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.

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!



Comments

  1. The return to hunter gatherer will be futile, as there are no animals left

    ReplyDelete
  2. It seems we wouldn't exist as a species without technology, the use of fire by homo erectus led to cooking, which led to predigesting food creating a surplus energy that fed into a larger brain and locked us into a need for exogenous energy to survive (as a raw food diet cannot support a healthy human - https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/full/10.1086/692113). It is likely that agriculture was a response to the lack of new lands to expand into as early hunter gathers spread across the whole of the planet. Farming was a behavioral adaption with evolutionary success. It's really no good calling people stupid when we exist within the confines of our evolutionary history, it's like calling a cat stupid for getting locked indoors.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Gregory, however true this might be, I don't see the relevance. We may exist because of technology, but that doesn't change the way technology behaves. It doesn't dilute the plethora of negative effects caused by technology or make it any less harmful. Onto another point, would you accept 10 million dollars if the condition was that you would die in one week? Most people would not. I believe it can be argued that any particular species success = the continuation of genetic material over time. This is indicative of a species which possesses a beneficial genetic predisposition to adapt to change. Our planet is not static, the continuity that we experience is an illusion, an experiential bias due to our short lifespans. We must consider geological timescales to measure our success and since our success is entwined with technology it can also be assessed. There is often a lag between an event and a outcome. The effects of technology when set in motion, especially as we've been able to expand its complexity (due to increased energy from fossil fuels) can only be described as disastrous when you take longevity in mind. It is normal for species to have to adapt to their changing environment, but how often are their own behaviors the driving force behind such requirements? Humanity is its own worst enemy, and this is the cause of technology use. You quote, "Farming was a behavioral adaptation with evolutionary success" How is this true Gregory? In the short term? But is the short term a great measure of success? Our short term success is not so dissimilar to hedonistic pleasure, or debt. Both take from the future for the sake of the present, but neither last long without undesirable consequences. In ending my comment, our species is 250 000 years old and the average mammalian species lasts 1million years. It seems that when taken from a macro perspective, natural selection is going to correct our species, as we were never sustainable, because our niche was always flawed from the beginning. You may find calling humans stupid, uncomfortable, but if you look at our species potential for longevity and compare it with other mammals the words inferior & defective fit objectively.

      Delete
    2. Hello Day, good to chat. As you say "the effects of technology when set in motion.. can only be described as disastrous when you take longevity in mind." The decision to start cooking (predigesting) food are being played out today as a consequence of the brain size boost derived from the extra energy in this food. Our cultural and physical evolution does seem to be deeply entwined with accessing exogenous energy and using/creating technologies. I wasn't trying to say yay for technology or that it offered us a viable way forward. It does feel like it is leading us to the cliff edge. But we are stupid like the mice populations that irrupt when they find a hole in the granary. Evolution gave us the skills to unlock fossil energy, the ability to think mathematically and derive formulas. to code this knowledge in scripts etc etc. Blame it on the carboniferous. As to your question about the short-term success of farming, yes it may not be a long-term success but evolutionary forces also act in the moment, following Lotka's maximum power principal (I think). Doesn't it just follow that if the population of farming settlements grows faster than their hunter gatherer neighbours there will be relatively more and more farmers as time progresses? Evolution will test the longevity but in the short term it is a cultural practice that is enjoying the early stages of evolutionary 'success'. The hunter gatherers killed the megafauna, it's not like we were a species in balance as we spread over the world. And now we find ourselves here.

      Delete
    3. You have quite a strong understanding Gregory. For me; there are a few areas where I'd have to disagree. From my perspective there are some dots you could connect rather than others to be on the side of greater accuracy, but it's no worries. Thanks for the conversation.

      Delete
    4. Thanks to you too. So much to learn and I have absolutely no doubt that I am mostly wrong. Like you say, you can connect the dots in many different ways.

      Delete
    5. Much respect, it speaks for your intelligence to acknowledge it's limitation. So did the likes of Newton, Socrates and Einstein. Please enjoy some of my favorite quotes:
      ~"I do not know what I may appear to the world; but to myself I seem to have been only like a boy playing on the seashore, and diverting myself in now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me."- Newton. ~"What we know is a drop, what we don't know is an ocean."- Also Newton. ~"I know that I know nothing"- Somewhat of a paradox from Socrates. ~“We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library, whose walls are covered to the ceiling with books in many different languages. The child knows that someone must have written those books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the the languages in which they are written. The child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books, a mysterious order, which it does not comprehend but only dimly suspects.”-Einstein. ~“A true genius admits that he knows nothing.”- Einstein. "We know nothing at all. All our knowledge is but the knowledge of schoolchildren. The real nature of things we shall never know."- Einstein. Truly fantastic quotes, they make me feel in awe of existence. Overshoot of course is a much practical focus, as whatever is the subject of those quotes is beyond anyone's understanding. I have a lot to learn about Overshoot, there are aspects of it's complexity we will never understand, but we can side with probability and trajectory. The evidence is powerful, as seen on this blog. It's hard to grasp all the data completely as well as what it means, but life would be pretty boring without curiosity and the continued effort to put the dots together a little better each day. Thanks to Erik and this blog, most of the dots are already connected and ready to digest.

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Welcome to Problems, Predicaments, and Technology

What Would it Take for Humanity to Experience Radical Transformation?

Denial of Reality

More Cognitive Dissonance

Fantasies, Myths, and Fairy Tales

What is NTHE and How "near" is Near Term?

So, What Should We Do?