Do You Want Truth or an Illusion?

Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore, Michigan

"When others asked the truth of me, I was convinced it was not the truth they wanted, but an illusion they could bear to live with."  ~ Anaïs Nin

Our big brains allow us to avoid predators and hunt other animals, and even larger brains allowed us to be successful in combat with other hominids. Our intelligence evolved as a weapon. This isn't an opinion, but a scientific fact. We exterminated the Neanderthals in Europe and our small-brained relations like the Hobbit, Homo floresiensis, in Indonesia. Extinction of these species follows the broader pattern of large animal disappearance whenever humans show up. New studies indicate that humans, not climate change, were responsible for the disappearance of the megafauna.

In other words, there is no escape from this evolution. Survival is a key imperative which drives this train, so to speak. Once we filled all habitable areas of the planet, the die was cast due to the unsustainable practices of modern humans. So many people, like Eliza Daley, want to believe that we can work our way out of this. I understand them in a sense because I used to think that way myself. But that was before I did research into the predicaments we face (which I am still doing), reading study after study and book after book and watching video after video. 

The first five years I was just getting warmed up. The next five years taught me a whole new realm. The last five years has brought me into a whole new understanding not only of where we are as a species but how the key biological imperatives that drive us into action also drive the evolutionary path we are on. We don't control those biological imperatives; they control us. I really like Eliza's article. It's very realistic; except for thinking that there is a way out. I just don't see any evidence that our species has the ability to go against the MPP collectively, and even if we instituted a new economic system, civilization itself remains unsustainable. Instituting a new economic system, developing a new civilization, utilizing EVs and non-renewable "renewable" or "clean" or "green" or "sustainable" electricity, and electrification are ALL forms of bargaining with the predicament rather than accepting it. Recently, John Peach and I published an article explaining why electrification, EVs, the energy transition, and the Green New Deal are failures.

Non-acceptance doesn't change how nature and physical and biological laws work. It doesn't change how people behave. It doesn't change how we live. We don't need different cars and a different way of generating electricity. We need to abandon cars and electricity altogether (but we won't). Cars and the electrical grid are supported by civilization, which we already know is unsustainable. That also therefore means that everything supported by civilization is likewise unsustainable. I'm not quite sure why people don't seem to understand this key issue. Perhaps they don't realize the elimination of negative feedbacks that technology use causes, turning us into voracious users of energy, both facilitated by and utilized by technology. Maybe they don't get that the reason civilization is unsustainable and keeps collapsing every time humans attempt it is due primarily to the technology of agriculture. Agriculture depends upon certain symbioses in order to be effective for humans, but therein lay part of the fault of agriculture - it is anthropocentric in nature.

Whatever the reason, anything that doesn't tackle this issue and remove civilization from the picture cannot "get us out of this." Technology use being precisely what supports civilization means that practically all advanced technology such as what we use daily is simply speaking, unsustainable. Some basic tools that we have used over thousands of years, such as fire, could be sustainable if used correctly. There are other basic tools that can be produced in a sustainable manner, if used by a sustainable population; but again, because technology use reduces and/or removes negative feedbacks, strict population controls would have to be enacted or the exact same issue of ecological overshoot would occur all over again.  

One thing in particular that I am saddened by is the fact that in order for a person to truly grasp the predicament we face, he or she must spend a long time researching and reading and be willing to let go of common false beliefs, myths, and narratives in favor of facts. I can't combine all my articles here into one short, consolidated article that would deliver all those facts in a compact form. Many people make the mistake of debating singular articles in order to "prove me wrong" but miss the wider boundary and premise of this blog, and as a result, all they wind up doing is pointing themselves out as being ignorant to the facts. While I'm passionate about these facts and want to get these facts out to a wider audience, I just don't have the time to constantly debate belief systems. As I pointed out in Are YOU Ready For Collapse?, Dave Pollard has repeatedly said, quote:

"I have long argued that we believe what we want to believe — what fits with our existing, conditioned worldview — not necessarily what aligns in any way with the facts or evidence, i.e., with what we ‘see’. That doesn’t mean that we’re all witless. There are sound evolutionary reasons why human brains are conditioned to find patterns and to disregard what doesn’t fit with those patterns — to dismiss things and not ‘see’ them at all if we can’t ‘make sense’ of them."

Over the past several months, I have been stressing the need for acceptance rather than entering into bargaining. This is because I know that bargaining can only set you up for failure. I wrote Carbon Sinks Are Becoming Carbon Sources back in March. I knew that things were getting bad, but didn't realize just how bad. Yet more bad news points out how "forest, plants, and soil - as a net category - absorbed almost no carbon." At the same time, collapsing wildlife populations are now entering a tipping point as explained in this article. None of this is really all that surprising other than the speed with which it is occurring. From the last article, quote:

"Land-use change was the most important driver of the fall in wildlife populations as agricultural frontiers expanded, often at the expense of ecosystems such as tropical rainforests. Mike Barrett, director of science and conservation at WWF-UK, said countries such as the UK were driving the destruction by continuing to import food and livestock feed grown on previously wild ecosystems.

“The data that we’ve got shows that the loss was driven by a fragmentation of natural habitats. What we are seeing through the figures is an indicator of a more profound change that is going on in our natural ecosystems … they are losing their resilience to external shocks and change. We are now superimposing climate change on these already degraded habitats,” said Barrett.

“I have been involved in writing these reports for 10 years and, in writing this one, it was difficult. I was shocked,” he said."

Overshoot and its symptom predicaments are having the predicted effect upon the biosphere. I see quite a bit of concern and folks talking about getting serious and talking about "bold action" but I don't see any real action, bold or not. I do have a few friends who have made some pretty serious sacrifices and live off-grid. But they are the exception to the rule for the most part. Even those who are off-grid are still supported by civilization in one way or another. The only way to truly sever that cord is to join an Indigenous tribe somewhere. I know that most people think abandoning civilization is "just too extreme" and yet if I reduce the level by asking them to do away just with one's car or their water or sewer service or electricity, that's "too extreme" as well. I understand this as a US phenomenon, although I understand that more and more countries are joining us now that they've had a taste of modernity. Admittedly, even I don't want to give up civilization. But at least I understand that civilization as we know it is only temporary and will disappear in many people's lifetimes who are alive today. 

The important aspect to keep in mind is that this is not "the end of the world." Conditions will decline as time moves forward and it is rather clear that extinction will be the outcome for all large organisms such as ourselves. But the cycle of life will continue unabated, just as it has through the multitudes of mass extinctions this planet has been through before. 

Something that I often hear with regard to "bold action" is this idea of "the energy transition." Some people call it the "Fourth Turning" or the "Fourth Industrial Revolution." Regardless of what one calls it, it is an illusion created by the marketing arm of the industries responsible for building this new infrastructure but which is ultimately never going to power this civilization. The one thing that many people never stop to think about is the layers of platforms (infrastructure) that civilization operates on. In this particular video, these layers of infrastructure (especially the fossil fuel platform) are described and Jean-Baptiste Fressoz explains why the energy transition is a myth (associated article here).

On my recent trip to the Adirondack Mountains of New York, I had the pleasure of spending part of my time reading a book by Robin Wall Kimmerer, Braiding Sweetgrass. One chapter in particular that I really liked was the one about Allegiance to Gratitude (page 128 in the link above). As I pointed out in my last article, as individuals and small groups, we can reduce our ecological footprints. But this doesn't extend to our species collectively. Anyone who drives on highways can tell you how well people adhere to speed limits. There are those who drive 10 MPH (or more) above the speed limit and there are those who drive 10 MPH (or less) below the speed limit, so generally speaking, there will be a 20-30 MPH difference between the fastest drivers and the slowest drivers. This same condition follows almost any directive. As a result, one can easily see how some people are scofflaws who will cut corners and others will follow laws or directives to a "T". Most people fall somewhere in between these two extremes. 

As I pointed out in my article about lack of universal perspective, there are people who comprehend overshoot and those who have never even heard of it. People ignorant to overshoot will be unlikely to follow any directive properly governing such. Still others are unlikely to follow anything not made mandatory, and then there are once again the scofflaws who won't follow even mandatory laws (seat belt use and cellphone use in cars comes to mind). One can easily see here how this explains all my articles from the last month. Without global unity and appreciation and thankfulness as stressed in the Thanksgiving Address, idealistic ideas such as world peace will continue to remain in the category of fantasies, unfortunately.

Since we have never had global unity, I don't see this as a realistic possibility. Never say never, right? I do see some folks understanding more about symbiosis and that respecting nature and other species is sorely needed. However, I also see a disturbing trend of more and more people buying into focusing on symptom predicaments of overshoot such as climate change, and pollution loading, and energy and resource decline, and biodiversity loss instead of ecological overshoot, the predicament causing ALL of them.

By focusing on symptom predicaments instead of the root predicament and its cause, society divides action into working on symptom predicaments which cannot be reduced without reducing overshoot. More proof that we lack agency, as all the labor and energy expended on symptoms don't treat what is required to actually improve anything. Knowing that technology use reduction is required to reduce overshoot and seeing constant claims of new technological advances being made such as this waste of energy and resources is rather depressing (for those who don't understand why, see Tom Murphy's Why Not Space?). Just like everyone else, I too want to believe that we could work our way out of the predicaments we face. Historians, ecologists, and biologists all point to this not being realistic, however, as is pointed out in this article with John Perlin. The article reminds me of a picture I posted quite some time back in one of my articles:

OK, this article has become much longer than I originally thought it would be. My point throughout it is to bring to the forefront the reality we face and that most of it if not all of it isn't actually under our control, which is why we lack agency. Hopefully this fills in any loopholes that I have missed earlier (HA! that's funny!). One last article...Max Wilbert wrote an exceptionally great article here about how alternative cultures, while beautiful and important, are also not enough to "get us out of this." Of course, I am well aware that no amount of evidence will satisfy those who suffer from belief over facts.  

Now onto the more fun side of things at Norris Dam State Park in Tennessee!