Why is Our Lack of Agency Difficult to Accept?
Recently, I have received some correspondence giving me some static about different ideas, including one about my stance that we lack agency. I must clearly state that I am open to empirical evidence that we have the ability to "save" species (see this), the ability to reverse the circumstances we find ourselves in (see this; especially properties of dissipative structures), and/or the ability to voluntarily (as a species) reduce overshoot. So far, I see no evidence of this, but I see plenty of evidence pointing to the opposite (thus my stance).
One must go back to several different articles of mine to find the explanation for all of this. First of all, going back to The Chief Cause of Problems is Solutions provides much to think about. Just as important is What Are GeoDestinies? and Do You See Technology From a Complete Perspective?. Other important articles are here and here and here and here and here and here which all go to great lengths to explain how society is mired in mainstream thinking and unable to see the larger picture of why reductionistic ideas of how to escape collapse are really just illusions. Recently I posted a video highlighting a book by an ecologist who shows how we are destined to extinction. Another biologist explains why we are destined to dig ourselves into extinction and when one really examines ALL the symptom predicaments of the main predicament (ecological overshoot) causing them and the cause of that main predicament has to do with who and what we are as a species, one must naturally come to the conclusion that, indeed, we lack agency to overcome as a species who and what we are. Reaching acceptance of this fact is the challenge.
Reaching acceptance of everything this blog covers is a serious challenge for many, including me. ALL species which go into overshoot face the same consequences: collapse and die-off. To think that we are somehow different and immune from these consequences is magical thinking. It is uniquely human for us to think that just because we have the ability to kill other species that we also have the ability to bring those species back. I do understand this belief and recognize it as a false belief and denial. I understand that we want to believe this fantasy. But to believe that we are different from every other biological organism and immune to the effects and consequences of our "plague" phase lacks any real evidence.
I understand the desire to think that because we are an intelligent species, we can foresee the destruction we are causing and can therefore avoid said destruction. Again, the evidence and historical data proves otherwise. Individuals and small communities have this ability (see Indigenous hunter/gatherer communities), but global civilization does not. It was never sustainable to begin with and never will be.
The special talents we have are our ability to innovate and our ability to build and use tools courtesy of our large brains and opposable thumbs and our ability to communicate with one another. We had a huge supply of energy and resources, which allowed us to exceed the carrying capacity of our planet. But this was always going to be a temporary situation because it was all unsustainable. As individuals, we can reduce our ecological footprint. But as a species, it is extremely important to understand that this goes against the biological imperative of the Maximum Power Principle (MPP) and that this imperative is frequently utilized together with wetiko and those with better technology often win the war for resources. Ignoring this truth does not change said truth.
Technology (those tools I mentioned earlier) use and a massive store of accumulated sunlight known as wood and fossil fuels are precisely what have allowed us to create what otherwise might be considered "magic." As long as there was plenty of surplus energy available, it seemed that the sky was the limit. It caused us to think that we were in control, but this was an illusion.
The trouble is that technology use reduces or removes negative feedbacks which once kept our species in balance with the rest of nature in our environment. This allowed us to overcome these natural limits and our population began to exponentially increase. The additional issue that so many people appear not to understand is that technology use doesn't go backwards. We can't reduce technology use in an effort to reduce ecological overshoot by employing more technology or more complex technology. More technology and/or more complex technology require more energy and resources (which increase overshoot), not less.
All of this might make us think we can voluntarily reduce overshoot, but that is based on the illusion created from the amount of energy we had available and the technology to utilize that energy. It is the Limits to Growth that will actually cause overshoot to be reduced (an involuntary process that isn't under our control). This is the symptom predicament of energy and resource decline (commonly known as peak oil). Think of this as the phase of growth of yeast in a vat of sugar water when the pollution of their wastes (alcohol) begins to kill the yeast.
To be honest, we really are no smarter than yeast and just as incapable of reducing (voluntarily) overshoot within the confines of civilization, Abandoning civilization is the only achievable way to voluntarily reduce overshoot, and one can easily see how well that would work (especially with the concomitant die-off of at least 7.5 billion people).
Those who think we can do these things are suffering from reductionism, false beliefs, denial of reality, and optimism bias. This belief isn't based on any factual basis; it is based on a deep need to believe it. I used to be one of these people who believed these things, but my research into these topics convinced me that I had simply bought into a common narrative that wasn't based on any actual evidence.
If it was true that we could extract ourselves from the MPP, wetiko, and the unsustainable framework of the system of civilization, then why has the process of development of civilization continued to proceed? Why has civilization continued after each and every one of them has collapsed, many of them repeatedly (China comes to mind)? Even after the Limits to Growth and William Catton's Overshoot were published and exposed these faults, civilization has still been allowed to continue development worldwide.
Even though I have tackled this subject repeatedly (especially in my recent series of acceptance), I decided to write yet another article on our lack of agency in an attempt to help those who are still struggling with acceptance of this reality. I am writing this at Glimmerglass State Park in New York, and I met an older gentleman at Hyde Hall Mansion who actually understood and agreed with everything I said about this topic. We started talking about the Packard automobile parked in front of the mansion and this proceeded into overshoot and biodiversity loss. He was focused on amphibians - frogs - and also turtles. He clearly stated then that he had grandchildren and couldn't "give up."
I just smiled, as I have heard this repeatedly over and over and over again. In fact, it was the motivation that led to me writing The Cycle of Life. My thought was this: "Give up on what, specifically? Something that doesn't exist to begin with?"
Once again, I am reminded of The Beatles and "Let it Be." As such, I remained quiet at this point. What else could I say? He knows the score and I understood exactly what he was saying. While I remain frustrated that so many people want to believe in a fantasy, lack of acceptance is funny that way.
To this day, I don't like the facts I have uncovered about our species and the overshoot condition we are in. But my dislike is irrelevant - it won't change those facts. The more I learn, the more I am convinced that our condition collectively was always destined to be exactly as it is and we never really had a choice in the matter like we so desperately want to believe. But I am a seeker of truth - comforting or reassuring lies are still lies - I look for the facts and evidence.
At the end of the day, I see no evidence that we have agency to defeat the MPP collectively. The gentleman at Hyde Hall brought up Easter Island, which reminded me of St. Matthew Island. We really are no different collectively than the reindeer on St. Matthew Island, the yeast in the vat of sugar water, or the Rapa Nui on Easter Island.
The cultures of hunter/gatherers were based on a different paradigm, and small communities understood how to maintain negative feedbacks in certain ways by limiting technology use and using resources more wisely and paying attention to regeneration techniques, sometimes after learning the hard way. Even then, they still caused extinctions of the megafauna and other organisms unfamiliar with humans or who had no defense mechanisms to avoid humans.
Nate Hagens recently came out an interesting Frankly video where he explained overshoot by doing the thought experiment of asking, "What if climate change IS a hoax?" He points to reductionism of thinking that climate change is the only issue when in reality it is OVERSHOOT. The same thing is true with those reductionists who focus on emissions. Reducing emissions is impossible without a reduction of overshoot. Attempting to reduce them while increasing technology use is pointless - this is just overshoot blindness.
Another author, the Honest Sorcerer, came out with another great thought experiment with Will There Be a Second Stone Age? In this article, he asks a series of questions with two different answers. I actually laughed at some of the answers given in group A because I've heard them before many times.
So, to wrap all this up, the big issue with me explaining our lack of agency is simple: I can't lie and tell you that we do have agency when all the evidence points in the opposite direction. I don't like it any better than anyone else, but to think otherwise is just not warranted.
On a more upbeat note, there's still time to get out there and enjoy what we still have and work towards what your heart seeks, and here is some more inspiration towards that end from the Ballard Road Covered Bridge.
Good one, Erik. Thank you.
ReplyDeleteEric, your mention of yeast is apt. Like so many others, I started baking sourdough bread during the pandemic. This of course requires a starter, which utilizes 'wild' yeast captured from the air around us. For what ever reason, my starter was growing too fast (I wasn't feeding it often enough)-- it was consuming its life blood (flour) too quickly. The result? It began to drown in its own waste alcohol. In this case the solution was simple. I needed to add more flour, i.e., energy, so that my yeast colony had more to consume before it went into overshoot. Who is going to 'add more flour' to our civilization? You and I both know the answer. In our case, there is no outside agent. Speaking of food, you will appreciate a recent piece I wrote on the upcoming hunger crisis we will soon face: https://medium.com/@frankmoone/looming-hunger-319c039ef149?sk=c6766294f4cc450d2fcfb762933e7c52
ReplyDeleteErik, I agree we have no agency as a species in controlling our long term (centuries?) destiny. We have agency as individuals and as teams (tribes under Dunbar's # of 150?) over all kinds of activities such as setting rules, goals, corrective actions, venues, rituals, mate selection, etc. I usually express your message as "free will is vastly overrated." Most people view free will as any decisions made without a gun to one's head. They don't realize that the effects of all prior experiences since conception are embodied and are physical. Memories are electro-chemical, as are thoughts, feelings. perceptions, emotions... Anyway, I agree with your message, but as a stand alone essay it might confuse some people.
DeleteCheers on the downslope,
Steve