Not a Straight Line

[tablesaw]

I mentioned Quora in my last post. It's a weird site, and I'm going to post about my experiences with it.

It's not a site that I would have really gone to on my own, but a friend has been raving about it, so I've been trying it out. It has a "real names" policy (not clearly defined, but presumably on par with Google Plus, from which I am still banned). However they do allow one to make certain actions anonymously, so I am making anonymous actions, to which I sign my name Tablesaw. All this to say that if you are on, or go to Quora, you won't find me as a user (and please don't look for my "real name" profile, if you happen to know my government-ID name).

Anyway.

My friend Kat posted this in response to the question, "What are the most civilized things about civilization?" It reads in part:

The worst thing about civilization, then is the blind drive to preserve the civilization regardless of the cost. We're currently facing the possibility of the collapse of the oceanic ecosystem, and meanwhile, time is wasted squabbling over profit and political gain. We argue about precepts set down during a long bygone age, and about insults in the manner of address and commerce and privilege between our subdivisions. I am as guilty of this as any other.

It inspired this on chat:

Kat:

I think I just undermined myself: http://www.quora.com/Civilization/What-are-the-most-civilized-things-about-civilization/answer/Kat-Tanaka-Okopnik

Tablesaw:

Howso?

Kat:

I just declared that all Social Justice and discussion about food and anything else pales in importance compared to global ecological crisis.

Tablesaw:

The way you framed it, yes. But actually considering your opinion, no.

Tablesaw:

Your answer posits a thing that is most important for civilization, but your previous examples suggest pinnacles of civilization come from rigorously pursuing a single goal.

Tablesaw:

Your concern also stems from the assumption that reaching your posited end goal is a straight line that will not require steps like reducing the influence of racialized social structures.

Kat:

ahhh, nice.

Kat:

Pity you can't comment anonymously. :P

Kat:

(You'll have to post a separate answer and cross-reference mine if you want to remain anon)

Tablesaw:

I don't really care to for this, since I'm mostly responding to your private question about what you've said. Reframing for public consumption in Quora's framework is too tiresome.

Kat:

*nod*

Tablesaw:

If you'd like, I can link to the Quora answer, then share our brief chat transcript on DW.

Comments

[seekingferret]

Hmm... A few thoughts. First, as an engineer I reject the assertion that standardization of fasteners has any more than metaphoric correlation with standardization of people. I suppose it's possible to negotiate a path that anything that improves communication reduces individualization, if one is extremely nuanced in how they understand both communication and individualization, but I don't think I could buy any generic formulation of that equivalency.

I think I would harmonize Kat's two statements differently, also. The idea that one can assert a particular objective as 'most important to civilization' I find suspect. Kat's definition of civilization requires that civilization be a thing which is attentive to the needs of multiple people. The idea that in joining civilization those peoples' goals would be automatically unified is attractive but I believe erroneous. Social injustice may be the primary threat to some goals of civilization, the most significant method of one kind of civilization collapse, while ecological disaster may be the primary threat to other goals of civilization.