The Beauty of The Darkness

Once upon a time in a faraway land lived a man who published the darkest truths about the happy clappy narratives that so many people appear to want to hear. OK, that is just sarcasm, but who can blame them honestly? Actually, I used to enjoy hearing stories about how mankind is providing all kinds of solutions to the problems which befuddle us. Of course, this was before I realized that technology is an evolutionary cul-de-sac - a big, fat dead-end. 

Since then, I have embarked on a journey of sorts, to discover why so many people drink the Kool-Aid provided by industry and those who promote it. Partly a phenomenon of denial of reality and optimism bias, most people simply cannot handle the truth. That truth is contained in a quote from William Catton Jr.'s book Overshoot:

"Homo sapiens has exploited too much. Human "success" entailed enclosure of an unprecedentedly large fraction of the total environment within the expanding boundaries of proliferating man-tool systems. There was consequently less "outside" in proportion to "inside" than had ever before been the case. The ironic result was that technology, which originally had been a means of increasing the human carrying capacity per acre of space or per ton of substance, became instead a means of increasing the space required per human occupant and the substance required per human consumer.

Post-exuberant man found himself playing a game with changed rules. It was no longer uniformly true that additions to technology added to hls habitat's carrying capacity. At 500 miles per hour it took fewer planes than at 150 miles per hour to make the airways crowded. At 325 tons per bite, it took fewer digging operations than with a digging stick to devastate the countryside.

Man used to live in a world where carrying capacity was equal to the product: resources times technology. Man's "success" changed it into a world in which carrying capacity was coming to equal the quotient: resources divided by technology. The predicament of mankind no longer consisted merely of the simple Malthusian problem of an expanding population pressing against fixed limits or a finite habitat (or against less rapidly rising limits of a stretchable habitat). Now it was a worse predicament - an expanding population with burgeoning technological power was shrinking the carrying capacity of its habitat."

That part of the book appears on page 154 and is a rather poignant observation of society in general today. This is something most people have absolutely no clue about and therefore misunderstand technology's role in our demise. The very tools which help us do everyday tasks are actually producing the symptom predicaments everyone is familar with (climate change, energy and resource decline, pollution loading, biodiversity decline, extinction, etc.) under the umbrella of the master predicament of ecological overshoot. Unfortunately, many people blame all kinds of other issues for creating the emissions which are typically used as misdirection. While it is true that emissions are causing climate change, way too many scientists completely ignore the fact that it is technology use and our behaviors which are causing those emissions, and as long as we continue to promote civilization (supported by technology use), emissions will continue to be far higher than if we began promoting degrowth, a reduction of technology use, and a drive to abandon civilization as a system of living. 

One may ask, "Why is this so difficult to get through to people?" The sad answer is that there is no money in reducing technology use. In other words, money trumps having a livable biosphere in many people's minds. In essence, many people would rather drive their cars, use their smartphones, and pickup food at McDonald's today and become extinct tomorrow as a result (although most probably do not comprehend that this is the outcome of that behavior). Immediate gratification over long-term sustainability is the theme. All the behaviors which would actually benefit all of mankind and millions of other species such as love, cooperation, charity, empathy, and others don't provide the millionaires and billionaires with a stream of revenue to continue destroying what is left of the biosphere. So, in an effort to continue that source of revenue, they provide us with all sorts of distractions such as EVs, "clean" technology (something which does not exist now and never will), "green" and "renewable" energy, and "sustainable growth", none of which will solve the predicament of ecological overshoot - indeed, they ALL take us in the wrong direction instead. 

Recently, a friend pointed me in the direction of this website (which I included in my last article), claiming that emergence is a solution to overshoot. My knowledge of what a predicament is precludes the possibility of solutions, as only outcomes are possible with them. So, this idea to me is just that - an IDEA, not a solution. While I cannot predict the future any better than anyone else can, I more or less concluded that this idea of emergence is nothing more than pure hopium. While there MAY be many positive developments including a reduction of ecological overshoot as a result, this doesn't equate to a solution. The site is promoting a "new civilization" which undermines precisely what the site claims to be offering a solution for. Civilization being unsustainable by definition, replacing it with another won't help.

Likewise, yet another website offers a 2-hour online course committed to "bringing forth an environmentally sustainable, spiritually fulfilling, and socially just human presence on this planet." This sounds really great, unfortunately I don't see any discussion there about how to reduce technology use or do away with civilization. So, in other words, they are promising something that isn't even possible! Another fault that they employ is hyping the same ole' fantasies, myths, and fairy tales that I have written about in the past. It seems that there are countless websites offering this same general set of empty promises - more denial of reality and optimism bias in action. The same general theme of humanity coming together is stressed in each, and while I see this as a given requirement to accomplish almost any goal, I wrote this article about the likelihood of radical transformation almost two years ago.

On a similar note, I happened to see this video in the Methane News Group where I promptly responded with the information I found about this person, quote:

"Per Espen Stoknes, a psychologist with PhD in economics, chairs the Center for Green Growth at the Norwegian Business School. He also spearheads the Business school’s Master of Management program Green Growth, and consults widely. A serial entrepreneur, including co-founding clean-tech company GasPlas, he’s also written several books. Phone Number: +47 915 95 161 Email: per.espen(at)stoknes.com."

Needless to say, once the video has been viewed, one can easily spot the marketing hype behind his attempts. After all, electrification solves nothing, because powering civilization differently doesn't make it any more sustainable. Ancient civilizations all collapsed for various reasons yet none of them had electricity. Another clue as to the manipulation behind the video was given when he mentioned doomism in it - another clear sign of someone suffering from wetiko.

So, what is the beauty of the darkness and how might it help us? This might be somewhat cryptic, however, think about what places looked like at night before electricity generation began. There are still many places where one can go to view this phenomenon and these locations can be found at the International Dark Sky Association (see this link for details). I generally get some of these types of views at some of the more remote campgrounds on trips, but these places are truly magical; especially in some of the remote locations in the western US. Check out this video for more information.

Many times people ask what can be done to reduce ecological overshoot. I wrote a three-part series (part one, part two, and part three) answering this question back in 2021. Reducing technology use across the board is key. The beauty of the darkness is one of these ways to reduce multiple issues as can be seen in the video. Reducing our impact and bringing others to see what is possible is really the only option available. Others still may choose not to participate and we must accept that possibility. We must also accept the reality and gravity of the predicaments we face. Still, the truth of the matter is that change comes from within. If we truly want to change the world around us, we must be open to changing ourselves first and foremost. Demonstrating that change is not only possible but fairly easy in many circumstances shows other people that they too can participate! It needs to be stressed, however, that change does not equal solutions - the predicaments we face still have outcomes. Those outcomes can be improved but not eliminated entirely, so making empty promises of things that just cannot be should be seen immediately as nothing more than hogwash. Until next time...

Live Now!