Deep Adaptation

 So, I have read a paper by Jem Bendall called "Deep Adaptation", not least because it is a core paper for Extinction Rebellion. I was not entirely happy with this paper, and have found some critiques of this. If you want to read the original paper, it is available in many forms online.

It draws on a concept known as Collapsology, which I will also consider later. The core approach is that our society will collapse in the near future, and we need to understand how to deal with this.

As I have argued before, there is a lot of overlap between Quakerism and Anarchism, so you might think I would embrace these ideas wholeheartedly. The problem is that the deliberate introduction of an anarchist society is not the same as a societal collapse - which is (as we have seen in the last years) liable to benefit the wealthy who can use their money initially to remain safe. The society we would have at the end is much more like the nightmare scenario at the end of Atlas Shrugged, not a fair and egalitarian society for all.

So this is the critique of Deep Adaptation. The main problem they have with the original paper is that it is unscientific. This is critical, because Bendall makes leaps of assumption, without evidence, without a justification. He makes claims that are exagerated and not jsutified by the evidence or the science behind this.

A lack of scientific basis does not as such mean that he is wrong. He may be right, the science may be wrong. But the point is that he is making claims based on the science, and that is always dangerous. Right or wrong, there is no actual justification for his claims.

Most importantly, he draws from individual scientists who differ from the consensus argument. These outliers are really important in scientific study - they can sometimes identify issues with the consensus argument, and drive modifications and change to adjust the consensus position. Not to change to the outliers view, but to adjust the core principle to embrace the issues.

Bendall does not do this. He ignores the consensus provided by the IPCC, and focusses on contrasting views. This is worrying, because it is the same approach that the "-deniers" use - climate, vacine, covid: whatever it is, they use the same techniques. They ignore the 99% of scientists and focus on the small number who disagree. It is dangerous in all sorts of ways, not least, because these ideas can then get emphasised and repeated way beyond what they deserve. Because they are then often repeated, they are seen as being authoritive, which they are not.


So, Collapology - an idea based on books like this. The problem with this idea is that it is similarly not really backed by science - not least because there is little science around the collapse of civilisations. Because there are insufficient examples, that are applicable.

Society is changing. In the next decades, we will see some radical changes in the society we live in, because of the challenge of fossil fuels, climate change and who knows what else. We will change, but will we collapse? If - as I can only hope - capitalism is at an end, what would this mean? For some, it would mean something that may appear like collape, but for most people, it would just be a change, a new society, run on different lines. What these lines are we cannot say. But we would still have society.

So Collapology appears to have little real justification either. This doom-mongering is what Roger Hallam of XR is known for. It might help their cause, but for many people it is demotivating. If - as is claimed - our society is inevitably doomed to collapse, why do anything about it? This is a core problem with this approach, and why I struggle with this approach.

I think it is better to argue that we need to change - we need to destroy the capitalist ideaology that destroys everything; we need to change our society to one where all are valued and supported; we need to have a society that exists in harmony with the earth.

Gender is not binary

 I know that I am gooing to get in so much trouble for this, but I would stand by the title. Gender is not binary. People are a mix of male and female, and people exhibit characteristics of their gender identities.

And, yes, some people do not feel comfortable with the gender they are assigned and so should have the chance to change it.

And whenever people say this, the respons is always: "Oh, so you want men to be able to identify as women and invade womens safe spaces?"

And - to me - that just buys into the binary division again. It shouldn't be "womens safe spaces" (Not even getting into the question of what sort of society requires safe spaces for half the population) - maybe cis-womens spaces? Maybe vulnerable females spaces? Defining purely by gender is not what these should be about. And yes, I know that many women feel that they need places where there are no men because of their past experiences, and I support that. But they need defining more clearly - gender is not a good way of specifying these.

"Oh what about toilets then?" Sigh. Well, I think our odd human-created binary division of toilets is itself rather peculiar. I have never quite worked out why we feel a need for shared spaces there anyway. And yes, I do think that some places do need safe spaces as well, for vulnerable people. I think we are confusing messages when we amalgamate these.

 

And then we get to the biblical arguments. Gen 5:2 "Male and female He created them". Well, there are all sorts of issues with this, and I might translate it differently: The (ungendered) divine created humans as (both) male and female. In other words, in each of us is both male and female. 

Now I am not claiming that this is the "right" interpretation - although it does seem to make viable sense. All I am saying is that the traditional understanding is not the only way to understand it. Claiming that there is a "Biblical justification" for a binary gender divide does not hold water.

And there are implications of this in other areas. Complimentarianism is one area: the idea that men and women are "equal but complimentary" which is a teaching very common in some evangelical circles. The thing is, if gender is not binary, the ideas of complimentarianism are invalidated. There are not "assigned roles" to each gender, becasue the genders are not so clearly divided. 

If not binary - if trans people are vallid in terms of who they are - what do I understand? I think - in broad terms - that someone who is born male but understands themselves to be female is not then simply able to define themselves as female. They are then "trans", somewhere on their way to female. They are simply exploring their more female aspects. Like we all should be. Refusing to divide into binary classifications is not a negative thing. It is a positive. It is about acknowledging that we - none of us - are not stereotypes.

I think that is a positive.

 

Spring

So the trees outside my window are just starting to put out leaves - it is odd, because last week there was just sticks and this week all the trees are covered in new leaves. It is a sign of Spring coming!

But not everywhere, of course - we went to near Leicester yesterda and had a walk around a tree garden, and none of the trees had leaves on them. So it is early days - it is just starting to spread northwards.

Sometimes I feel like no more than a leaf on a tree. One of thousands, whose individual contribution is minute. But each leaf on a tree contributes to the whole. And all the trees together are important - the millions of leaves together make up spring, make up the plant life on our planet. Each leaf is a part of this, but each one is important.

Easter is a sign of "new life", and this Easter - for all sorts of reasons - this Easter feel maybe a new start. Maybe just the start of the end of the Covid nightmare. Maybe, the start of the end of so much of what we have seen before - in terms of working, of the capitalism that we have all become so used to, of the political oppression we have experienced for so long. Who knows.

But there is hope. Maybe just a glimmer, but that is enough.

A place near to your altar

 I have been reading the psalms of late, and this is one of the themes that comes up. It also reminds me of a beautiful song, which draws from the same places (I cannot find a link - sorry).

And it sets me to thinking - how do we understand and interpret this idea in a non-sacramental form of Christianity, like the Quakers? We have no altar, and we meet in a room with no special meaning or structure.

So it is worth considering what the original meaning of this is. The place "near to the altar" is about a life dedicated to the worship of God - those near to the altar were the priests dedicated to the temple for life. These are the people who lived in the very presence of the divine. whose life was dedicated to maintaining this worship.

The problem is that this role has - because of some people in such roles - it has been confused. The role "near to the altar" is not a gatekeeper to God. Their role is to facilitate and enable to sacrifices of the people, the peoples worship of God. Also, it is not for "special" people - it is privileged, and these are different.

So, how does this relate to a Quaker faith? The "altar" - the presence of the divine - is still what we seek. a place near the divinity is my desire still. But also - it is about seeing this divinity not just in a place, not in a physical place, but in all of the world.

I live opposite a childrens playground. I can sit and watch the kids playing, enjoying themselves and exploring their abilities. I think I have a place near to the altar.

"Do not covet your neighbours ass"

 Yes, it is hilarious. To clear my mind of the humour in this, I had to explore what this actually said in Exodus. And it did prove interesting.

The list of things we are told not to "covet" are our neighbours house, animals and wife and other possessions. Yes, as we all know the wife was considered a possession.

So I will come back to that in a moment. Firstly, the word "covet" - it means desire, lust, unhealthy passion for. It is not just about wanting things, it is about obsessive desire for things. And, in this case, it is based on an obsessive desire for things because someone else has them.

The other word is "neighbour" - something there has been so much written about I cannot really add more. But it refers to others in the community. Our neighbours are those who are part of our community - whether we like it or not. They are those around us - whether we like them or not. People we live in the same area as us, people we work with, people we are at church with, people in our community. Not just people we like or respect - the point of the word "neighbour" is that they are near us, and may have no more in common than that.

But, to return to the passage about coveting these things are all about wealth and status. They are about not seeking the status of others, their position in society. The reason for this is because such jealousies are damaging to community. The call here is to work together, build together the community, the society we live in. To work all together to make the neighbourhood better.

I can only think that we in the UK might be in a better position, a better state in the world, if we had all - right the way to the top - followed this idea.

Do we know how to educate young people?

 Now I need to start by saying that I am not here criticising teachers or pedagogy in general. This post has come out of discussions I have had on social media which have helped me clarify my understanding.

It comes also from watching programmes like "Back in time..." and also "Educating...". Which are always really interesting insights into the past and the present.

So the challenge of "educating" young people is actually a relatively new one. You don't have to go back very far to the point where most young people did not get an education as such - they learned what they needed on the job, from family or artisans. It was only those with independent wealth who could take the time to travel and spend time discussing with others. Or reading books - a talent that was also an indication of privilege.

The early forms of education of young people tended to rely on "rote learning". In simple terms, a teacher put something on a blackboard, the students would copy it down and were expected to learn it. I say early - within my lifetime, the idea of learning bible verses by heart has been promoted as a way to educate young people. Rote learning has many problems, not least that it doesn't work.

My era of learning was very much more "hands on". Actually, it was an era of educational experimentation - schools where the pupils could do what they wanted were the vogue idea.

Today, there is a different idea too - engaging education, dealing with pupils much more as individuals. There is, in the sciences, a lack of the excitement and experimentation that I experienced, but there is a lot that is significantly better. Not least, the acceptance that different pupils will learn in different ways.

The problem still, in my view, is that we don't educate them. The focus is examinations, and - to a large extent - the teaching is to an examination. We train young people to pass exams, and in doing so, I think we fail to educate them.

The other thing that inspired this line of thought is the comments this week that "we need to get young people into school" otherwise they are not being educated. I strongly disagree with this, because most young people can - with some direction - get an education outside a school. Looking at and exploring nature can be educational. Discussion can be educational. TV can be educational. Listening to grandparents can be educational. Reading books - or even spending time on the internet - can be educational.

It may not help them pass exams. But then, I don't believe that passing exams should be the purpose of education. Education should seek to expand young peoples minds, provide them with tools they need to learn throughout their lives. Especially now, when the future might be very significantly different to the present, they need the skills to relearn, reskill, rethink. Not just pass exams.

I don't think we do know how to educate young people. It is not the fault of the teachers or the people who teach the teachers. It is the fault of the political direction. And in this, I think we are still failing our young people.

Engaging worship

 So, some people find the idea of a zoom Quaker worship odd - a zoom meeting where everyone is muted? I mean, why?

 More traditional churches have taken a variety of approaches to online worship - zoom from the building or YouTube of the service seem to be common. It struck me that this is very much reflecting the form of worship we are used to: worship as presentation. Where the participants can join in or not, and it makes very little real difference.

 And then, in the meeting this morning, I realised that our silent meetings are totally different. Joining in - being a part of the meeting - is not an optional aspect. Each person is a full participant, and it makes a difference.

I am not intending to criticise any form of worship, but I did get a real sense of participation today, that I do not think everyone gets from a broadcast service. Because, for me, I am not "joining in". I am an essential part of the worship - actually, an existential part of it, as my typo wanted to suggest. Without me, it does not exist.

Silent meeting is not for everyone. But zoom meeting is as participative and corporate as physical meeting. And it is an experience that helps me understand deeper what worship really is.