November 23, 2015 - 16:14
I appreciated that Bowers said that change is not always progress, which I think is true; we do not always go forward, sometimes we go backward.
The fact that he pointed out the relationship between hunter-gatherer communities/native tribes and ecological intelligence was interesting to me because from what I have learned from history classes, visiting history museums, and reading history/historical fiction, there is evidence of more connection to the earth and to multiple generations than it seems like there is now. I think this is true not only for native tribes but in the past (thinking of 1600s to mid-1800s in America, and more specifically, New England) for pilgrims and agricultural/rural families. Children learned from parents and grandparents about what resources the Earth held and how to obtain them, and then passed that knowledge to their younger siblings and later on in life, their own children. Were they forced to be ecologically intelligent because they lived in smaller, tight-knit communities and relied more Earth/environment directly for their survival? Bower mentioned that with the introduction of perspective in the 15th century and Descartes' views on intelligence, people looked more from an individual/("I" and "me") point of view- was this only true for the upper class who looked at that art and read philosophy? Was the introduction into "autonomous individual" at a later point in time for lower classes/peasants/farmers?
I'm curious about what my classmates think about this in the context of history- I have heard people mention (usually older adults) that "x" decade/era was "the good old days" and that they want to go back to a "simpler way of life." Is this true, were the simpler times the better times? Are our interactions with each other and the physical environment diminishing irreparably, ruined by technology and desire for mass and fast production? Or can we fix them? How are we trying to fix them?