Why is Excessive Optimism Often Rewarded With a Reset of Reality?

 

Fairy Stone State Park, Stuart, Virginia

One might think that I would get bored saying the same thing over and over again in just slightly different iterations. After all, that is what I'm doing, isn't it? Still, these little differences that I make might just grab the attention of someone who never really thought about these questions from the same perspective before. Despite the fact that I'm not a scientist, or a doctor, or some other professional within an organization devoted to these issues, it is my lack of affiliation that gives me license to broadcast wide and far (which IS my profession) without the undue influences caused by being a part of those institutions. Surely I could find other topics to make others aware of, but none of them provide the "zing" that makes me so passionate about them like these predicaments do. To be honest, it is the very fact that they have outcomes but no solutions that gives me the passion to write about them. 

What else other than a self-reinforcing predicament can be so pernicious, insidious, and wicked? I read many articles every day (well, most days, anyway) and many of them have a positive spin to them because people like positivity. In fact, most of them have the obligatory hopium nonsense at the end of each one which I find highly annoying simply because it tends to discount precisely the point of the article in the first place. Some articles, like this one, are nothing but hopium. On the opposite end of the spectrum, some articles are so realistic that they point out many of the same specifics that mine do. This quote from that last article is so poignant:

"The choices we have are bounded by the systems we’re embedded in."

When I read articles hyping different ideas as a response to the predicaments we face, the one thing I can't seem to wrap my head around is how people can ignore the simple fact that civilization is unsustainable. I see so many people embracing all kinds of different ideas that SOUND great but really don't accomplish much (if anything) due to population growth, ecological overshoot, and the ongoing, constantly increasing symptom predicaments. I see the same bargaining going on in the degrowth groups, the off-grid groups, the regenerative agriculture/permaculture groups, and the climate groups where the reality of this just doesn't seem to ever sink in and if anyone brings this inconvenient fact up, he or she is sidelined as "an alarmist" or "a doomer" or "Malthusian" or "a Luddite" or any of the other names commonly used. One of my friends is a retired college professor who taught sustainability and he has a shirt with a common saying - "If we just start now," which people have been muttering over and over for eons:

Karl Klein in his trademarked shirt

I brought the concept of the whole "we" thing up a while back. Who exactly is we? This often assumes that everybody is on the same page and everyone agrees with the principles being bandied about (whatever the specific topic may actually be). If this were actually true, then world peace and global unity would have already been achieved quite some time ago. Obviously, not everyone agrees 100% with everyone else. No two people will agree 100% on everything - ever. People come from different backgrounds, different locations, different cultures, and have different worldviews. So, in reality with regard to almost any topic, there is no such thing as a unified "we" - there will always be an "us" and a "them" AT LEAST, and many times, at least several other groups who differ from the first two groups on their stances.

Likewise, when exactly is now? Anyone who has spent some time studying the Paris Agreement knows that not everyone is required to start certain requirements at the same time. Actually, because there are no provisions for legal enforcement, no penalties are levied against countries who don't meet their pledges. This also means that a country can drag their feet as long as they want for all practical purposes. Which countries have agreed to do away with the unsustainable system of civilization? Any? Have any countries agreed to reduce technology use? Is it therefore any wonder that emissions continue going up rather than decreasing?

So, once again, the whole "if we just start now" is flawed, naïve thinking to begin with.

One of the biggest mistakes within the climate movement is to focus on carbon emissions. Because climate change is a symptom predicament of ecological overshoot, focusing on another symptom predicament (emissions) of overshoot won't solve or fix overshoot, therefore it likewise won't solve or fix climate change. Of course, none of this can be "solved" anyway, because they are all predicaments with outcomes. However, in order to reduce climate change, emissions also have to be reduced. Because emissions and climate change are both caused by ecological overshoot, it becomes clear that overshoot itself must be reduced. What is causing overshoot? Our behavior of using technology is the cause. So, ultimately technology use must be reduced. Some people claim that degrowth will solve overshoot. The behaviors of using technology are what is causing overshoot, so degrowth might be helpful IF it were to make technology use reduction its primary goal. Technology use operates as a self-reinforcing positive feedback loop to increase overshoot, so anything that doesn't tackle this main issue will not reduce overshoot. 

Of course, there is another symptom predicament of overshoot, energy and resource decline, which through the mechanism of Liebig's Law of the Minimum, will prevent unabated technology use from continuing. This mechanism will reduce population and/or technology use and also cause the collapse of industrial civilization. So, overshoot will eventually be reduced, but most likely not from voluntary societal measures. 

I consistently look for indications that I might be wrong, because this is a possibility. I would very much like to be wrong. However, try as I might, the facts surrounding all of this continue to show that the trajectories for the most part remain unchanged and continue to worsen. I remain very skeptical that humans will dramatically change their behavior until forced to do so. As I pointed out in my article about GeoDestinies, the realm in which we live is controlled by the surplus energy available and the mineral resources said surplus energy can deliver.

While I was busy writing this article, an interesting post caught my eye simply because there was no intro or quotes explaining what the link was about. After reading it, I made this comment, quote:

"While these ideas are good, this still looks at the overarching issue of overshoot from a simplistic lens; as if it is a problem with a solution rather than a predicament with an outcome. Tinkering with economic systems won't change the fact that civilization itself is unsustainable. The focus on economic systems isn't much different than the focus on climate change versus ecological overshoot, the predicament CAUSING climate change - it is still just reductionism which ignores the real root issue - our behavior of using technology. THAT is where the changes need to occur, and the likelihood of that actually happening voluntarily at scale is next to nil (although SOME people will voluntarily make these changes). Our very way of living - our behavior of using technology - is the real issue producing the overshoot condition we now live within. So, while working on changing economic systems is a good idea, it isn't enough."

A reply was made, quote:

"I see a relationship with money, debt, economy, resource use and energy. Its difficult for people to give up technology if their livelihood depends on it and if they are bound to a system that favors efficiency and low prices above everything else. I believe looking at economic systems is an important first step in dealing with Overshoot."

To which I replied, (with his quote first) quote:

"Quote: "It's difficult for people to give up technology if their livelihood depends on it..."

Agriculture. Is. Technology.

Looking at economic systems is like trying to reduce climate change by attempting to reduce emissions. Climate change and emissions are BOTH symptom predicaments of overshoot caused by technology use, no different than economic systems are a subset of civilization itself. Attempting to "fix" symptoms of an issue never resolves the issue itself.

How do you remove agriculture from the picture in order to reduce technology use?

You don't. First of all, nobody is going to cut off his or her food supply. This can be extended to almost ANY form of technology use (although some forms are more likely to be reduced than others). So, ultimately, energy and resource decline, climate change, and pollution loading are going to do it for us - all symptom predicaments of overshoot.

Attempting to adjust economic systems is no different than any of the other ideas out there to deal with overshoot - they are all nothing more than bargaining to maintain civilization - which CAN'T be maintained."

It is extremely difficult to get people to see the systems we are embedded within. It is also extremely difficult to get others to realize that all these systems are unsustainable. At the end of the day, few people appear to realize that where we are headed is back to hunting and gathering, and even that will be short-lived (if it even becomes possible in the first place) due to all the symptom predicaments we have unleashed through overshoot.

I realize that these are not what one can consider "happy thoughts" and that they sound rather negative. Unfortunately, nature really doesn't care about our emotions or positivity. What I have uncovered over the years is that excessive optimism is often rewarded with a reset of reality. Surprisingly enough, a new study delineates these very facts. While the study focused on financial decisions, it honed in on the cognitive abilities (or lack thereof) necessary for these mental gymnastics, quote:

"The problem with our being programmed to think positively is that it can adversely affect our quality of decision-making, particularly when we have to make serious decisions. We need to be able to over-ride that and this research shows that people with high cognitive ability manage this better than those with low cognitive ability," he said.

"Unrealistic optimism is one of the most pervasive human traits and research has shown people consistently underestimate the negative and accentuate the positive. The concept of 'positive thinking' is almost unquestioningly embedded in our culture—and it would be healthy to revisit that belief," Dr. Dawson added."

Now that I have completed year three of writing these articles, I still gain a sense of satisfaction pointing out what I see as obvious conclusions about the predicaments we face and the responses developed as a means to mitigate them; which all valid responses are limited by belief systems, cultures, and worldviews held by today's societies (as pointed out above). Sadly, what I see as obvious (regarding these conclusions) is clearly not so obvious to literally millions (billions?) of people, which is why I continue writing about them. 

May you and yours spend quality time with each other this holiday season. Forget about overshoot and the predicaments we face and instead take some time to Live Now!