Why are "Solutions" Really Just Bargaining?

Flag Rock Recreation Area, Norton, Virginia

I have tried to point out the reality throughout this entire blog that what we face moving forward is a set of predicaments with outcomes, not problems with solutions. Therefore, prescribing different ideas (whether they are actually labeled "solutions" or not is more or less irrelevant) focusing on ways to mitigate or "fix" these predicaments is a fool's game because no solutions are available. Reflecting on a recent article where I pointed out that the chief cause of problems is solutions brings a certain level of discovery to many people. Pointing out that enlightenment eradicates false beliefs and that who and what we are as a species isn't going to change no matter what ideas are brought forth, human ingenuity needs to be seen for what it actually is - precisely what brought us to this point in the first place! 

I have also pointed out my support for the degrowth movement but that doing so changes nothing with regards to the predicaments we face. Sadly, I am still frequently accused of NOT supporting the degrowth movement despite my efforts (which frequently are far superior to those busy denigrating those efforts). I am also often accused of "giving up" or being a doomer or spreading doomism or being a nihilist or even "Malthusian" of all things. I choose to laugh at this criticism because none of those criticisms hold up under scrutiny and their hypocrisy is noted as what is known as special pleading. This is a logical fallacy, in other words. Each one of these people who criticize me for being skeptical, critical, or otherwise pointing out the reality is suffering from denial of that reality and often at the same time suffering from optimism bias as well, which often leads into toxic positivity. Basically, these folks are suffering from a huge dose of hopium. Of course, this same denial of reality prevents those people from seeing the logical fallacies they are inadvertently utilizing to reduce their own cognitive dissonance. I have written extensively on defense mechanisms and this article delves into compartmentalism as one of those mechanisms. The bottom line with all ideas on how to "solve" these predicaments is that they are ALL an attempt to command and control nature in an effort to service ourselves and to maintain civilization, something that cannot be done due to the fact that civilization is unsustainable.

Unbeknownst to me when I sat down to write this article, Nate Hagens has come out with a new installment to his Frankly series that more or less encapsulates exactly what I want to express in this article. I often feel like I'm preaching to the choir, first of all, and that secondly, I keep repeating myself over and over. Of course, this is true - but I imagine that everyone doing the same thinks the same way. Yet, just like me, they know they have to continue repeating the message. Hagens made this observation, quote:

"...if your hair was on fire, I would continue to point out that your hair was on fire until you recognized it."

Well, in a nutshell, our hair is on fire. I hate to say it, but at the same time that collapse is deepening, climate change and energy and resource decline are combining to exacerbate the pressures the financial system is experiencing. Taking a look at just some of the stories contained here demonstrates that events are cascading out of control. Of course, the illusion of control is key to begin with. In reality, we never had control of these systems; we just like to think we did.

Over two years ago I asked myself why I was still writing these articles. Yet here I am still writing them. At the time, part of that question hinged on an article I read in Tom Murphy's blog that led me to realize the same attributes to my blog and that few people might find my blog interesting enough to pay much attention to, especially given the sheer amount of information today competing for said attention. Needless to say, I realized that few of my articles would actually get much attention and yet I'm still finding pleasure in writing them. Perhaps this is because I still have so many questions about the topics I write about. I keep getting more of them answered on a fairly routine basis by writing these articles, so there is a double benefit there as well. 

Returning to this obsession with solutions - while one is busy thinking about or actively engaging in these so-called "solutions," what is being missed? Day to day living and enjoying what we have right now. Many people are completely missing out on living right now and are instead focusing on "the future" and while it is a noble idea to be concerned about future generations, one must constantly be aware of whether he or she is running towards life or running away from death. When properly taken into consideration and fully accepted that what we face are predicaments and not problems, one can clearly see that as long as one is focusing on living in a more sustainable fashion (complete sustainability in today's world is more or less impossible and not practical due to the sheer number of people on the planet), not much else can be accomplished. Many people claim that, "But we have to do something!" Yes, we do have to do something - we have to Live Now. Outside of this, most ideas revolving around the solutionista agenda have to do with non-acceptance or ignorance of the facts. I know many folks who want to "build a new civilization" with renewable, green, clean, and sustainable principles. Inevitably they come to technology and simply apply those labels as if that will solve the intractable reality that most technologies are not and can never possess those qualities. They are ignoring that civilization by its very nature is unsustainable because it relies on technology. Ignoring this fact does not make it go away. 

In reality, most of the ideas brought up to attempt to continue our survival demonstrate a certain amount of hubris and anthropocentrism. Tom Murphy does it again with an article pointing to flawed reasoning and puts us right back where we truly belong. The article clearly demonstrates the level of magical thinking going on in so many imaginations (of people). Most people want some sort of "solution" to the predicaments we face and are willing to claim that they are doing their part by supporting a particular movement. Some of the movements are rather noble in their goals, such as degrowth. But once again, how much magical thinking is going on within these movements? When will the reduction/removal of technology take center stage? As long as technological development and innovation is encouraged and continued, the exponential change that is already occurring will only continue to outstrip our ability to adapt. That is what collapse is all about - our ability to push the Limits to Growth beyond the carrying capacity of the planet.

I repeatedly point out how nature will take technological devices away from us through energy and resource decline. This should be the first step in the degrowth movement, as it is technology which is reducing or removing negative feedback that once used to keep our numbers in check and in balance with the rest of nature. After all, how can society degrow, if instead, population growth continues adding around 80 million people to the planet every year? This (getting population growth ended) is seen by many as undesirable, but in reality, we have little choice. We can choose to reduce or remove technology from our lives now or it will be removed involuntarily by nature. At that point, how will those who suffer from such a situation learn how to get along without it? It may be a pointless exercise in imagination, but one I still think is worth considering in order to ascertain the proper actions to take.

Proper actions include decommissioning dangerous complexities such as nuclear power stations and toxic chemical, medical, and disease storage facilities which house and/or process deadly pathogens, chemicals, and other toxic substances. Just the nuclear threat alone is worth working towards, as this article from Alice Friedemann demonstrates. As can easily be seen, there is no real way to protect these facilities from so many different possible tragedies that keeping them running raises the risks of potential failure exponentially the longer they are allowed to continue operating. However, ALL of these suggestions (technology reduction/degrowth/decommissioning dangerous complexities) are extremely unlikely to actually happen, due to the reasons given in this article by Steve Bull, quote:

"But we need to also consider that war is a VERY profitable racket as Marine Corps Major General Smedley Butler reminded us. And THE primary motivation of these people probably since the beginning of complex societies 10,000+ years ago has been control and expansion of the wealth-generation/-extraction systems that provide their revenue streams and thus positions of power and prestige.

Again and again throughout human pre/history our ruling elite have sacrificed their citizens and the environment to meet this important motivation. I see little evidence that our current iteration of elite is any different than the many that have preceded them and expedited their society’s collapse, especially through overreach in many areas.”

Once again, despite making perfect sense logically speaking, it is the culture and technology surrounding society which has a tendency to "control" said society into a set of self-reinforcing positive feedbacks. Derrick Jensen and Lewis Mumford explain in this video. So, between the technics described in the video and the ongoing manipulations by the so-called "elite" illustrated in Steve Bull's article, we lack agency to follow through with actions collectively that would reign in technology use which would begin the era of degrowth in a voluntary manner. Sure, individuals and small groups can embark on their own personal journey, much like I have, but because this isn't being done collectively (and won't), those of us who have decided to use less energy and resource throughput have simply left more for those who don't feel or think the same way about our predicament that we do. In other words, no actual reduction has taken place because those who want to use and/or consume more have not been limited and anything we have saved was simply used by others who didn't have the same ethics regarding said use.

By now, it should be glaringly clear that the ideas commonly seen as so-called "solutions" to overshoot, climate change, energy and resource decline, and other symptom predicaments of overshoot cannot accomplish their goals either due to the fact that they aren't tackling the root predicament (or the cause of the root predicament) or they lack agency to effectively gain traction with most of industrialized society (which would require global unity/cooperation [see this article]). Much of this has to do with human loss aversion (which can be seen in these three articles here, and here, and here). 

My original effort here besides holding a spot for the files and a way for folks to see this material publicly without being on Facebook or other social media sites was to try to help people understand where we are as a species, the difference between a problem and a predicament, how technology figures into all of this, and especially how to deal with the inevitable grief that comes with all of this knowledge. I feel like I've spent a considerable amount of time over the past year writing about "solutions" and how they really don't add up to much at the end of the day. One must always ask questions such as, "How much energy will this require? What kind of resources and how much resource use is involved? Does this work to reduce technology use? Who does this benefit in the end - do other plants and animals get anything out of this? How does this preserve and/or repair/purify soil, water, and air?" Surely there are many other questions that might also be asked when ideas are rolled out. Most ideas usually benefit no other species except humans and if they involve sustaining industrial civilization (IC), then they can pretty much be chucked right out the window. IC cannot be saved. So, I'm under no illusions about reducing technology use being a way to extend civilization. It is simply the only logical thing to be done along with attempting to clean up the mess we've made. 

Reducing technology use (along with degrowth), unfortunately, most likely will not be done willingly by most people, as Art Berman clearly states here in this video with Nate Hagens around the 53 minute mark. Then, he explains why there are no solutions to climate change right around the 1 hour point (I really like Nate's description of some of the ideas as "pie in the sky ones"). Art also presents a considerable amount of information about the geopolitical shenanigans based on ridiculous foreign policy by the United States which will inevitably most likely come back to haunt us later. This particular episode is a really great one; be sure to check it out! Yes, there are responses to the predicaments we face. Responses can reduce the severity of the outcomes of the predicaments, but they cannot remove the outcomes. The real trouble right now is that society as a whole is responding in the wrong manners which are not mitigating anything or improving potential outcomes but are instead increasing overshoot collectively.

This article has turned out much longer than I first imagined, so it is now time to close; at least for now. Hopefully I have properly explained how and why the symptom predicaments we face interact with other predicaments and that those interactions multiply the overall effects and that our behaviors are exacerbating these interactions and effects through collectively increasing overshoot. Unless and until global society begins to reduce technology use, the likelihood of all other mechanisms to reduce overshoot is null; the reason being that many individuals and groups will utilize technology in a demonstration of the MPP at work by invalidating any gains otherwise made. This same mechanism is currently at work in Ukraine and the Middle East. These wars are about resources, although the popular narratives don't generally reflect that fact. Until next time, Live Now!