Why Won't WE™ Change Direction?


People enjoying the shoreline at Sleeping Bear Dunes, Michigan





Why is it that even though as humans, we know what we should be doing; society instead chooses the opposite direction, leading us the wrong way? I understand that most of this is being caused by ignorance, hubris, and stupidity, but am still dismayed by the insanity of it all. OK, let me correct myself (there's that "we" thing again). There are a considerable number of scientists, scholars, and ordinary citizens who know what society should be doing in an effort to reduce overshoot and begin a return to sustainable living. 

Many of us in the overshoot community (the scientists, scholars, and ordinary citizens I mentioned above who comprehend ecological overshoot) are literally exasperated by the sheer number of people who are busy bargaining with the predicament instead of accepting it and acting accordingly. This is why I spend so much time attempting to help others reach acceptance.

Why is acceptance so important? Why do I think that Living Now is so important? The two are connected, but first let me explain the former. Acceptance means living in accordance with nature and understanding that as a species, we are not currently doing this. Once one accepts the truth about our predicament and that there is no solution and that the outcome isn't one that most people will like, one can live much more authentically and will be much happier as a result. The latter is important because time is shorter than most people want to admit. Our species is literally in hospice, whether one wants to admit it or not. I had the pleasure of listening to Sandra Schoelles and Lyle Lewis discuss this truth as I was writing this. The discussion focused on his new book, Racing to Extinction - Why Humanity Will Soon Vanish. For some reason I found it rather soothing, but this is only due to my having accepted this outcome already. I think most of my readers likewise will find it quite likeable. Parts of it will be also be depressing, but I expect most folks will already know (or suspect) these things.

Those of us who live in industrial civilization are addicted to energy use through the technology we utilize in all aspects of our lives. A year and a half ago, I wrote an article about what makes humans happy. It is rather apparent that a large portion of the technology we use regularly is (in actuality) not truly needed. Yes, it does make life more convenient. But do we really need all of it? Once we no longer have enough energy to power it all, non-essential uses will go by the wayside in favor of utilizing the remaining energy to grow and transport the food we consume along with other essentials, such as water, sewage treatment, waste disposal, and medical systems. I do expect huge amounts of trouble to accompany this transition, as can be seen now in many locations around the world (Gaza and Ukraine being two large examples).

This is what led to the article I wrote 6 months ago about hunting and gathering being a better way of living than agriculture, based on sustainability issues along with what makes people happy. Now, of course, one must take into consideration the practicality of such an idea before making any changes. First of all, there is no way hunting and gathering could ever support 8 billion people. With the degraded landbase that is available today, I think that the upper limit would most likely be between 100 and 500 million. Most likely, society today will choose to bargain to maintain civilization until it is no longer possible as a result. 

Understanding this is part of why I think extinction is the inevitable outcome, although there are a large number of contributing factors, any one or several of which will cause more serious troubles (than we already have) long before we exit as a continuing species on this planet. I'm not one to think we will be extinct in 2026 or even 2030. While I don't even think it likely, complete extinction by either date can be pretty much ruled out at this point (there are underground bunker complexes built which could house humans for a number of years based upon the possibility of a nuclear winter). If such a possibility became reality, anyone unprotected on the surface would likely not survive very long. While those underground would be surviving, I doubt they would be thriving or even enjoying life at that point. Being functionally extinct would play a heavy toll mentally on survivors and there is considerable evidence of psychological problems developing; as it does in isolated areas such as Antarctica (see this and this and this and this).

Let us take a short break. There's a song from Don McLean that sets the mood for this blog and countless others just like it in trying to explain the predicament we find ourselves in the middle of. I have never thought that this blog in particular would get much notice, but I had previously always thought that society at some point would wake up and begin working down from the ledge (limb?) we are perched upon. 

I realize now that thinking that society would finally at some point pay attention was rather naïve and filled with hope (hopium I now understand) rather than reality. We tend to have such noble thoughts and goals in our minds, don't we? But our behavior, our actions, are what carry the day, not noble thoughts or goals. 

Back to our energy and technology addiction. It seems rather apparent at this point that we are not just psychologically dependent on this addiction, but also physically dependent. While this is just a metaphor for the reality, the meaning behind it is every bit as serious as any other life-threatening addiction. We are, quite literally, killing ourselves through this addiction without even realizing it. How insane is that?

I suppose it's about as insane as some of the comments I often read on these articles (not so much here on the original blog, but more frequently on the other platforms). Most comments are great, but the ones where the commenters don't like what I have to write go into reductionism almost 100% of the time. Those are the people who are focusing in on one aspect or another and don't appear to comprehend overshoot OR they don't understand overshoot as the predicament it is rather than a problem to be solved. As Tom Murphy once said, "Dunning, meet Kruger."

Society continues going the wrong way instead of reducing overshoot; this is due to so many different things, including:

(1) a lack of comprehension of the root predicament and its cause (technology use).

(2) the imperative of the Maximum Power Principle

(3) the psychological impact of wetiko to maintain the action of the MPP.

(4) social hierarchy.

(5) political action to maintain civilization.

(6) the marketing and advertising industry to keep selling "solutions" of every stripe.



As long as the goal is to continue civilization, no real progress can be had. But as was mentioned in the interview above with Lyle Lewis, reducing overshoot would require us collectively to go against the MPP. That just isn't who and what we are as a species. The biological imperative is to succeed, propagate, survive, and thrive. So, while an individual can act by reducing his or her ecological footprint, the likelihood of our entire species doing this to accomplish any particular goal is zero. It goes against who and what we are and is simply in denial of reality. As long as surplus energy is available, there will be those who will be happy to siphon off some of it for their own use through taxes and/or any other means. This is why acceptance is so important. Many people utilize optimism bias to think we can accomplish unrealistic goals, which is a great prescription for depression and frustration. 

The good news is that overshoot will be reduced. The not-so-good news is that nature will accomplish this as it always does - through collapse and die-off. The truth is  important; we lack agency. There are many people who claim otherwise, but they are using beliefs, not facts, as the basis of their argument. This is just another popular narrative that doesn't hold up under scrutiny. While I understand the sentiment behind it, that sentiment really doesn't matter when the facts show that it just doesn't wash with actual reality. 

I used to be one of these people who bought into those types of beliefs and narratives rather than the facts. I had thought that everything was supposed to continue getting better and better as life moved forward. Downturns were fairly normal but never affected me all that much (or so I thought). Then I learned about energy and resource decline and discovered overshoot. As part of that journey, extinction (including humans) also came into view. This was when the optimism bias ended for me and instead of paying attention to common narratives, I started paying attention to the facts on the ground as to what was happening. The rose-colored glasses came off and I realized that my whole view of life had changed dramatically once I no longer paid attention to nonsense and followed the hard truth instead. 

I find it difficult to know the outcomes I do and watch all of this unfold. I find it even more difficult to see others in denial of reality and watch them grasp at bargaining or some sort of false belief (logical fallacy) that ultimately I know can do nothing but cause trouble for them. I also realize that I am powerless to be able to help them unless they are willing to open their mind up to reality. Enlightenment is sometimes difficult to behold but ultimately provides a sense of calm. Belief in human ingenuity can be quite a stumbling block, as most people are convinced that our power to innovate can somehow (magically) extract us from the consequences of all our prior innovations. Isn't unicorn pixie dust simply amazing?

As I type this, I am getting ready to leave on a trip east and north of here for a couple of weeks. Needless to say, as I am frequently without cell service and/or wi-fi on these trips, I won't be publishing anything while on the trip. I hope to get caught up by the end of this month with things and back to a somewhat normal schedule. In the meantime, the pictures I publish every week of these trips will continue uninterrupted, so please feel free to check out my latest adventure here! 




Comments

  1. The paper that I just finished reading by archaeologist Joseph Tainter argues that pre/history demonstrates three options exist. First, and the one most commonly followed, is to continue chasing the problem-solving strategy of increasing complexity while experiencing diminishing returns; a strategy that always ends in societal collapse. Second, societal simplification; a path very, very rarely pursued and typically only followed when circumstances force it upon the society. Third, continuing to chase complexity while hoping for a new energy subsidy to support its pursuit. Seems we’re caught in the third option but virtually guaranteed to finish within the first…

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yep. Eventually we'll be forced into the second option after opting for the first and/or third options first.

      Delete
  2. Thanks for a great essay. At the very least, you have reassured one person that his explorations and realizations about our predicament are not a symptom of some unusual form of mental illness. In fact, this knowledge is spreading.

    The Earth needs time, stillness, and peace to heal….as best she can. We are watching humanity inflict the solution upon itself, often using one of its favorite tools. War. While the countdown expressed by E.R.O.E.I. herds us to an inevitable resolution.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why The "War" on Climate Change is Bipolar

Welcome to Problems, Predicaments, and Technology

What Would it Take for Humanity to Experience Radical Transformation?

Denial of Reality

Fantasies, Myths, and Fairy Tales

More Cognitive Dissonance

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