorry – but claims like this, which are simply wrong because they cannot reflect any known reality or fact, do not help anyone
You can talk about overall net interest rates for example
But lending will still have to cover risk costs
And lending will still happen
People will most certainly work
They will, for example, paint the shed
Richard
Dear Richard,
The systems we live with haven’t been part of human life for much longer than a few centuries. Of course we can ditch them in favour of other systems. Are we going to do it gently or watch them die violently when the limits to how much abuse the ecology can take are exceeded?
We need the imagination to move past the current ways of doing stuff. Dismantling them consciously and gradually will be better for everyone. Clinging to them won’t help. Vinnie is right, bruv.
Peace and love.
With respect, we’ve always saved
We’ve always made profit
We’ve always worked
We’ve always lent
So no, you’re not right
I am all for reform, but let’s stop claiming what is simply not true or we will go nowhere
Hi Richard.
All the things I listed I see as requiring an expanding/growth economy.
I just can’t see how there can be such a thing as “sustainable growth”?
Money supply can increase, but only if the economy expands.
People can save, but in an economy without growth, it is just removing money from someone elses pocket.
I see profit as only really being possible (sustainable) in an expanding economy. Otherwise, I don’t see where it can come from (and keep coming?)
I agree people will still work. (My shed will still need painting!) But a 40 hour week? And the work done will have to be of use. Caring for eachother. Not created just to give someone something to do in order to earn money. The jobs will need to not create unnecessary consumption as a by-product.
We have been doing all the above things because the economy has always been expanding. Painfully slow, pre-industrial revolution, granted, but expanding non the less. I think we are fast running out of road though.
On the subject of things built to last:
I have a Morphy Richards toaster my parents were given as a wedding present. It’s still popping out toast like a goodn’. They were married in 1957!!!!!! It has outlived both of them and maybe even me.
I’m guessing that at the time it was a pricey item and so was expected to last. (In fact, the technology to make them cheap/throwaway had probably not been invented then. (No plastic in it)).
We need all our future products to be made to last a lifetime. (and be 100% recyclable when they eventually die)
But that is no good for Morphy Richards. Once we all own our lifelong toasters,(replace toaster with, car, fridge, kettle,washing machine, dish washer etc) Morphy Richards are no longer selling them in any volume. There will be an aftersales spares and repairs market but the core of the business will have to be scaled back.
I see this needing to happen in so many sectors. (And some sectors will have to vastly shrink or disappear all together. Aviation and fossil fuel extraction) Yes, we need a Green New Deal, but once the infrastructure is in place, it will only need maintaining/repairing. We won’t need to keep on producing more of it. (We only need one Stonehenge).
Yes, there are lots of things that need doing right now in the UK. There are needs that need to be met. But once the population’s basic needs are being met (and sustained) we don’t need to be creating new ones just to keep the “show on the road”.
I see this flying in the face of the present economic model.
Deadly excess profits, high interest, intense financialisation and so on that the current model requires have to go
So too advertising, which you did not mention as I recall
Consumer credit has to be better managed. We need a social fund again.
But profit is simply a normal rate of return – no more or less than a wage. They being self employed and you will find that
And although I do not like usury I think banning it would be impossible: regulating it has much better chance
But you miss the real point. Of course there is sustainmable growth. There is no limit to the amount we can care for each other, teach each other and even entertain each other and that need not be carbon intensive
Focus on the real issue please – and that is excess consumption and rentier financialisation
Richard
You have been working very hard recently and you have been very unwell too. Go easy now.
Best,
PSR
Little chance of that…