Free Will: The Grand Illusion

Martin Marietta Park, New Bern, North Carolina

A new article from Dave Pollard really got me thinking, and my desire to tie together the material I have already compiled and to make sense of it all along with the material I was reading made me realize that here was a new article in the making. It takes much humility to comprehend exactly how small we really are in this universe, how interconnected to everything else we are, and how much of our attention is spent doing all the things we are more or less pre-programmed to do by biology, genetics, instinct, and conditioning. Many or most people believe in free will despite the fact that no such thing actually exists. The rest of what we do is chosen from a set of mostly pre-programmed options indoctrinated into us from cultural programming.

Our behavior is based upon a set of pre-existing rules, so in reality, we do not have free will. Many people claim that we have free will but that it is limited to those pre-existing rules. Again, this isn't taking reality into consideration. For instance, many people think that if they could go back into the past, they would do something differently. They're forgetting that whatever it was that they did that they think they would do differently was done that way based on a set of decisions or reasons, and those decisions or reasons would not change based upon the knowledge that was available to them at that point in time. Given the same circumstances and the same knowledge they had at the time, more than likely the exact same choice would be made today. 

I have written two different articles based on this same topic which are tied into many of my other articles, one titled, Agency - Do We Have Free Will?, and the other titled, The Grand Illusion. These were to explain why so many different ideas (which otherwise might help) on how to deal with the predicaments we face might be technically possible but are realistically infeasible. Some ideas (anything dealing with technology use) take us in the wrong direction altogether and will not help. Most of the ideas that actually gain widespread support from society fall into the second category while the ones that actually might help do not win such support. Admittedly, few people are interested in reducing technology use, promoting degrowth, and promoting the abandonment of the system of civilization even though this is not really optional. Either we do it voluntarily or nature will do it for us. This is the bind we are in and the longer we continue bargaining with the predicament instead of accepting the truth, the faster we condemn ourselves to extinction.  

Much of this disconnect with reality has to do with the human inability to think systemically AND our inability to understand the exponential function. In addition, very few people can see all that far down the road in general. Yet another factor also is responsible for this disconnect with reality. Urbanization has accomplished two very important things to society. It has separated people psychologically from the ecosphere and it has separated them physically from the ecosystems that actually sustain them. This makes having an ecological knowledge and a connection with nature almost impossible without actually having this pointed out and the person having an actual interest in discovering the truth. My travels over the last decade have made this painfully obvious to me, as I have countless pictures of trailheads, parks, nature centers, and other natural recreational spots where I am the only person there. 20 years ago these places would have all been packed with people (just like all the similar places I visited back then).  

This denial of reality is precisely part of human nature and what has allowed us to get to this point in time. Without technology use, negative feedbacks would have kept our numbers in check to a sustainable level. Going back to my quip about things that could be done which might actually help reduce ecological overshoot being technically possible but realistically infeasible, this more or less means that, yes, we could do these things, but we won't. Why we won't has to do with the entrenched systems of civilization and civilizational inertia, in addition to the Maximum Power Principle. These are simple, objective, biophysical realities, no differently than civilization being inherently unsustainable. Whether a person agrees with that reality or not is more or less entirely irrelevant because his or her opinion won't change those facts. 

One of the things I understand about false beliefs and denial is that knowledge doesn't change behavior. A person will only change his or her behavior when he or she is ready, period. No amount of persuasion, pleading, or negotiations will have any long-term effect until and unless the person is actually ready to change. So even though I constantly put out these articles in hopes of at least raising a few eyebrows, I'm not expecting any major societal changes in behavior. The major societal changes won't take place until the relative abundance we have today is gone. So, educating people about ecological overshoot or telling them that they "need to do this" or any other form of attempting to change behavior will have a negligible effect collectively. What my attempts here are meant to accomplish is for the reader to understand that he or she is not alone, that these things ARE happening, that we are deep into overshoot and collapse, that the mass extinction we are in is real as well, and that all of this is irreversible. Sure, we may be able (with enough fossil hydrocarbon energy) to forestall extinction in a few species right now. But once that "magic" energy is gone, then what? Oops. 

While I was writing this, I noticed a new video from Nate Hagens' The Great Simplification series featuring William Rees. Some of the ideas I've incorporated here come directly from Dave Pollard's article and Nate's video with Bill. Ironically, the point of this article is to bring about the reality of our lack of agency to the forefront and Bill reiterates that rather wonderfully at about the 1:39:20 point in the video. I actually had to chuckle because it is so true and he is every bit as passionate about it as I am. He also confirms the bargaining to maintain civilization. It's yet another excellent conversation from both Nate and Bill. 

The sad truth about all of this is the fact that despite rosy predictions I see from some people, the facts and observations line up quite well with my understanding of the science. Perhaps I would seriously like to be able to see something wrong with my comprehension; something that would lead me to think that my understanding is too dark. My fear is that my understanding might actually be too conservative and that conditions will turn out worse than I think. I honestly think that we have far less control over these predicaments than many people think we do and I am convinced that the systems we depend on for our very sustanence are in a state of collapse already. Lots of scientists publicly claim that "we can turn things around" to mitigate climate change and other predicaments, but if this is actually the case, then why aren't we even making a dent in the observable measurements? All the trends and trajectories are still going the wrong way. This is why privately, most climate scientists (and many other scientists as well) are quite fearful of what is unfolding.

At the end of the day, one can only conclude that the future - regardless of precisely how it turns out - is going to be one which features increasing levels of chaos, continuous streams of hazards brought about by extreme weather events and climate change, and far less throughputs of energy and resources. 

Live Now!