How Did We Get Here?

 

The chairlift at Natural Tunnel State Park, Virginia

This is the opening question of Peter Russell's excellent new book highlighted below. Sooner or later, almost everyone who is alive today will ask themselves the question of how we have come to this point in time. Some people may ask how we went so wrong or so far off the path. In reality, we have done exactly what we were supposed to do - be one of the most successful species ever to live on this planet. Of course, no differently than other wildly successful species, we have been TOO successful. 

One way we reached this point is through the technology of language. We have a tendency to label things, and many times these labels are not true. Take for instance the constant labeling of ecological overshoot and all of its symptom predicaments as "problems" or the labeling of non-renewable "renewable" energy harvesting technologies as "green", "clean", "renewable", and "sustainable" when in reality the devices are NONE of those labels. This is essentially LYING, because labeling something that is a predicament as a "problem" does not change the fundamental truth that it does NOT have a solution, it has an outcome. As a result, people will tend to make behavioral choices based on these lies. If a person looks at a predicament as if it is a problem, then they will treat the situation the same way we treat so many other species and even the planet itself. We see them as "others" to be used for our own purposes and rarely if ever see them as the very source of our own existence.

Today, many people blame overshoot and its symptom predicaments on lots of different things and or people such as CEOs of large corporations, corporations in their own right, fossil fuels and/or fossil fuel companies, politicians and/or political groups, governments, capitalism and other economic systems, the finance industry, the advertising and marketing industry, the development of agriculture and civilization, and so on and so forth. In reality, our extreme overshoot condition has its roots in precisely who and what we are as a species. So, playing the blame game gets us nowhere. If you want to assign blame, take a look in the mirror. The only people who have no blame will never read this because they are not a part of industrial civilization and don't use electricity or the internet (or most other modern technologies). They have outright rejected civilization and all the technologies we take for granted. They do still utilize basic technologies such as fire, spears, bows and arrows, language, and so on, but most advanced technologies are not a part of their lives.

Still, Indigenous tribes and hunter/gatherer societies did use technologies and also entered into civilization in some areas, and the ones who entered into civilization eventually experienced collapse just like every other civilization. So, the myths about these groups of people living sustainable lives are only partially true at best. An insightful new book from Peter Russell, Forgiving Humanity - How the Most Innovative Species Became the Most Dangerous - The Curse of Exponential Change, explains the details of the roots of how we reached the age of exponential change and the spiraling of innovation. It does an excellent job going back into our very early beginnings and even the evolution of our species, explaining how certain genetic changes produced amazing results in our adaptability to different conditions and how our opposable thumbs allowed us to manipulate materials to build tools, part of what makes us such a clever species. Peter goes on to explain that part of the real roots to the predicaments we find ourselves encapsulated in goes back to our development of language and the ability to speak, which eventually led to written words, the technology to share information with others. This, combined with our sociability, led us to be able to communicate and cooperate like no other species. 

A new article about Homo naledi, a very early archaic human species, shows that they also had writings and buried their dead long before modern humans existed and that they did this with a brain only 1/3 the size of our brains. This demonstrates that much of what we often think of as traits or features of Homo sapiens that make us unique and/or special tends to be biased ideas. As usual, denial of reality and optimism bias seem to permeate our existence. Chris Hedges makes this painfully clear in Requiem for Our Species, an article detailing the predicaments we face.

Back to Peter Russell's book, he outlines how our ability to communicate, cooperate, and innovate through technology use has caused the spiraling rate of innovation to drive us into exponential change. Once we developed the technology of agriculture, this led into the development of civilization, an unsustainable way of living due to the extraction/mining of soil and the concomitant development of infrastructure (all of it requiring energy and resources to build, maintain, and replace at end of useful life) to support the systems of civilization - homes and buildings, water supply systems for both potable water and irrigation water systems, sewerage systems to take away and treat human sanitary wastes, garbage collection to transport non-sanitary wastes away, government systems, financial systems, and on and on. 

The book describes innovation as the way we seek ways to improve the conditions in which we live, and in the section titled, "A Sixth Mass Extinction" (page 65), Peter writes this, quote:

"Some of us may possibly survive, perhaps eking out an existence in the newly-green polar regions, or possibly in some contemporary arks -- self-sufficient, sustainable, high-tech habitats created by the wealthy to ensure their survival in the final days. If they are lucky, they might even survive long-term.

But we would still be an innovative species. We would still be seeking ways to improve our lot - which in such a future would not be a very happy lot. As before, we would find ways to survive better and more comfortably. The positive feedback of innovation breeding innovation would still be operating. Slowly but surely, the spiral of acceleration would begin to wind itself up again, and slowly but surely, we'd eventually approach a similar point in time."

I have to admit that I laughed at the first sentence when I read it - self-sufficient, sustainable, and high-tech are incongruent with one another. But he made it clear in the next sentence that such ideas (think of underground bunkers) are nothing more than pure, unadulterated hopium. This is the whole point of how we arrived here. We are such great innovators that we have devised a way to be so successful that we are eliminating other species by transforming their habitat into ours serving only us and a few (both domesticated and wild) species who can tolerate living with us. By doing so, we are sawing off the limb upon which we are perched because those species support our own existence. 

Is it really any surprise that we hear constantly about alligator attacks, bear attacks, whale attacks, and shark attacks? Those four links go mainly to fatal attacks and not just injuries sustained by such attacks, but it should be fairly obvious to even the casual observer that we often forget that we don't truly "own" the areas where these creatures live. They live there, too, and we are encroaching upon their habitat. We have created the illusion in our minds that we are "safe" in these areas simply because we have labeled the land "ours." Nature doesn't recognize our labels, unfortunately, and one must be aware of this fact whenever he or she enters areas where wild animals live.

So, technology use harnesses far more energy and materials than we could ever manage without it, and while doing so may make our lives much easier and more comfortable, it comes at the cost of increasing ecological overshoot. As we increase overshoot, we concomitantly increase all the symptom predicaments that overshoot causes. Technology use also has another nasty side effect. It reduces and/or eliminates negative feedbacks which once kept our numbers in check. Many diseases we once suffered from like smallpox, measles, whooping cough, tetanus, etc. have been temporarily eliminated by the technological development of vaccines. Our medical industry has also wiped out many other diseases through proper sanitation, use of antiseptics, anesthetics (allowing surgeries to correct most internal ailments), antibiotics, antifungals, and antivirals to kill or prevent many diseases, and many other innovations that allow us to live better, more comfortable lives. The development of indoor plumbing, electrical systems, heating and air conditioning systems, insulation, refrigerators and freezers, and cooking devices all allow us to accomplish daily tasks either much easier or provide more comfort to us by regulating temperature and humidity levels in our living spaces. Therefore, technology use reduces or removes negative feedback thereby promoting population growth which also promotes technology growth. However, in terms of reducing overshoot (and symptom predicaments such as climate change, energy and resource decline, pollution loading, and biodiversity decline), technology use is maladaptive. This will become painfully clear as time moves forward when more or different technology does not actually solve overshoot. Population decline is what will actually work to reduce overshoot, caused by the failure of our agricultural systems, increased disease caused by antimicrobial resistance and new viruses emerging, and increased failures of infrastructural systems caused by extreme weather events. Reduced technology use will be facilitated by this mechanism, and ALL species wind up experiencing die-off whether they use technology or not. 

This is the outcome of all species which are clever enough to innovate themselves into a high energy world of tool-users, building ever more complex technologies. Sooner or later they run into the limits to growth caused by finite energy and resource availability. I'm thinking about all of this while I type on this computer and use untold amounts of fossil fuel energy to do so. I'm enjoying an air conditioned house and listening to a song on Youtube, all powered by fossil hydrocarbon energy and facilitated by material resources far in excess of what could have been obtained and used by human power alone. All we can do is forgive humanity for all of this and be grateful for today. We are an innovating and rationalizing species, and this is what happens to any species that learns how to build technological tools and access energy and resources like we do. Sadly, this was always going to turn out this way although few of us ever get to that level of understanding.

Update: 8-27-23: Peter has been so kind as to provide a new video detailing his new book in a rather unique form.

Comprehending the futility of looking for "solutions" when what we suffer from is a predicament that only has an outcome is an experience in deep humility. Only when one sees that everything is connected and that this is all part of the cycle of life and that for new beginnings to emerge, an ending to a previous cycle must first occur. The mass extinction we have set into motion is that ending, and new species will emerge after this process is complete. Life of some sort will continue somewhere, even if and/or when it is extinguished on this planet.

But this was always going to be the way things were going to turn out. Peter Russell goes into detail as to why we have been such an innovating species, quote:

"Chimpanzee DNA is 98 percent the same as human DNA. But within that 2 percent difference, some genes played a critical role, undergoing greatly accelerated development.

One of them, called HAR1 (Human Accelerated Region 1), had hardly changed over hundreds of millions of years; chickens and chimpanzees have almost identical versions — just two differences. But in hominins it underwent eighteen changes in just five million years — a mere blink in evolutionary time. This gene plays a crucial role in brain development, enhancing the activity of other genes that promote the growth of cells in the neocortex — the structure responsible for cognition and other higher mental functions. Rapid changes in other genes led to the development of the prefrontal cortex, responsible for planning, decision-making, and social bonding.

Another gene that underwent accelerated development led to significant changes in the body, improving our ancestors’ physical mobility and dexterity. The foot flattened and the toes shortened, changes that were helpful for walking on two legs. Equally significantly, it led to the fully opposable thumb — a thumb that can touch each of the fingertips.

The hominin hand now had a much better grip. It could grasp objects in different ways and perform delicate operations on them, making it one of the most versatile manipulative organs to have ever emerged. This undoubtedly was a major factor in our ancestors’ development of more advanced and innovative tools.

The better grip of the hand also meant they could throw things further and more accurately — probably stones at first, and later spears. No longer did they have to scavenge or catch prey with their own hands; they could fell animals at a distance.

Being able to “reach out” into the world beyond their immediate grasp changed things forever, and in a fundamental way. It sowed the seeds for a growing sense of power over their surroundings. It wasn’t wrong; it would have happened sooner or later with any intelligent tool-using species. They were just trying to stay alive. Nevertheless, if there ever was a time when our ancestors first broke from the so-called “natural,” or pre-existing, order this could have been it."

So, the roots of the predicaments we face began even before our current species, Homo sapiens, emerged. This is an extremely important detail, as it points to the same facts as the Maximum Power Principle points to. I have routinely written about how we lack agency to actually do much about the predicaments we face. Innovators will innovate. Innovation will breed more innovation and this positive feedback will then begin to accelerate and self-reinforce. There is no escaping this. How are we to disable this biological imperative? I'm pretty certain that we cannot. There are most certainly ways we can attempt to go against it, but once someone is determined to follow it, innovation will follow and nobody can stop that innovation. Who doesn't want a more comfortable lifestyle? This is precisely why innovations and better technology invariably always sell - because the improvements are easy to see, and this characteristic on new products often sells itself. Provided the new product is affordable by most people, it will sell like hotcakes and make the seller a handsome profit.

Even if we could disable the Maximum Power Principle, all of the world's infrastructure that has been built and the systems that support them which provide us everything we require for daily living is entirely unsustainable. Yet more proof of our lack of agency...

All of this is why it is so important to Live Now and do what you can while you can still do it!