New York Times, by Benedict

¶ … New York Times, by Benedict Carey, "Who's Minding the Mind," he explains that a considerable number of research studies on human cognition have found that human beings are more reactive than they might think. It is believed, or hoped, that humans are very proactive and consciously control their thoughts and behavior. However, studies show that there continues to be a strong instinctual part of the reptilian brain that makes unconscious decisions on its own. When looking at history, this conclusion should not come as any surprise.

In many cases, humans are reactive rather than proactive. The two readings "Technology, Trauma and the Wild," by Chellis Glendinning and "The Ancient Ones" a chapter about the Anasazi in Jared Diamond's book Collapse, both show this human tendency of reaction. Whether it is the Anasazi of approximately 600 AD or humans of the 21st century, it appears that the tendency is to only be proactive when it is too late.

Why did such an advanced culture as the Anasazi collapse? According to Diamond, agriculture was such an integral aspect of this society that when the crops began to fail and finally the drought came in, they were unable to adapt. This same question is relevant today. Humans in most nations of the world are highly reliant on technology, or even addicted to it as Glendinning details, because of its benefits in health, mental and physical well being and entertainment/social life.

Yet, as it is becoming increasingly known, this same technology is causing such problems as deforestation, tropical rainforests destruction, over-fishing, soil erosion and salinization, global warming, depletion of fresh water supply, energy exhaustion, toxics in air, water and soil and overpopulation. On top of this, according to Glendinning, other aspects in our society such as child abuse can also be seen as indicative of this technology addiction, as well as a possibility of beginning to disassociate if major changes occur.

According to Diamond, the Anasazi were very innovative in their ability to survive in their difficult environment of low water, irregular rainfall, and nutrient-poor soils. As the population grew, they fed on agriculture, which sometimes used irrigation to flood the fields. The Anasazi cut down trees for firewood and, in some places more than others, for construction. In every agricultural location, they caused environmental problems with extensive tree cutting and soil exhaustion. Then, they would abandon the site and move on after a few decades.

The closer areas became so deforested that they had to go farther and farther away for lumber, until finally they were getting 600-pound logs from 75 miles away and about 4,000 feet above the settlements. In addition, the water levels dropped too low for irrigation and the draught hit. The Anasazi's society could not carry on. Of interest in the Anasazi situation is that they either they did not have the ability to learn from their experiences, did not care about the outcomes, or thought there were other opportunities.

Every few decades, they would destroy the land and have to start all over again with a new area for crops. This means that in one person's lifetime, he/she probably experienced more than one of these transitions.

Over such a long period of time, why didn't they rotate, or reforest (which Native Americans did), or find some other means of survival? Did they say, "We'll worry about it if/when it happens? But right now we are fine and have other things to worry about?" This type of response is heard quite often with modern humans. In an interview with ABC Radio (Garrett, 2003), Diamond was asked if he thought that technology will save us if the situation became as dim as the Anasazi.

He said he was not as hopeful as his peers regarding the future and technology as a "savior." A few years ago, he had a two-hour discussion with Bill Gates who said he had the feeling that technology will solve the environmental problems. Others actually assume that technology is capable of doing this. Diamond disagrees on two counts: The first is that technology has created "an explosion" of problems and the potential for solving them.

Yet, the first thing that occurs is technology creates the problem and then maybe later it solves it, so at best there is a lag (or as noted above a reaction, rather than a proactive stance). Second, an environmental lesson repeated again and again is that it is much less expensive and more effective to prevent a problem from the start than to solve it by high technology later on. Environmentally, much of the world is in both of these situations noted by Diamond.

First, people are just beginning to recognize the environmental problem. Years of concerns by environmentalists did not influence the average consumer. Al Gore's movie and other media pushes have put the idea of global warming and the need to be "green," into the forefront. However, as Diamond states, there is a lag between when something is done and if and when it has an impact. Also, the concessions that people are making are not that extensive: Some people are buying hybrid cars; some are using green products; some are recycling.

It definitely is not part of total cultural values. In addition, are people willing to make the concessions that will be necessary to either solve or at least reduce the environmental problems? The costs will be huge. Just as important, the technology addicts as Glendinning calls them, would have to reduce or even stop their use of certain activities that they have become more than used to.

Just as the alcoholic is not able to do without his drinks, can the average person "proactively" cut energy use by a sizeable amount through carpooling, walking/riding a bike, cutting unnecessary travel, greatly reducing heating/cooling systems, etc., etc., Does this person care enough to do so, or will he/she wait until there is no other choice? Glendinning writes about disassociate behavior that occurs when people have difficulties getting what they need.

What it is like in other parts of the country is unknown, but here it is possible to see the stress that has been continually mounting over the past year as the prices of food and fuel have been going up, the foreclosure numbers have risen considerably, and the layoffs, mergers and acquisitions.