From Parasitism to Mutualism
There’s something about being on a bicycle, packed with food and camping gear and heading down the road. Mary and I had been on a couple small trips and we were ready to ride our bikes out into the Gaspe Peninsula in Quebec, Canada. We took the train into Quebec at the beginning of the trip, arriving in Riveire du Loup at night where we had reservations for a bed and breakfast. We got there about 12:00 midnight. After exiting the train we packed our bikes and rode in the darkness to our accommodations. It was also dark at the bed and breakfast and there were no lights on, but according to our directions, we were told to find the green room. Wandering about in the darkness of the B&B we met another couple, also bikers, who had their headlamps on and had similar instructions - only they were looking for the red room. “What kind of a business is this? We asked one another. Together we finally figured our rooms out and we all went to bed. We met the owners the next morning and they were great. “Let’s face it, you only need lights on when you’re looking for something and most of the time nobody is looking for something so why waste the electricity”.
The start of the bike trip included one mile to the ferry where we crossed the St Lawrence River, one half a mile to the store to get supplies, and another mile to our campsite overlooking the river. Not bad for the first day, two and a half miles of biking. Well, I guess we’ll make it up the next day and the next day came soon enough. Out of the campsite it was uphill to the road. The situation didn’t look that great. The road was under construction and there was only one lane with no shoulder and uphill. Right off the road it dropped off without any guardrails onto huge rocks and the sea beyond. We waited in line with the stopped traffic until the flagman told us to go. There was nothing to do but to stay focused and wonder if this was such a good idea. At one point a slow moving tractor trailer passed us and if I didn’t feel the need to grip the handlebars so tight I could have reached out and touched it. Finally, getting to the top of the hill and out of the construction area we could finally relax, I asked, “So Mary, how’s it going?” Mary just stared at me, (I had to edit this part of her reply) “how do you think I’m doing, you call this a vacation?” During the next section of miles there really wasn’t much talking. Boy, in times like these you sure can have the time and space to think.
At a time when scientists researching the viability of the Amazon rainforest are stating that the “lungs of the world” are vulnerable of collapsing, and Brazilians are in desperate need of money claiming the Western economies are the real cause of their demise and need to pay; at a time when scientists researching the viability of our oceans are coming to the conclusion that if we stay on our present course ocean life as we know it will collapse; at a time when scientists that research climate change give out dire warnings about our future; at a time when social scientists warn of mass migration around the world due to war and famine; at a time when…maybe we are due for a change. If we look solely at efficiency or changing to alternative energy and do not look at the underlying issues of so many conflicts, we may be able to add on a few more years before our world collapses, however, I believe if we are to move into a future where our grandchildren can thrive, a huge change must occur.
At the time this article was being written the global leaders were in Paris negotiating over policies dealing with climate change. Not once during the coverage did I hear anything on throughput or where the resources are going to come from. There are so many other problems beyond the threat of climate change, problems that all share the need for an increase in resources, and at the same time we are all dealing with escalating personal and global debt.
On every front there is some social, economic or environmental catastrophe looming. The list is endless, some of which are; the declining vitality of our oceans, soils, plant and animal life, and fresh waters. As we begin this new millennium what is it that humanity must do to change this direction? It seems that the changes needed must be enormous. If this is so, what would a change of this magnitude look like? Rudolf Steiner suggested that such a change started taking place in the 15th century, has progressed and we must now make the radical change necessary to complete the change. Steiner referred to this era that ends before the end of the third millennium as the ‘Consciousness Soul Era’ and it is characterized by individuals thinking for themselves out of true human freedom. In this new way of meeting the world we must meet the challenges that we face in the right way. I think by looking at phenomena all around us, and with the help from the spiritual world, and/or moral convictions, we can choose our collective direction out of true human freedom.
Living in the United States we live with a certain amount of freedom but is it complete freedom? When living in a certain paradigm one lives according to the rules of that paradigm even though many of the rules are not overtly stated. In other words, in being raised by parents that have lived their life in the paradigm, who raise their offspring according to the existing paradigm and using schools that educate children according to the existing paradigm we are perpetuating the existing paradigm without realizing it. Anyone who lives outside the paradigm is isolated and discouraged; consequently the paradigm becomes an unstated law. Can this change?
The universities, during Galileo’s time period, had a monopoly on information. The professors accepted and taught Aristotle’s view of the world, ignoring Copernicus’ theory. Galileo promoted new ideas and with sarcasm attacked the universities’ paradigm. Galileo finished his life under house arrest for expressing his ideas. Psychological studies have verified that the human psyche usually can only make sense of information that is in an expected range. In other words, if new information is outside of expected possibilities for a specific person then it will not be possible for that person. This narrow range of possibilities is not only in the case of a single person but also the case for groups of people for instance a nation or even the world viewpoint.
Steiner believed that if we are to overcome the challenges that we face, that humanity must consider viewpoints outside of the cultural norm. “One who today makes impassioned speeches to men in the words they have so long been accustomed to hear can still usually count on some applause. But men will have to get used to listening to different words, different ways of putting things, if social cosmos is again to arise out of chaos.” (Rudolf Steiner-The Work of Angels In Man’s Astral Body, lecture in 1918).
In considering suffering Steiner saw that humanity had to take responsibility. “People may shy away from the notion that Angels want to call forth in them ideals for the future, but it is so all the same. And indeed in forming these pictures the Angels work on a definite principle, namely, that in the future no human being is to find peace in the enjoyment of happiness if others beside him are unhappy. An impulse of Brotherhood in the absolute sense, unification of the human race in Brotherhood rightly understood — this is to be the governing principle of the social conditions in physical existence.” (Rudolf Steiner-The Work of Angels in Man’s Astral Body, lecture in 1918)
Steiner had a unique picture of the paradigm change. My interpretation is as an affluent society we have access to resources giving us the opportunity and responsibility to bring the Consciousness Soul Era to fruition. If we do not bring this era through our willful consciousness and with the help of the spiritual world or/and moral convictions, then the changes will occur in ways that we do not expect and have no control over. “The sleeper, as long as sleep lasts, does not see the approach of a thief who is about to rob him; he is unaware of it and at most he finds out later on, when he wakes, what has been done to him. But it would be a bad awakening for humanity!” (Rudolf Steiner-The Work of Angels in Man’s Astral Body, lecture in 1918)
Mary and I recently attended a lecture on planting to support pollinators. Many of the pollinators, such as bees, we depend on to pollinate our food supply and they are declining at an alarming rate. One of the suggestions during the lecture was to leave debris around the yard because pollinators live in such areas. When we see a “well maintained, neat yard” there is nowhere for the pollinators to live. In this case we have to change our perception of what is beautiful and what is ugly. “In a certain respect, ugliness would be beauty and beauty, ugliness. Nothing of this would be perceived because it would all be regarded as natural necessity. But it would denote an aberration from the path which, in the nature of humanity itself, is prescribed for man's essential being.” (Rudolf Steiner-The Work of Angels In Man’s Astral Body, lecture in 1918)
Many spiritual leaders such as Gandhi and Martin Luther King have painted the picture of a holistic and more cooperative way of living in their own way, and just like many spiritual people that understand these concepts, there are many atheists that have come to this way of thinking, although not from their spiritual belief, but through their moral convictions.
In the articles “Future or Not the Future” and “Immovable Belief” paradigm change is explored. Looking at Lynn Margulis’ work there is strong evidence that cooperation, not competition, is the driving force of evolution. When we look at the definition of symbioses we think of organisms (or people) living in harmony with each other. Many use this term to explain two organisms living in balance- for example lichen, which is actually an algae and fungus living together. Symbiosis (more of a scientific definition) actually refers to two life forms living together and can be parasitic, commensalistic or mutualistic in nature. When we look at a parasitic relationship there is one symbiont that benefits from the relationship making sure its needs are met, whereas the other symbiont is actually harmed. The one that is harmed is either weakened slightly, allowing the parasite and host to continue living together, or the host could be weakened to the point where the host dies. If the host dies the parasite must move to another host or it will also die. Commensalism occurs when one symbiont is benefited and the other is neither harmed nor benefited. Mutualism occurs when both symbionts benefit from the relationship. If the Earth is considered the host, and humans are one of symbionts, then which category would we fall under, one of parasitic, commensalism or mutualism? Could the evolution of humankind progress to be more commensalistic, or even better yet mutualistic? Could this be part of the Consciousness Soul Era?
This new way of thinking has great implications. Instead of humankind taming or controlling nature, humanity would have to figure out how to be a part of or to cooperate with nature. We would develop buildings, technology, and education that people all over the world could afford. As an affluent society can we start thinking in a mutualistic way instead of parasitic way? This would mean that instead of considering ourselves, spouses or children as the center of attention we would place the other (Earth, the plants and animals and the rest of humanity) in the center.
In looking at cultural values we can view them more holistically and from many different angles. If we consider and have discussions about our culture and how it leans either toward low throughput verses high throughput, generalized verses specialized, parasitic verses mutualistic, simplistic verses complex, or war-like verses peaceful, we then can collectively start making decisions in the direction of a new paradigm. These concepts, and others, have to become part of a global topic of discussion informing decisions on which direction to take, and they must confront idealism with practicality. For example, if we did want to simplify our lives we may need the complexity of technology to accomplish this.
The start of the bike trip included one mile to the ferry where we crossed the St Lawrence River, one half a mile to the store to get supplies, and another mile to our campsite overlooking the river. Not bad for the first day, two and a half miles of biking. Well, I guess we’ll make it up the next day and the next day came soon enough. Out of the campsite it was uphill to the road. The situation didn’t look that great. The road was under construction and there was only one lane with no shoulder and uphill. Right off the road it dropped off without any guardrails onto huge rocks and the sea beyond. We waited in line with the stopped traffic until the flagman told us to go. There was nothing to do but to stay focused and wonder if this was such a good idea. At one point a slow moving tractor trailer passed us and if I didn’t feel the need to grip the handlebars so tight I could have reached out and touched it. Finally, getting to the top of the hill and out of the construction area we could finally relax, I asked, “So Mary, how’s it going?” Mary just stared at me, (I had to edit this part of her reply) “how do you think I’m doing, you call this a vacation?” During the next section of miles there really wasn’t much talking. Boy, in times like these you sure can have the time and space to think.
At a time when scientists researching the viability of the Amazon rainforest are stating that the “lungs of the world” are vulnerable of collapsing, and Brazilians are in desperate need of money claiming the Western economies are the real cause of their demise and need to pay; at a time when scientists researching the viability of our oceans are coming to the conclusion that if we stay on our present course ocean life as we know it will collapse; at a time when scientists that research climate change give out dire warnings about our future; at a time when social scientists warn of mass migration around the world due to war and famine; at a time when…maybe we are due for a change. If we look solely at efficiency or changing to alternative energy and do not look at the underlying issues of so many conflicts, we may be able to add on a few more years before our world collapses, however, I believe if we are to move into a future where our grandchildren can thrive, a huge change must occur.
At the time this article was being written the global leaders were in Paris negotiating over policies dealing with climate change. Not once during the coverage did I hear anything on throughput or where the resources are going to come from. There are so many other problems beyond the threat of climate change, problems that all share the need for an increase in resources, and at the same time we are all dealing with escalating personal and global debt.
On every front there is some social, economic or environmental catastrophe looming. The list is endless, some of which are; the declining vitality of our oceans, soils, plant and animal life, and fresh waters. As we begin this new millennium what is it that humanity must do to change this direction? It seems that the changes needed must be enormous. If this is so, what would a change of this magnitude look like? Rudolf Steiner suggested that such a change started taking place in the 15th century, has progressed and we must now make the radical change necessary to complete the change. Steiner referred to this era that ends before the end of the third millennium as the ‘Consciousness Soul Era’ and it is characterized by individuals thinking for themselves out of true human freedom. In this new way of meeting the world we must meet the challenges that we face in the right way. I think by looking at phenomena all around us, and with the help from the spiritual world, and/or moral convictions, we can choose our collective direction out of true human freedom.
Living in the United States we live with a certain amount of freedom but is it complete freedom? When living in a certain paradigm one lives according to the rules of that paradigm even though many of the rules are not overtly stated. In other words, in being raised by parents that have lived their life in the paradigm, who raise their offspring according to the existing paradigm and using schools that educate children according to the existing paradigm we are perpetuating the existing paradigm without realizing it. Anyone who lives outside the paradigm is isolated and discouraged; consequently the paradigm becomes an unstated law. Can this change?
The universities, during Galileo’s time period, had a monopoly on information. The professors accepted and taught Aristotle’s view of the world, ignoring Copernicus’ theory. Galileo promoted new ideas and with sarcasm attacked the universities’ paradigm. Galileo finished his life under house arrest for expressing his ideas. Psychological studies have verified that the human psyche usually can only make sense of information that is in an expected range. In other words, if new information is outside of expected possibilities for a specific person then it will not be possible for that person. This narrow range of possibilities is not only in the case of a single person but also the case for groups of people for instance a nation or even the world viewpoint.
Steiner believed that if we are to overcome the challenges that we face, that humanity must consider viewpoints outside of the cultural norm. “One who today makes impassioned speeches to men in the words they have so long been accustomed to hear can still usually count on some applause. But men will have to get used to listening to different words, different ways of putting things, if social cosmos is again to arise out of chaos.” (Rudolf Steiner-The Work of Angels In Man’s Astral Body, lecture in 1918).
In considering suffering Steiner saw that humanity had to take responsibility. “People may shy away from the notion that Angels want to call forth in them ideals for the future, but it is so all the same. And indeed in forming these pictures the Angels work on a definite principle, namely, that in the future no human being is to find peace in the enjoyment of happiness if others beside him are unhappy. An impulse of Brotherhood in the absolute sense, unification of the human race in Brotherhood rightly understood — this is to be the governing principle of the social conditions in physical existence.” (Rudolf Steiner-The Work of Angels in Man’s Astral Body, lecture in 1918)
Steiner had a unique picture of the paradigm change. My interpretation is as an affluent society we have access to resources giving us the opportunity and responsibility to bring the Consciousness Soul Era to fruition. If we do not bring this era through our willful consciousness and with the help of the spiritual world or/and moral convictions, then the changes will occur in ways that we do not expect and have no control over. “The sleeper, as long as sleep lasts, does not see the approach of a thief who is about to rob him; he is unaware of it and at most he finds out later on, when he wakes, what has been done to him. But it would be a bad awakening for humanity!” (Rudolf Steiner-The Work of Angels in Man’s Astral Body, lecture in 1918)
Mary and I recently attended a lecture on planting to support pollinators. Many of the pollinators, such as bees, we depend on to pollinate our food supply and they are declining at an alarming rate. One of the suggestions during the lecture was to leave debris around the yard because pollinators live in such areas. When we see a “well maintained, neat yard” there is nowhere for the pollinators to live. In this case we have to change our perception of what is beautiful and what is ugly. “In a certain respect, ugliness would be beauty and beauty, ugliness. Nothing of this would be perceived because it would all be regarded as natural necessity. But it would denote an aberration from the path which, in the nature of humanity itself, is prescribed for man's essential being.” (Rudolf Steiner-The Work of Angels In Man’s Astral Body, lecture in 1918)
Many spiritual leaders such as Gandhi and Martin Luther King have painted the picture of a holistic and more cooperative way of living in their own way, and just like many spiritual people that understand these concepts, there are many atheists that have come to this way of thinking, although not from their spiritual belief, but through their moral convictions.
In the articles “Future or Not the Future” and “Immovable Belief” paradigm change is explored. Looking at Lynn Margulis’ work there is strong evidence that cooperation, not competition, is the driving force of evolution. When we look at the definition of symbioses we think of organisms (or people) living in harmony with each other. Many use this term to explain two organisms living in balance- for example lichen, which is actually an algae and fungus living together. Symbiosis (more of a scientific definition) actually refers to two life forms living together and can be parasitic, commensalistic or mutualistic in nature. When we look at a parasitic relationship there is one symbiont that benefits from the relationship making sure its needs are met, whereas the other symbiont is actually harmed. The one that is harmed is either weakened slightly, allowing the parasite and host to continue living together, or the host could be weakened to the point where the host dies. If the host dies the parasite must move to another host or it will also die. Commensalism occurs when one symbiont is benefited and the other is neither harmed nor benefited. Mutualism occurs when both symbionts benefit from the relationship. If the Earth is considered the host, and humans are one of symbionts, then which category would we fall under, one of parasitic, commensalism or mutualism? Could the evolution of humankind progress to be more commensalistic, or even better yet mutualistic? Could this be part of the Consciousness Soul Era?
This new way of thinking has great implications. Instead of humankind taming or controlling nature, humanity would have to figure out how to be a part of or to cooperate with nature. We would develop buildings, technology, and education that people all over the world could afford. As an affluent society can we start thinking in a mutualistic way instead of parasitic way? This would mean that instead of considering ourselves, spouses or children as the center of attention we would place the other (Earth, the plants and animals and the rest of humanity) in the center.
In looking at cultural values we can view them more holistically and from many different angles. If we consider and have discussions about our culture and how it leans either toward low throughput verses high throughput, generalized verses specialized, parasitic verses mutualistic, simplistic verses complex, or war-like verses peaceful, we then can collectively start making decisions in the direction of a new paradigm. These concepts, and others, have to become part of a global topic of discussion informing decisions on which direction to take, and they must confront idealism with practicality. For example, if we did want to simplify our lives we may need the complexity of technology to accomplish this.
