Why Hope is Hopium
Sleeping Bear Dunes, Michigan
This article is about what hope really is and how to get off the hope treadmill.
...The current rhetoric surrounding climate change and collapse is filled with hope manifested as deceptive expectations: that humanity will keep global temperature change below 1.5C, 2.0C, or wherever the goalposts are currently set; that humanity will bring down anthropogenic methane by 30% by the year 2030; that green energy solutions like solar, wind, geo-thermal and nuclear will replace fossil fuels; that new technologies to sequester carbon dioxide, to produce clean hydrogen, to re-freeze the Arctic are just around the corner; that we will achieve re-forestation, soil regeneration, climate justice and de-growth; that humans will somehow save the planet over the next years and decades."
Here's my question: Where is the proof that any of that will happen? Has our species ever done anything like that in the past? Did we ever return to a sustainable way of living when presented with symptoms of inevitable collapse? The evidence appears to show that only upon threat of extinction have humans ever learned from our mistakes. As for the last 12,000 years, every civilization that has collapsed has resulted in a serious and marked reduction of complexity in every single one of them (search for Joseph Tainter, Peter Turchin, Adam Frank, and Jared Diamond in this blog). Furthermore, the evidence also shows that none of these prevented new civilizations from popping up, and that rather than returning to a more sustainable way of living, the current iteration of civilization, industrial civilization, is the most unsustainable version so far.
Kate Booth adds this about hope, quote:
"Some say that we must hang onto hope in the face of climate-ecological catastrophe, otherwise we will slip into hopelessness. But the opposite to hope is not hopelessness. The opposite to hope is acceptance of reality and an honest assessment of what is actually possible in a collapsing world."
I have posted this article from Derrick Jensen many times, appealing to the reality of what hope really means rather than the general cultural meaning that so many people think it means. He explains it rather well in just three paragraphs, quote:
"Frankly, I don’t have much hope. But I think that’s a good thing. Hope is what keeps us chained to the system, the conglomerate of people and ideas and ideals that is causing the destruction of the Earth.
To start, there is the false hope that suddenly somehow the system may inexplicably change. Or technology will save us. Or the Great Mother. Or beings from Alpha Centauri. Or Jesus Christ. Or Santa Claus. All of these false hopes lead to inaction, or at least to ineffectiveness. One reason my mother stayed with my abusive father was that there were no battered women’s shelters in the ’50s and ’60s, but another was her false hope that he would change. False hopes bind us to unlivable situations, and blind us to real possibilities.
Does anyone really believe that Weyerhaeuser is going to stop deforesting because we ask nicely? Does anyone really believe that Monsanto will stop Monsantoing because we ask nicely? If only we get a Democrat in the White House, things will be okay. If only we pass this or that piece of legislation, things will be okay. If only we defeat this or that piece of legislation, things will be okay. Nonsense. Things will not be okay. They are already not okay, and they’re getting worse. Rapidly."
Derrick goes on to explain in great detail and makes an excellent point here: "Hope is a longing for a future condition over which you have no agency; it means you are essentially powerless."
This demonstrates another angle of my claim that we lack agency as a species. It's true, because what most people really want is for civilization to continue as it is today, with new technology being unveiled to allow this. Unfortunately, it is that technology and our use of it that is destroying life on this planet, meaning that what most people want is impossible. That which is unsustainable (civilization) cannot be sustained. Hoping for something that simply cannot be is magical thinking. It's based on false beliefs and denial rather than on a factual basis.
While it is true that individuals (and this possibly can extend to small communities) can choose to ignore the biological imperative of the MPP and attempt to reduce overshoot and/or their ecological footprint, this does not extend to society in general, unfortunately. Furthermore, as long as most of society continues living embedded within the system of civilization, even those who have rejected technology use such as Indigenous tribes will still be affected since overshoot is global and natures doesn't
In fact, many people argue that what I want is Malthusian and that I want to return to living in caves. This points out the negative cultural narrative surrounding degrowth and most attempts at living an ecologically-friendly lifestyle. In reality, that isn't what I want at all (but what I want is pretty much irrelevant here). However, that is actually pretty close to what will be the reality down the road just a short ways. The way of life each of us is familiar with, industrial civilization, is collapsing and will complete this cycle within the next 25 years.
What I really would like is for people to understand the reality, come to acceptance of the predicaments we face rather than buy into fantasies, myths, and fairy tales, and work towards (what inevitably must and will happen whether we like it or not) abandoning civilization. My sense of reality is also very strong - that this is extremely unlikely to happen voluntarily (there are even groups that want to extend civilization into the distant future!), which is why the default scenario is much more likely. I posted an article about longtermism in one of my articles a considerable time back, and just like all the other noble ideas I have collected, it is based on the false claim that: "future people matter morally just as much as people alive today;...there may well be more people alive in the future than there are in the present or have been in the past; and...we can positively affect future peoples' lives."
How is it possible to positively affect future people's lives when we don't have agency to positively affect the lives of people alive today? If we already aren't reducing overshoot now, then what agency do we have to reduce overshoot in the future? Once one realizes that we have no agency to reduce overshoot today (which is precisely why it isn't happening voluntarily), one also realizes that no agency to affect the future exists either (in actual reality). This is denial of the consequences of past behaviors and pretending that all we have to do is change right now (yes, hilarious, I know) and the slate will be wiped clean and we can start all over to protect the lives of future people. The same kind of logic (or actually the lack thereof) is likewise being practiced in that ecocivilization group (an oxymoron very similar to "sustainable growth"). In a sense, the ideas being tossed around there are reminiscent of The Venus Project and Transition Towns and ecovillages. They're noble ideas, no doubt. But they do not solve overshoot or any of it's symptom predicaments. I would say that at least Transition Towns and ecovillages attempt to reduce one's ecological footprint, even if they have no real ability to do so at a collective level. See these three articles here, and here, and here, for a more indepth explanation of these ideas.
All of this is why so many of us use the word hopium to describe hope. Anyone who comprehends energy and resource decline and realizes that industrial civilization is self-terminating understands that once the energy to rebuild cities and towns destroyed by extreme weather events and other natural and man-made disasters is no longer available, these areas will become brownfields and most likely places to avoid for those lucky enough to be able to afford to do so. Giving up the addiction of hope is important, and Meg Wheatley shows us how here. Nick Humphrey gives more pointers on how to cope here.
Speaking of extreme weather events, trying to keep up with the constant toll of extreme flooding is actually a full-time job for anyone paying attention. Most people here in the United States are well aware of Hurricanes Helene and Milton and the damage to Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia but have little knowledge of all the other places globally suffering from similar events. So far in October of 2024, we have seen serious flooding in Thailand, Taiwan, Oman, Turkey, Mexico, Ecuador, New Zealand, Bosnia, Herzegovina, Italy, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Croatia, USA, Trinidad, Tobago, Ireland, France, Spain, Nigeria, Malaysia, Peru, Saudi Arabia, India, Singapore, Morocco, Mali, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Australia, Algeria, UK, Tunisia, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Canada, Yemen, Philippines, etc. How long will the insurance industry hold up before it collapses? Maybe we should just hope that it won't collapse. Surely that will fix it, right? Hahaha, well, at least my sarcasm is still going strong.
One really needs to have a good sense of sarcasm to navigate the reality of today. Find the beauty to be grateful for and enjoy what we have today. May your journey to acceptance and letting go of hope be successful and fruitful. Live Now and check out Roan Mountain!
"Speaking of extreme weather events, trying to keep up with the constant toll…"
ReplyDeleteBritish Columbia and Washington State have just endured their first Category 3 hurricane equivalent. 170 km/hr (105 mph) winds had half a million people without electricity at one point — it's down to perhaps 90,000 now.
This ain't normal, folks.
The "going back to living in caves" is just silly. Anyone who thought about it for a minute will realise the survivors of collapse will have at least 7 houses each, due to the mass die off of humans that will ensue. There'll be plenty of houses to go round heheh
ReplyDeleteSam Mitchell and Tom Murphy and yourself are my lifelines to reality, however I do think we have agency to save what we can and not just party until it is all over. My theory is that the poor are having a hard enough time feeding their kids to worry about what is coming; the rich think money can solve anything, and everyone else is into hope or denial so they can continue to exploit and plunder life and resources. Only a few of us understand the predicament and should live like we care, not like it is hopeless.
ReplyDeleteWe can save what we can, but not because of agency, free will as such is an illusion. Read Sam Harris on this.
Delete