Ignorance, Hubris, and Stupidity

 

Artwork from Ken Avidor

As I frequently point out, we face a series of predicaments all brought to us as a result of our own behavior of using technology, which has produced the predicament of ecological overshoot. When a species goes into overshoot, it always faces the same outcome: collapse. There is quite literally no way to avoid this; it is baked into cake, so to speak. I frequently hear people talk about avoiding collapse to which I can only chuckle and explain that attempting to avoid collapse and extend civilization is a fool's errand because all this does is steepen the Seneca Cliff once the ability to extend civilization dries up. Civilization exists upon the surplus energy provided by technology use such as that furnished through agriculture; this then provides the ability of humans to develop permanent settlements which is the beginning of a civilization. Sadly, civilizations are unsustainable and each one that has ever come into being has also collapsed. Today's civilization is no different and there will never be a sustainable civilization. Talk of such ideas is no different than "sustainable" development or "green" growth (see greenwashing). 

I genuinely want people to understand the truth about where we are within these systems and predicaments and what can and cannot be done about them. Most people's responses are fueled by a desire to "fight" one of the symptom predicaments such as climate change or energy and resource decline. Sadly, a considerable number of those folks read or hear something about stopping or reversing climate change or emissions or any other symptom predicament and get the incorrect idea that this is actually possible. Every once in a great while, people are discussing attempting to stop or reverse overshoot, although this is much more rare. I don't want to be the bearer of bad news, but stopping and/or reversing these predicaments isn't on the menu of options. They can, at best, be reduced or slightly mitigated. Overshoot will most likely be reduced fairly soon because the surplus energy that has fueled our overshoot is beginning to come to an end. Billions of people will face die-off. This is part of collapse. It cannot be prevented. All of this is something that literally billions of people are in denial about. For those of you who have seen this and tolerated the ad hominem attacks, name-calling, and being labeled "doomers" or suffering from doomism, I understand and empathize with you. In reality, we are not doomers, but critical thinkers who have the ability to see all of this from a bird's-eye view.

So, what can be done? We can attempt to reduce overshoot by reducing technology use. Anything less than that really won't help. Buying different products or services won't help because that perpetuates the same system that is destroying us. Understanding ecological overshoot is key. While I posted my article above, Sid Smith has come out with a new video that is less than 35 minutes long that explains overshoot in great detail. As one can see, modernity is not sustainable (Tom Murphy's latest article). Yet, I consistently see those who think that building "sustainable civilizations" (see this article) using new forms of energy production, new forms of food production, new forms of manufacturing, and new commodities is not only possible but actually desirable. As Murphy so poignantly points out here, quote:

"Modernity boosters would say that defining sustainability over such long timescales is preposterous. That reaction is actually a key part of our problem, don’t you think? They also might not care too much about biodiversity, imagining - in a staggering revelation of childlike simplicity - that we could probably get by with a few dozen (domesticated) species on the planet. Dunning, meet Kruger."

I have tried reasoning with different people, explaining that electricity generation isn't sustainable, among other things. But of course, according to them I don't know what I'm talking about. I see some of these ideas that incorporate regenerative agriculture and/or permaculture or other symbiotic systems, and while this is good, continuing to depend on electricity or other advanced technology is a crutch that just won't last. In fact, it is entirely possible that activities that today might be sustainable due to sufficient biodiversity won't be in the near future due to biodiversity decline and extinction. 

Ignorance, hubris, and stupidity unfortunately seem to be everywhere these days. I do tend to think that this is more of an American phenomenon, although I can't discount that other Western countries may also suffer from this malady. The first two issues can be mitigated with education, but this requires a desire to learn; not always something I come across these days. The people I tend to argue with are usually snake oil salespeople; they are attempting to sell something, generally an idea of some sort which they label a "solution." As a result, they aren't generally open to the suggestion that their plan is destined to failure. Many of them still haven't reached the stage where they realize that all of the symptom predicaments are interconnected and recognize ecological overshoot as the root predicament, and this usually presents itself as the predicaments being labeled as "problems." Even those who understand overshoot and comprehend that it (or its cause) is causing most all of the symptom predicaments often fail to realize that our behavior of technology use is what is causing all of these issues (both problems and predicaments). Ultimately, one comes to understand all of this and begins to ponder how to reduce technology use, but most frequently this comes as a result of being exposed to the degrowth movement or some of its offshoots (including a rather notorious one covered here [Just Stop Oil]). So, even though initially I am attempting to advise any person who had the so-called "solution" that not only is the idea not a solution, but won't work because it can't (predicaments don't have solutions); that person rarely benefits from the exchange - it is other people who read my comments after the fact who benefit. The third issue (back to the first sentence of this paragraph) in this sequence unfortunately has no fix for it - stupidity. In at least two of my articles in the past, I pointed out Bonhoeffer's Theory of Stupidity which highlights this societal ill. We see it all around us today but are unable to do much of anything about it.

This triad of qualities presents itself time and again in so many different scenarios and in so many different fashions. In past articles, I have dealt with the fact that there is a certain personality type that is much more open to certain types of information than other personality types along with how a person's worldview and belief systems can interfere with his or her ability to be able to accept such types of information. There's even a new study which delves into whether a person likes the source of information (individual or in-group of people), quote:

"Such biases in memory integration could play a role in the formation and reinforcement of polarized beliefs within social groups. By favoring information from liked individuals, we might be more likely to integrate and accept information that aligns with our existing beliefs, potentially leading to a more divided perception of reality among different social groups.

“We are more inclined to form new connections and update knowledge from information presented by groups we favor. Such preferred groups typically provide information that aligns with our pre-existing beliefs and ideas, potentially reinforcing polarized viewpoints,” explained Mikael Johansson, a professor of psychology at Lund University."

While it can be easy to see that human-built infrastructure such as roads, bridges, tunnels, skyscrapers, hydroelectric dams, and other large infrastructural monuments to humanity cannot be sustained, there are an equally large number of smaller pursuits which "fly under the radar" that likewise cannot be sustained but often evade detection. One of these is the technology of agriculture, which supports civilization. I've recently seen websites, people, and articles discussing "sustainable agriculture," but just like its counterparts of "sustainable development," "green growth," and "sustainable civilization," these labels are trying to sell people on the idea of BAU in alternate form, much like a large portion of degrowth advocates. Their heart is in the right place and they mean well as these are noble goals, but what they are attempting to promote is just more of the same ole' same ole' - unsustainable behaviors based upon technology use that will go by the wayside as time moves forward. 

There is a whole host of information demonstrating how agriculture of all types will go by the wayside due to multiple converging predicaments which are inevitably already beginning to show their dark sides (drought, flooding, wildfires, severe freezes and heatwaves, and other aspects of climate change in particular). One paper I often refer to is pretty stark in its revelations. Still, there are a whole host of emerging issues that point to an even darker future. If one takes these four articles (here and here and here and here) and connects the dots between them, it becomes rather obvious that we are being systematically poisoned by the very air we breathe, water we drink, and food we eat through our behavior of using technology, yet another reason that agriculture and civilization are unsustainable. Our reproductive systems are being targeted by endocrine disrupting chemicals which are rendering not only us infertile, but millions of other species as well. I hate to say it, but we are going extinct; not embarking on a wonderful new life as part of a new civilization. This makes articles like this one almost hilarious at the sheer amount of hopium they exude. Get real, folks. Even carbon-neutral farms are mostly hype. Just for a real laugh, this video from Fisker, Inc. is full of hype and its claim that this is "the most emotional and sustainable SUV" seriously escapes reality.

This is part of the purpose of my blog - not just to point out the difference between problems and predicaments and the role technology plays in all of it, but to also point out what the most likely outcomes truly are. As it stands right now, there is absolutely NO empirical evidence to suggest a different outcome. Lots of denial, bargaining, anger, and blame show us the grief present, but my aim is to help others reach acceptance like I did and to end the constant waffling between the stages of grief. Come to acceptance where the peace of mind is. This requires courage, not hope for some sort of fantasy that simply cannot be. Courage to routinely look at the science and realize that conditions are continuing to worsen rather than improve. Courage to realize that my acceptance is solid. Courage to embark not on a wonderful new life but one of a lower ecological footprint. Courage to use less and expect less. Courage to help others come to these same conclusions and not wish for fantasies or mislead them into believing in some sort of escape. Courage to forgive humanity and to forgive yourself for being complicit in being a part of our collective predicament. Courage to realize that those who look for hope are still going through the bargaining or testing stages. Courage to understand that occasionally one will slip back into one of the stages of grief and that this is normal. Courage to look at wetiko thinking and point it out as often as possible. Courage to come to enlightenment and understand that it does not bring happiness or fulfillment but is a stripping away of innocence and naïvety. Enlightenment is what experience and reality replaces idealism with. Coming to understand these facts brings one to wisdom in searching for this courage rather than relying on false hopes, having the cognition to recognize them as denial of reality. 

I'm getting better at simply scrolling past concepts and ideas infused with hopium. I hate to see people waste time, money, and energy on ideas destined for failure, but I struggle with whether to speak up or not. There are good reasons on both sides of the coin. I always appreciated the heads up from those older and wiser than I was. This at least gave me the opportunity to think about what I was doing or a plan I was about to put in place. Times have changed and society operates at a different pace now. For those who feel that something is your calling, go for it. Time is short, and there is no better time than today to Live Now!