Radical Acceptance, Part Two
When it comes to ecological overshoot, there is another predicament that closely mirrors overshoot. Most people know it as AI (Artificial Intelligence). Where are the adults in the room who call the shots? Guess what? As this video demonstrates, they don't exist. In the video, AI expert Connor Leahy tells Imran Garda why he is now sounding the alarm regarding the fact that we might be in extinction level trouble. If you want to skip right to the point, go to the 17:26 mark in the video.
Now, we were in trouble with regard to extinction long before AI even became a reality. One could easily say that the adults in the room left a long time ago; probably almost as soon as we began growing grains and scaled up the process (agriculture) so that we could store the surplus. This was the beginning of civilization and displays the manner in which we employed the Maximum Power Principle (MPP - unknown to us at the time) and then later used wetiko as the means to justify and maintain this unsustainable system of living. This was accomplished through propaganda, cultural conditioning, and educational indoctrination. We are a rationalizing species, not necessarily a rational one.
Recently, I received a comment on one of the other platforms where I publish my articles regarding human violence. I had made mention of our species as one that is inherently violent, and primarily a male trait. The above paragraph explains why this is. When I say "our species," I am speaking of our species in a collective manner; not as individuals, individual groups, or even entire nations. His entire argument was negated by that simple fact, but he persisted even after I provided more than sufficient evidence for my claims. He went on to discuss regal versus Kungic cultures, which once again are subsets of our species. The simple fact that we are in extreme ecological overshoot in actual reality tells the story. If we were truly a peaceful species like what he apparently wants to believe, then we would not be in this situation to begin with. Then he posted two of his articles. So I went on to provide yet more evidence of our species' violence pointing to our technology use and agriculture (which is what supports civilization) and how we wiped out the megafauna. We (those of us in civilization) see the land around us as "ours" rather than us belonging to the land instead. As a result, we see nature as a means to an end for resources rather than something to be protected at all costs because it is the source of our own existence and sustenance.
Why is this difference so important? Because this difference has been caused by our use of technology, which has produced the illusion of our separation from nature. We haven't truly realistically been separated from nature - we are an inseparable part of nature. But we are just a part and we cannot survive without the other parts of nature which we are now systematically killing off in a myriad of ways as part of our overshoot condition through the mass extinction we are now in, one of the symptom predicaments.
One of the things that cracks me up is that now that people understand that we are killing off other life on this planet through our behavior of technology use, nobody is busy talking about how to reduce said technology use. In fact, most talk is focused on building even more technology, such as Artificial Intelligence [(AI) mentioned above] in an effort to "solve" the predicaments we have caused. Other folks want to utilize regenerative agriculture or other means to "regenerate" or "fix" nature. Wait a minute...isn't the entire issue here our constant interference with nature in the first place??!! Yes, of course it is. So, rather than continuing to try to "fix" the issues we think need to be fixed, perhaps the correct strategy is to leave nature alone! What is it about our hubris that makes us think we even know how to fix nature? Let me ask a question here...what did nature do before we existed as a species? There were at least 8 or 9 mass extinctions before this one - and before we even existed - and somehow nature figured everything out without us. Doh! One of the biggest issues is our agenda of doing things which benefit us - our anthropocentrism - at the expense of all other species. We think we are so important, but once again, we are only a part of nature, not nature itself.
Not only are we constantly trying to command and control nature to benefit us, we often fail to see how this will only end up hurting us in the end (agriculture being one such effort in all its forms). This constant interference with nature is often thought of as "saving" nature or "regenerating earth" or some other ridiculous concoction such as "saving" species. One of the absolute worst things about almost every effort involves money, which, being a claim on energy, can only result in increasing overshoot; once again, making all symptom predicaments worse instead of better. Yes, I have focused on these efforts of human supremacy - our anthropocentrism - because they are endemic to society at all levels. As long as we continue civilization, NONE of these ideas will help do anything but increase overshoot. It is all bargaining to maintain civilization. Forget this hopium nonsense - rejecting this garbage and accepting that opting out of civilization to the extent one can is a much better choice and is the best that can be accomplished. Doing so is the best way that one can reduce our behavior of technology use, the cause of overshoot (and all the other symptom predicaments such as climate change).
Opting out of civilization to the extent one can being the only real way to reduce overshoot, and thus all the symptom predicaments, means reducing dependence on technology. We're in a double bind here, because most of us living within civilization (everyone not living as hunter/gatherers) don't know how to live without technology use. At this point, 97 to 98% of society today would see this (abandoning industrial civilization) as being something only a crazy person would even consider. Yet, in less than 25 years, this will be a reality for a large portion of the world's people, provided we don't blow ourselves up first and create a nuclear winter in the process.
Because living within civilization means that our living arrangements are supported almost entirely by technology use, no plan to reduce overshoot would be complete without this particular step. Hunting and gathering or nomadic herding on grasslands are the only ways of living that I know of that might actually be sustainable long term. While I doubt that this matters much anyway due to my assessment that we lack agency to be able to do much about our overshoot condition in the first place, IF we avoid blowing ourselves up, there will be people who will need to know how to live without the technological equipment and infrastructure of today's civilization. Many people have a Pollyannaish view on developing some type of "sustainable" civilization, but in reality, there is no such thing. Continuing unsustainable behaviors on a seriously degraded planet after collapse will only further exacerbate the overshoot condition and end up with the outcome as pointed out at the beginning of the second paragraph.
As mentioned above, practically every idea focusing on reducing the severity or mitigating the consequences of collapse (which is the consequence of overshoot, and overshoot is the consequence of advanced technology use) involves the use of money. That will be my topic for next week. Until then, please feel free to enjoy Lover's Leap Overlook!
The use of technology is the cause of overshoot. Humans are incompatible with the community of life & are unlikely to survive the 6th mass extinction. The hubris of human supremacy will be our undoing
ReplyDeleteI have a problem with the notion of wetiko as some kind of civilizational spiritual sickness. Simplifying or co-opting indigenous ideas without understanding their cultural and spiritual depth risks perpetuating colonial attitudes.
DeleteHumans evolved to survive in relatively simple environments, where small-group dynamics and immediate problems dominated. Our brains are not evolutionarily equipped to manage the complexities of modern, globalized societies. This mismatch leads to the creation of simplistic memes—mental shortcuts, stories, or narratives that help us make sense of overwhelming complexity. Reading Iain McGilchrist, these memes, often born from the left hemisphere's focus on simplicity, categorization and control, can became entrenched and harmful when they fail to reflect ecological realities. Memes like these have a lot of staying power. By their nature, they are sticky. They spread not because they are true or beneficial but because they resonate emotionally or culturally. The ‘consumerism’ and ‘anthropocentrism’ memes are good examples. They thrive because they simplify complex realities into actionable beliefs or behaviors. It doesn’t matter that these behaviors are ecologically destructive.
Calling this phenomenon a ‘spiritual sickness’ shifts responsibility away from individuals and systems, framing the problem as external or mystical, when it is in fact intrinsic to human cognition and culture. We should be careful when we attribute destructive behaviors to a vague external force like wetiko. It abdicates human responsibility. It is overly moralistic—we should be understanding the poly crisis as derived from cognitive and evolutionary restraints. Worse, we stand a chance of missing the root cause by focusing on symptoms, like greed and disconnection, rather than creating new cultural narratives better in keeping with the ecosphere’s reality.
It would be better if we looked elsewhere. A good place to start is by recognizing the limitations of the human brain in dealing with complexity. We should learn to seek out and identify simplistic memes that may in fact be harmful. Most important of all, we should develop counter-memes, identifying and replacing harmful memes with ones that are not only sustainable but also resonate deeply with our evolved psychological tendencies. These counter-memes should emphasize not only our own cognitive shortcomings, but also the needs of the planet as a whole, with us as a tiny part.
Nice one Erik. It seems there are two important destinations that a good overshoot journey will take a person to. Most only make it to the first stop which is understanding that civilization needs to go away. The 2nd stop is a much harder destination to get to. Because it requires the person to have major control over their denial. But if you can get there, it then becomes just as obvious as civilization needing to go extinct.... humans need to go away as well.
ReplyDeleteBeing stuck at the first destination puts you in the same camp with the ignorant masses who don't even waste one minute of their lives with this doomerism. Both camps will be in agreement that the most important issue at hand is for the human race to make it through the upcoming bottleneck and continue on in the history books. Boy, that's a lot of hard time served in the doomasphere just to end up on the same page as 8 billion clueless f'ing morons. I wouldn't trust it just for that reason alone.
This essay link has nothing to do with your article, but you and your audience might find it interesting. https://un-denial.com/2024/12/29/by-charles-chris-doomers-anonymous/
Paqnation, I read your link. Interesting, I hadn't thought there was a definite step where 'doomers' stop as it were, bargaining between the end of civilisation and the end of humanity.
Delete"Both camps will be in agreement that the most important issue at hand is for the human race to make it through the upcoming bottleneck and continue on in the history books."
I've not seen that as a trait specifically, but then my second step into the doomosphere after fracking was Hambone Littletail then Sam Mitchell , by chance, so maybe I got the rough treatment before viewing the work of the experts, haha.
For me personally I'm quite content with the notion of human's disappearing alongside civilisation, and consider it more inevitable than not. I even put a figure on for my own amusement, using a 2020 baseline we have a 60% chance of going extinct, +1% per year that we don't change behaviour (ie emissions are still going up). So now we're up to 65%.
Is there a case of just overthinking? Is that MORT theory more of this? Another human trait, another human centred trait. When I first saw the acronym I thought it meant Mortaility Orientated Reality Transition, ie once the death rate overtakes the birthrate, the mass of normies will come to understand overshoot and maybe attempt to do something about it. Reading further links it appears MORT is something else, which I don't have the time to delve into currently.
I feel that a compassion based argument is sufficient - if we look at the world through the eyes of the other 8.7 million species, then perhaps it is best for them that we go?
The problem now of course is that we are taking most of them with us in the current mass extinction event.
Very cogent analysis of humanity’s predicament. I remember how a biologist put it years ago: the fatal flaw of our species is that we are too numerous, too clever and too greedy. Tied to the laws of nature , we are no different collectively than bacteria in a Petri dish. Who can doubt that like bacteria, we will consume all resources as quickly as possible, destroying our habitat in the process? If you think that consciousness somehow gives us any more agency than single celled creatures, I would point you to the results of the recent American election.
ReplyDelete