digital makeup

Dramatic performances ask of their audience that they suspend their disbelief. An aspect of this can be that we are asked to believe that actors, mostly unrelated, are actually blood relations. Film and TV close ups make this more of an issue. How long will it be before computer post production allows actors, that are supposed to be blood relatives, to have their faces digitally modified by means of an inbetweening algorithm so that they resemble each other? A star might insist on retaining his or her own face, while lesser actors playing their families might be contractually obliged to have theirs morphed towards that of the star. Such roles would be played wearing virtual faces; in a sense, a move back towards the various traditions in which actors wore masks.

beauty is in the eye of the beholder

I have an ongoing preoccupation with vision – not only ours, but that of other creatures. For us vision is such a dominant and personal way through which we experience the world, that it can be surprising to learn how limited it is in comparison to that of other creatures. We have more limited perception of colour – for example – than not just birds, but also lizards, amphibians and even many fish. The retinas of most of these animals contain four distinct cones that operate across a part of the electromagnetic spectrum that reaches into the ultraviolet. Because we evolved from lizards, we should also have these four cones but, alas, the shrew-like creature ‘bottleneck’, from which all mammals descend, was nocturnal, and for that reason two of the cones were lost. Some primates later acquired a third cone through a mutation of one of the two cones remaining – though this new cone is inferior to the one lost that spanned the red part of the spectrum.

Toby, my new puppy, brought this issue of colour vision into focus (as it were) when I decided to investigate the notion (that seems to be widely held) that dogs are restricted to seeing in black and white. As it turns out, they are not… they see using the standard two mammalian cones, and their vision is roughly equivalent to humans who have red-green colour blindness. The two spectra on the right show the comparison between dog and human vision. Feeling pity for my pooch’s ‘colourless’ view of the world, I happened to notice a wood pigeon striding about outside, in my garden, and could not help recalling that pigeons have five cone colour vision. If that pigeon were to have his colour vision ‘degraded’ to our level, then he would be justified in feeling more pity for our human ‘colourless’ view of the world, than I did for Toby’s.

Imagine what our paintings would look like had we a pigeon’s eyes. Alas I can’t show you a pigeon’s spectrum of colour vision because – well, we simply are no more able to see or imagine those other colours available to a pigeon, than Toby can see red.

the once in a 100 million year experiment

As we consume fossil fuels, we humans are carrying out a once in a 100 million year experiment. The coal, oil and gas we have burned so profligately in the past 200 years or so are a legacy of ancient sun energy laid down in the Earth’s crust by organisms at least 100 million years ago (300 million in the case of coal). We began exploiting these reserves where they were easy to reach; at or near the surface and in regions occupied by human beings. Using machines powered by the very fossil fuels we are extracting, we delve ever deeper, ever further afield. What was once easy to find, has become progressively more difficult, and, with diminishing returns, we have to use ever more of the energy obtained, to reach and exploit the increasingly inaccessible reserves remaining.

The way we have exploited these reserves is a one off process: what we have already consumed will not be replaced in less than 100 million years… and under no conceivable view of the future could anything like the human race survive to such a distant future. Any other ‘intelligent’ species that were to evolve within that period of millions of years would do so on a planet denuded of accessible fossil fuel reserves. Whatever kind of technological civilisation they were to build, it would have to be based on non-fossil fuels. Not a bad thing, you may feel, for is that not what we are seeking? However, it may be that, without fossil fuels, the level of development their civilisation could reach may be severely restricted.

Fossil fuels function as a ‘labour multiplier’ – they have supplied the ‘slave labour’ that has allowed our present civilisation to surge forward; they are what primarily separates the capabilities of our civilisation from all those that went before. Though our sciences give us the ‘know how’, without the ‘muscle’ of fossil fuels we would not have been capable of the major transformation of our world that allows us to sustain our vast population and its current levels of ‘wealth’. Yet, we also know that we are unlikely to be able to continue sustaining our civilisation using fossil fuels: not only are they running out, but, through promoting climate change, they are in danger of destroying the conditions necessary for its survival. A transition to renewable energy sources is critical. Ironically, such a transition is only made possible because of the technological advances that fossil fuels have made possible.

So, it seems to me that we are using fossil fuels as a ‘booster rocket’ to make an attempt to achieve ‘escape velocity’ to a possible transcendent future. Not only is this our one and only chance to do this, but it is the only such chance that will be available to any species on this planet for at least 100 million years.

English spelling: unity over ease of learning

A while back I read a blog on cluborlov in which Dimitry Orlov railed against how English spelling often bears so little relation to the way its words sound that, as a consequence, it made learning to read and write the language far harder than it should be. At the time I would have liked to wade in with some opinions of my own, however, the comments on that post soon proliferated and, since I had no time to read them, and to avoid repeating arguments already given, I never contributed anything at all. However, I do feel that some of the points I would have liked to make may be of interest, and so I shall jot them down here now.

It is true that English orthography could be redesigned to more accurately reflect the language as it is currently spoken – and this would make learning to read and write English far easier. However, this approach does beg the question: which form of the spoken language should we thus choose to transcribe phonetically? English exists in many dialects, and a faithful phonetic transcription of one would look entirely different from another. Thus this process would seem to me to produce a wholly unfortunate result: that English speaking communities that are currently united by a common orthography (there are variations between English and American spelling – but these are not so divergent as to provide readers of either form with any barrier to reading the other) would be divided by the new phonetic orthographies.

I would like to take a diversion that I think is illuminating, to consider the orthography of Chinese. My understanding of how this works – and it is something that seems particularly hard to get a clear answer to – is that Chinese characters, albeit that they encode some phonetic information, can be used to write a great variety of dialects of Chinese. Apparently, a newspaper written in Chinese characters can be read with equal ease by readers who would find their spoken dialects mutually unintelligible. It is as if in Europe we were to devise an orthography that would allow the same copy of a book to be read ‘natively’ by a Portuguese, Italian, French, Spanish and Romanian speaker. (My understanding of the breadth of Chinese dialects suggests that we could include in the readers of such a book speakers of German, English and of many other European languages – presumably other Indo-European languages too, such as Farsi). Imagine what an amazing boon this would be for European integration! Of course such an orthography would be far harder to learn, since it would not be derived from the sound of the words, and would thus have to be learned, by rote, one character at a time. This is of course the challenge that Chinese writers and readers have to overcome, so that, from what I’ve read, some 4000 characters must be learned to allow a Chinese newspaper to be read. To people who found alphabetic orthographies a challenge to learn as children, this jump from around 26 characters to 4000 seems an incredible leap in difficulty. Indeed, there have been several attempts to encourage the Chinese to abandon their characters and to resort to the roman or cyrillic alphabets. It amazes me that the proponents of such a changeover were blind to the advantage of a unifying script for such a vast and diverse linguistic community as are the Chinese. Indeed, in a parallel to the parable of the Tower of Babel, they were urging a community who, through their characters, could communicate perfectly, to fragment into mutually unintelligible groups.

In an analogous way, current English orthography unifies the speakers of all its dialects and, for all its difficulties with spelling, it is hardly as onerous a task to learn as is Chinese. But there is another blessing that the present English orthography confers: historical consistency. With the passing of time languages continually evolve, so that a speaker of English from some hundred years back would find some difficulty in making herself understood today. If we go far enough back, it would be as if she was speaking a wholly foreign language. In the past, English orthography did actually attempt to encode the spoken forms with the result that texts from the past can be hard to read today. Once the spelling scheme was fixed, however, all subsequent texts became, and remain, readable to anyone who had mastered the written language. (Incidentally, my understanding is that Chinese literature from even remote times remains as legible today as if it had just been written – so that Chinese characters not only unify dialectical communities across ‘space’, but also across time. Though the simplified character forms adopted by the mainland in the 1950s and 1960s may have somewhat fractured this unity.)

So, though I acknowledge that the idiosyncrasies of English spelling do make learning to read and write the language more difficult, I feel that this is more than compensated for by the way that this allows speakers to be united into a single literary community across both space and time.

a new covenant with nature

It is no surprise that human rights as a formal system, as legislation, should have arisen from the two cataclysms of ‘civil war’ that the Europeans brought upon themselves, and into which they drew so much of the rest of the world. As a way of trying to avoid descent into the horrors of the Rape of Nanking, of the Eastern Front, and of the Holocaust, it is essential, that at the heart of our politics, we should enshrine a reverence for human beings.

No doubt one reason why some regimes resist Western attempts to make them adopt human rights legislation is because they wish to continue abusing, with impunity, the people they have power over. China, for example, has long resisted pressure from the West to ‘improve their human rights record’. Governments in Africa, to whom the West offers loans with human rights conditions attached, are turning for help to China, who is only too happy to provide this aid without such pre-conditions. Of course human rights are not the only strings attached when you deal with the West, there are also economic conditions – such as the opening up of a country to the ‘free market’ – as well as all manner of other political demands. Not that any of this is new: the West now offers what once it imposed, when it had the power to do so. Colonial ‘development’ was explained to the ‘natives’ as being in their best interest. Importantly, those economic and political interventions of the West went hand in glove with a proselytising morality: Christianity and Christian values.

Christianity was at the heart of the European imperial project. It was there with shackles and burning when the Spanish ravaged the Americas; it was there with the missionaries that penetrated various ‘dark continents’. It seems to me that this was not a different project, but an earlier form of the modern one: for it is accepted that ‘human rights’ are a refined and ‘de-god-ed’ evolution of Christian values. As such, it is possible to see Chinese resistance today to American diplomats trying to attach human rights conditions to a trade agreement, as a continuation of the earlier attempts to force China to open herself up to missionaries; as she was forced, by gunboats, to open herself up to trade.

Here we see the problem I believe is inherent in Western human rights: their genesis in Christianity. If human rights occupies the same space in Western hearts that was once occupied by Christianity, is it surprising that people of different faiths, of cultures that did not evolve with Christianity, should resist this imposition? That we in the West do not recognize this link allows us to be as blind in our conviction of the superior morality of our position, as we were when we destroyed and enslaved the Aztecs, while all the time convinced that we were doing them a favour – after all, were we not saving their souls? Thus, the functional goal of attempting to stop holocausts, can be lost in this natural human resistance to our zealotry.

But even this is not my primary concern. Rather it is that I believe that there is a profound error at the very heart of Christianity, one that is so deeply embedded at the very beginning of the Bible that its effects permeate Judaism and Christianity: namely that man is made in God’s image and that His creation was put here for our use. This, it seems to me, is the fatal flip side of human rights: the primacy of humanity and our divinely ordained dominion over all other living things and the planet Earth itself – the Universe even. This flip side is evident in everything the West does – it contaminates our culture on every level – and as our culture has become the global culture, this error seems destined to become the birthright of humanity. The hubris that we see demonstrated all around us, is built into Western culture at its most inner, Christian core. It informed, and informs, the path of history from industrial revolutions, to the colonisation of North America, and the imperialisms of the West. It profoundly determines the way we live now. The whole economic drive that we are using to destroy the planet and to exterminate the wondrous variety of ecosystems and living beings on it, is informed by that central understanding that we are made in the image of god, and that that god has made the world for us to use as we wish. It does not matter that so many of us in the West have lost our faith, for we still hold that covenant between us and creation to be true.

So I say that we need a new covenant with Nature, one that is guided by what science is teaching us about the true nature of the world and our place in it. Once we see that we have no such human right to exert dominion as we do, then perhaps we can stop this wilful destruction, and so save the world and ourselves, from ourselves.

cute puppy distractions…

I have got a new dog. We’ve been meaning to get a dog since our previous one, Ninja (named for reasons of being a tearaway when a pup) died. She only came to us when she was 13 – an old lady in dog terms. She died just over a year ago at 15. Early in those two years we grew to love her, and we mourned her when she was gone. We have now adopted another Parsons Russell terrier – this one an 8 week old pup we’ve named Toby.

Toby has only been with us since Saturday night, but it already feels as if he’s been part of our lives for ever. Even though he has turned our lives upside down, and has been keeping everyone from sleeping properly with his howling for his mum, he is, of course, an utter delight.

It amazes me that evolution has managed to so shape baby animals that they are incredibly appealing even across species. I wonder if anyone has done a scientific study of ‘cute’.

allowing ideas time to form

I have come to understand that expressing an idea too early can limit what it can become: clay, once fired, loses its ability to take on any form.

I was not a patient child. I recall trying to put together a model of a pirate ship when I was perhaps seven years old. It came as a kit of many plastic pieces. I followed the instructions, but could not bear to wait for the glue along one joint to dry before proceeding to the next. The result wobbled in my grip like a shattered and leaking egg. This did not stop me from attempting to paint it in all kinds of garish colours, paint smearing and sticking to my hands; fingerprints left on hull and rigging. Needless to say, the ‘finished’ model was a shapeless, sticky mess.

I learned to resist this impatience in making things (perhaps too well! *grin*). However, the desire to ‘see something’ as quickly as possible still lingered, with a belief that what is written or drawn or spoken is somehow better than any ‘notion’ in my head. This desire for ‘realisation’ may have something to do with performance: for it is impossible to show someone else a notion without ‘realising’ it in some way. This is also a process that is drilled into us, by parents, by teachers – and, indeed, the effort, the practicality, the skill, to realise a notion is the act of creation. The realised notion becomes a part of the world that you can perceive and examine as readily as a leaf or a stone. Further, you can compare your creation with the notion from which it sprang, and thus you are able to refine it. This process of iteration is certainly a fruitful part of creating anything. However, the creation is possessed of a reality that the notion that led to it lacks, and real things are ‘attractive’ – exerting a pull on the mind something akin to a magnetic field.

An example of the peril posed by ‘attractors’ are the vowels in the language you speak. Their locations in ‘linguistic space’ are as equally spaced as possible, so that each vowel is as distinct from the others as it can be – thus reducing ambiguity in communication as much as possible. A novel vowel from another language will map onto this ‘linguistic space’. The closer it lies to one of the original vowels, the more it will be attracted towards that – making it hard to hear how it is different, and even harder to voice it. (Perhaps this pattern of attraction between the vowels of one language and another helps explain the distinct and characteristic accent with which, say, a French person will speak English.)

My experience is that when I ‘realise’ a notion, the resulting creation becomes an attractor so strong that my perception of it displaces the very notion that was its origin. The notion, once fluid, is now fixed, and, rather than being clay that could be reshaped, it becomes merely a stepping stone to other notions – and so perhaps a different path is followed.

So these are the reasons I strive to resist the temptation to ‘realise’ notions until I feel they have had a chance to reach their full form in my mind.

the trouble with skeuomorphs

Apple's skeuomorphic calendar design
apple’s faux leather calendar ©Apple
dialing a number on a digital device
pretending that a digital book is made of paper

“Skeumorph” is a term I only came across recently – and like many such terms, once you learn of its existence, it ties up a set of things you already knew about, in a bundle that gives you a better grasp on that issue than you had before. Once aware of it, you start to see it everywhere.

Skeumorph is defined by Lexicon.com as: an object or feature which imitates the design of a similar artefact made from another material. The current vogue for use of this term is mostly related to the design of digital interfaces. A good example is Apple’s Calendar app with its faux leather effect (the first image – note the torn margin where it is suggested that a paper page has been ripped out). Much liked by Steve Jobs, it apparently reproduces the interior trim of his private jet. It seems that Jonathan Ive may well be about to dispense with this kind of thing.

I do not deny that there is something ‘cute’ about skeuomorphs, and I suppose that – as computers became capable of producing realistic faux glass, or steel, or wood – I was as wowed by these novel effects as anyone else. There are people out there who will defend skeuomorphism as being helpful and pleasant. Counter arguments can be made on aesthetic grounds that seem to me reminiscent of the modernist architectural creed that ‘form should follow function’ – a position that I am increasingly sympathetic to. However, I would like to advance a different argument that it is beyond the realm of aesthetics, for I believe that ‘skeumorphs’ are not only hampering desirable developments in some areas, but are potentially being used by some corporations against the common interest.

An example of a ‘skeuomorphic’ mindset being misapplied is, I believe, in the various ebook systems (that I have experienced). I have expressed my support for ebooks elsewhere, however, my hope for what ebooks could become is currently being frustrated by the reality of what ebooks are. What irks me most is ‘navigating’ the text of an ebook. Animations of pages turning in mimicry of a paper book are all good and well – though a clear skeuomorphism – but they do nothing to help with moving around the text of an ebook. You can ‘bookmark’ a page, and you can slide through the pages, and you can go to a contents page – each a skeuomorphic example of paper book mimicry – however, none of these actually provide the comparable functionality of a paper book. In a paper book, a bookmark allows instant access to the bookmarked page because it is always at hand: the ebook equivalent is only visible if you are on the page it marks, otherwise it has to be located on a special bookmark page. The page slider on an ebook attempts to provide us with something akin to leafing through a paper book, but, without the physical ‘feedback’, I find it almost unusable. After sliding back and forth a few times, I mostly resort to swiping forward one page at a time to find what I am looking for. An ebook’s content page can be accessed without losing your place in the book, but if you choose to go from there to some other part of the ebook, then you will only be able to return to your original position if you had had the presence of mind to bookmark that page. This problem could easily be avoided if the ‘go back’ button available on all browsers were present – but, for some reason, rather than using the technology commonly used on computing devices, the designers of these ebook systems (the one’s I’ve experienced certainly) are so committed to the skeuomorphic project of mimicking a paper book, that they don’t feel the reader needs one. Imagine how difficult a browser would be to use without a ‘go back’ button?

In a bid to mimic paper books – no doubt with the laudable view of not frightening off traditional readers – the designers of these ebook systems are doing something like roping stuffed horses to the bonnet of a motor car in the hope of easing the transition from carriages. I suggest that ebooks are going to remain clumsy and frustratingly unmanageable until we stop thinking of them as paper books, and instead begin to explore the true nature of what they actually are and could be.

Another attempt to treat ebooks as if they were paper books is Amazon’s proposal to allow the lending and reselling of ‘used’ digital books. This is skeuomorphism applied on a conceptual level. Similar attempts are being made across various digital media. These attempts seem to me to have more to do with preserving the business models and commercial hierarchies that existed before the digital revolution, than on satisfying any need in the consumer. What is interesting is which characteristics of the physical objects being superseded are being selected for skeuomorphic ‘simulation’. These corporations wish to avail themselves of the advantages of digital objects: their ability to be distributed across the internet and to be produced in unlimited numbers – thus avoiding distribution, warehousing and printing/manufacturing costs – but wish to pretend that digital objects are like physical ones in that they cannot effortlessly be cloned by whoever wishes to do so, and thus to be obtained free of charge from the internet. This initiative on the part of Amazon to give us back the facility to lend and sell our books has nothing to do with benefitting their readers, but only to further extend their control over our ebooks.

Ebooks and other digital objects ‘want to be free’* – that is their inherent nature. I would suggest that any attempts on our part, to try and impose on them the restrictions inherent in what it is they are replacing, are bound to fail. Perhaps the little skeuomorphisms of Apple’s faux leather calendar may need to be ditched because, in part, they lead to the repressive skeumorphisms being perpetrated by corporations like Apple and Amazon. All revolutions are painful for the people who experience them, but they are only worth enduring because of a general perceived need or desire for change. For the digital revolution to justify the chaos that it is wreaking on consumers and producers of art and entertainment, it must be to the advantage of all. If the promise of these new digital forms is going to be fulfilled we need to resist skeuomorphs.

*how we recompense the creators is another issue, and one I will try and address in another post

After this post was substantially written, I did come across this skeuomorphic ebook system that goes some way to assuaging my gripes about ebook navigation – and I am including it for fairness.

competition versus brotherhood

A mania for competition so possesses our societies that it is hard to imagine any other way of being, and yet I think it is critical that we free ourselves from its grip.

In the West, the Christian churches, from long habit, had an explanation for everything. Alas, with the rise of science, these churches chose to cling to Old Testament ‘certainties’, with the result that, when the cosmology of ‘Creation’ was overturned, the New Testament began to sink with it.

In Western civilisation, only the peace-making teachings of Jesus Christ were strong enough to stand up against that other hoary tradition: constant conflict. The wolf-eat-dog mentality of the Roman Republic, for example, devoured the western half of the ‘ancient world’, and was only, by the Empire’s adoption of Christianity, moderately tamed. The sporting competitions at Olympia, that were really the internecine warfare between the Greek city states in a ‘gentler’ form, crowned their winners with wreaths; their Roman conquerors wore laurel wreaths as a sign of military victory. This vertical dimension in human affairs, that raises the winner above the loser, is also the basis of hierarchies of power; the ruler sitting enthroned in triumph above the ruled. It was Christ (and the other great prophets) who preached a levelling horizontal dimension: the brotherhood each man should feel for another.

Our tendency towards hierarchy is balanced by another for fairness and equality: though we are individuals, we are also social animals. It was Darwin who administered the deepest wound to Christianity. His ‘survival of the fittest’ dethroned Man from the centre of Creation; as Copernicus had dislodged the Earth from the centre of the Universe. The brotherhood of Man was reduced to individuals struggling against each other – a process of atomisation that culminated in Dawkins ‘selfish gene’. With fateful timing, On the Origin of Species arrived even as the Industrial Revolution was tearing society apart. Evolution ‘proved’ that we were all in desperate competition with each other: man against man – and, by analogy, tribe against tribe, nation against nation. This process of ‘individualisation’ was termed ‘progress’, itself a survival of Christianity’s linear time: creation, salvation, judgement, (as is another survival: the pernicious belief that God gave us the world for our use). Other societies, the Asian East for example, whose achievements of peace and beliefs in cyclical time were dismissed as ‘stagnation’, were shattered by our Western ‘progress’. Our civilisation conquered using the results of our relentless competition: weapons and industrialisation. All these factors coalesced with ever greater fury into the maelstrom of wars that we sucked the rest of the world into. Hitler’s creed, however crooked, was rooted in what had gone before.

So here we are today in a world that is still dominated by our Western ‘progress’. Socialism, the inheritor of Christ’s horizontal, levelling doctrine, is everywhere in retreat. Capitalism, in spite of all its failures, rules triumphant. And what is this ‘capitalism’ if not competition – endless, unrelenting competition? And what is competition but warfare writ small. Even in the modest arena of a football ground is it hard to see the game as being a ‘little war’?

Competition, whatever mask it wears, is the deadly foe of universal brotherhood. It is the vertical dimension in human affairs that sorts people into winners and losers. If we are determined to define our existence along this axis, then we should hardly be surprised that the gap between rich and poor is everywhere widening. We should hardly be surprised that we are all in a race against each other, a race that, when it doesn’t actually spill blood, rips our planet to pieces to feed its insatiable appetite for ‘progress’. We all know that we are on a trajectory to disaster, but even now our politicians are urging us to ‘grow’ our economies at ever greater speed.

For now at least religion’s credibility is spent. When it fights science with explanations of the world a thousand years old, it is going to lose. When it turns to violence, it loses. All the old forms of universal brotherhood have lost their power. We can hope that, through the internet, new forms are rising. But in the meantime, let us at least bear down on ‘competition’ – for in all its guises it is destructive to the world and to ourselves.

the experimental past

The study of the history of non-Western societies – especially those that have ‘failed’ – may be one of the most valuable resources that we have to help guide us through the coming ‘time of difficulty’ that we seem to be heading for.

Watching a good BBC documentary about Tiwanaku, I was struck by how pertinent to our present climate change woes was the story of these people, not only surviving, but flourishing in an environment that most of us would consider adverse to human existence. Not only do they provide us possibly with lessons in sustainable living – with their numerous adaptive feats of agriculture, technology and infrastructure design, but, perhaps even more importantly, they are a ‘social experiment’ carried out across diverse cultural groups, and over a span of centuries, of varying landscapes and climactic zones. It can hardly be imagined that any projected environmental ‘study’ that we are capable of – however powerful the computers we might use to produce a simulation – could possibly come close to providing us with the real world information that just this one example can.

The pre-conquest cultures of South America (specifically the Andean regions, with extensions east into the Amazon basin, and west into the narrow strip of land that runs between the Andes and the Pacific Ocean) may seem remote and only of interest to eccentric antiquarians, but the topography of that continent has provided, throughout history, a multitude of incredibly diverse landscapes that challenged the survival of the societies who lived in them. The level of adaptation that these societies made (or were forced to make) to their environments have revealed the remarkable truth that, without fossil fuels, large domestic animals, the wheel, or any use of metals (and alloys) harder than copper, they managed, in many places, to sustain larger populations than we are capable of today, and did so with enough comfort to be able to produce monumental architecture. The very complexity of the topography of South America has created a multiplicity of ‘niches’, often abutting against each other, in which such societies could develop. Empires in this region could thus, even when not spanning vast distances, take in everything from a torrid seacoast niche, to the high Altiplano and everything in between. Of particular interest is that many of these ‘experiments’ ultimately failed when the climate changed.

There are countless other examples from elsewhere. The Maya for one, whose population in the relatively constrained Yucatan, in that relatively constrained space, may have reached the kind of numbers that the early Roman Empire reached in its encircling of the Mediterranean. The reasons given for the ultimate collapse of Mayan civilization are varied, but a favoured explanation is that this occurred as a result of environmental degradation produced by over population. Another example, perhaps the example, is that of Easter Island – a social experiment carried out on an island that, through its extreme isolation, was as closed a system as a petri dish.

Other civilizations experimented with forms of government and of economic organisation. The Achaemenid Persian Empire, for example (that I have been studying as the setting for a novel). The study of these ‘dead’ cultures may seem esoteric (for all their beauty and fascination): at times I have thought such to be a sort of ‘ancestor worship’ – but consider if these studies may not perhaps turn out to be critical to us as our own civilisation edges towards its own possible collapse from climate change, environmental degradation, and competing and failing models of governance?

As the West loses its pre-eminence in human affairs, we seem to be less and less blind to these other histories. Until recently we have been obsessed with ourselves, with tracing the rise of our greatness, so that so many of our historians have lavished their attention on investigating the ‘line of progress’ that has brought us – apparently – from the birth of civilisation in Mesopotamia, through ancient Greece and Israel (with an input from ancient Egypt), through Rome, to Europe and then the period of Western imperialism that has ‘blossomed’ into our current system of global capitalism. On one level, this could be seen as a sort of ‘psychotherapy’ of Western civilization, though on another could it not be seen as a neo-Darwinist project that has been developing a narrative for why our dominance was not only justified, but inevitable? Either way, it seems to me that as we (humanity) realize that our culture seems to be leading us to disaster, we no longer have the luxury of such self-obsession.

So, rather than considering this exploration of non-Western history as some kind of pursuit for ivory tower scholars, I would like to suggest that is in fact a bringing together of all the critical knowledge and wisdom that can be gleaned from the social experiments that humanity has been carrying out on this planet over thousands of years. These experiments, participated in by people like ourselves, pushed frontiers and called on the ingenuity that we are capable of and came up with solutions that it would be wise of us to take heed of. Even more, the failures of these experiments provide us with lessons that were bought with the lives and diminishing opportunites of people for whom their societies were not experiments, but the lives they lived as best they could.

Subscribe to my Newsletter