Just because "globalism" has become a synonym for a particular flavor of aristocratic elitist power emanating out of Davos doesn't mean Planet Earth is actually 200 little balls instead of one big ball. All globalisms have a powerful phenomenological foundation (4/few)
-
Show this thread
-
Whenever I'm tempted to forget this and take dumbass nationalist boundaries and reified egregores too seriously, I consider animals and their ways of being on the planet. Like Arctic Terns that migrate 70,000 km roundtrips from pole to pole WITHOUT EVER GOING TO DAVOS (5/few)
2 replies 10 retweets 61 likesShow this thread -
Or cats, which have colonized earth as well as humans. Or erupting volcanoes that affect weather 1000s of km away. Or New World vegetables that are now part of cuisines worldwide. Earth is a far more deeply connected place than our *political* experience of it suggests (6/few)
1 reply 4 retweets 43 likesShow this thread -
tldr: Don't let shitty people with limited perspectives tell you that wanting to experience the planet as a single place is an evil thing or that their maps are the territory. (end/few)
4 replies 7 retweets 85 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @vgr
How can one reconcile globalism with the basic human urge to territorialize? It seems like statehood is a compromise and somewhat of an attempt to minimize territorial violence.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @simpolism
I don’t think there’s a basic human urge to territorialize. The reverse in fact. We’re more nomadic than sessile.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @vgr @simpolism
are domesticated agriculturalist city-building humans the same as the ancestral nomadic hunter-gatherer humans? has it been long enough (in terms of selection pressure) that we're now something different than what we came from?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @danlistensto @simpolism
I don’t think so. Against the Grain by James Scott specifically argues that sedenterization by agriculture in near east happened against very stiff resistance. 10k years since Neolithic is mere instant in evolutionary time.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @vgr @simpolism
too little time for much accumulation of gradual changes. not all evolution is gradual though. hell, not all evolution is genetic, for that matter. do humans with sufficiently different cultural histories count as different varieties?
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @danlistensto @simpolism
Step-function evolution tends to be pointillist in effects, like lactose tolerance. Nomadic —> Sedentary is too broad-based a shift. As for memetic evolution, it seems to reshape extended phenotype rather than deep psyche. We reproduce paleo-nomad forms in new environment.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes
conjecture, just for fun: suppose the adaptation is not nomadic -> sedentary but is rather in social cognition group size limit ~1000 (tribe scale) -> 1 million (city scale)?
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.