Anthropocentric Narratives and Bargaining

The walkway down to Otsego Lake at Fairy Springs Park outside of Cooperstown, New York

I think my work here is mostly done (but we shall see about that). I mean, how many different ways can I explain the difference between a problem and a predicament and list a series of inconvenient truths that demonstrate the intractability of our lack of agency to do much more than apply a band-aid and perhaps some duct tape to the collapse surrounding us? Sure, there are new developments almost daily coming in, but they are almost always rundowns of the same predicaments writ large, and the same tired anthropocentric narratives typically follow them. New technology is consistently being hyped that makes claims of being able to do things that in reality it can't because no technology can replicate nature and no technology can make holistic treatments as a result. Nothing I say, write, or do is going to change these dynamics. I shall continue to write here, but at a lesser pace than the previous 4 years. I do it because I enjoy it and to try to help people come to acceptance about the predicaments we face. 

As time has moved forward, more and more desperate ideas continue to evolve from folks who deny these predicaments or refuse to accept that they are, indeed predicaments with outcomes, and not problems with solutions. People continue reaching for the hopium and bargaining more and more every day. Acceptance helps restore reality and balance to one's life, something denial and bargaining will never be able to do.

The news in my last article with regard to the dire wolves (which in reality are actually grey wolves) should be a small preview of what will be on offer in the future. Mostly denial of reality and optimism bias, I'm afraid, with an unhealthy dose of authoritarian control thrown in. One should be able to see precisely why we lack agency to be able to reduce overshoot and return the planet to what it once was. 

The first question one must ask is pretty simple - if we have given up our daily chores to technology to do the heavy lifting, what is it we are responsible for? Making money doesn't seem a good substitute for understanding how to live, given nature doesn't have money (it is entirely 100% anthropocentric). Next, how do we prevent atrophy of our bodies and minds from the lack of taking care of our own responsibilities as a result of technology "taking over"? Has society remembered how to live in the old ways? Add in the question that if technology now provides this work, where does it get the energy and resources to accomplish those tasks? Finally, if we have allowed technology to "take over" these responsibilities, how can we possibly have agency to reduce overshoot given the fact that technology use can only increase overshoot? If we don't voluntarily reduce technology use, then we are condemned to deal with the consequences of said technology use, including dealing with all of the pollution loading that using it comes with. This means the consequence of losing our abilities to lead healthy lives and be able to reproduce (which points to this reality). 

Since the same pollution causing us to become sterile is likewise having the same effect on all other organisms (including species brought forth by bioengineering), then all these compromised species (species which were not born from evolution but from a test tube) will likewise be unable to gain much of a foothold. An extinct species cannot be brought back into existence this way. First of all, an appropriate habitat for a species is required. Times and conditions have changed dramatically since dire wolves, the dodo, and woolly mammoths roamed the planet. Habitat no longer exists for them, because they also need thousands of genetically distinct individuals for a viable gene pool. Less than that and the species will go extinct from inbreeding. If appropriate habitat no longer exists for one, then there certainly won't be habitat for thousands. This was a clever idea that contained no wisdom whatsoever, primarily because the actual goal was most likely money rather than any true benefit to the biosphere. 

I've posted multiple times how thermodynamic systems do not go backwards. Very few systems (if any) actually do. Most systems operate like a sine wave; they go back and forth (crest and trough) and forward only. One can visualize that many of these back and forth cycles require exceedingly long (geological) timeframes to occur. So, the ideas that I consistently see being thrown around as "solutions" or "mitigations" are in reality totally ludicrous. Once again, properties of dissipative structures are important to remember:

Now, this doesn't mean that one should just throw in the towel and give up Living Now (doing what you are passionate about). Remember The Cycle of Life. This isn't about giving up on anything worth pursuing; it is about giving up on those things which simply cannot be. The ideas behind bringing back extinct species or saving species or saving the planet or rewilding the planet or regenerating soil or regenerating agriculture or planting trillions of trees or reversing climate change or any of the other multitude of ridiculous ideas cannot work because they are reductionistic in nature. In order for those ideas to work, all the other conditions of all the other systems that existed back when these systems were in operation or when those conditions existed ALSO have to be in those same operating conditions. 

In other words, as long as civilization exists, "rewilding the planet" cannot be achieved. As long as 8.25 billion people are roaming the planet, regenerating soil is a practice in futility. Sure, one can reduce the amount of fertilizers and pesticides, herbicides, fungicides, and other agricultural amendments added. However, while he or she is reducing his or her use of soil amendments, soil in other areas is depleting and more of these amendments are used there. In addition, the ongoing pollution loading caused collectively by us all isn't being reduced because the system itself was unsustainable to begin with and it isn't being abandoned. The bottom line with all these ideas is that because they are reductionistic in nature, they do not work holistically. All the other systems would have to be likewise brought back into balance for these ideas to work in the manner claimed by those who falsely believe in them due to faith in technology and/or human ingenuity.

Another idea that I am familiar with is the idea to rid the world of wetiko and other human psychological shortcomings. While attempting to rid human psychological flaws and defects from the picture would help to reduce overshoot if it was successful, this is highly unlikely as long as civilization remains the dominant arrangement of living. Once again, this is an attempt at reducing the predicament to our psychology and ignores the framework of everything else. 

Wetiko is a cultural issue as much as a psychological one and did not exist before civilization began. Technology addiction uses wetiko as a rationalization for said addiction, so wetiko is part and parcel of technology use and will not disappear until living arrangements are no longer dependent almost exclusively upon civilization. Once again, we like to think we are in control when in reality, that is nothing but an illusion.

Really, most every idea I have seen, including the ones here, are denial of reality and bargaining to maintain civilization. They don't take into consideration what would actually be required for the ideas to work, where all the systems that surround us would likewise be required to change and/or disappear. Of course, one cannot get these facts across to folks who believe in technology use because their belief isn't based on evidence; it is based on a deep-seated need to believe. 

This is similar to all the ideas being currently attempted to avoid or reverse collapse. Generally speaking, most all of them can only hasten collapse since it cannot be averted. Reversing collapse isn't even on the menu because it isn't possible. Tariffs can't address collapse because collapse cannot be negotiated with. One might as well try arguing with gravity. People will blame the predicaments we face on all sorts of different things and attempt to gain control of collapse and/or any other symptom predicament of overshoot through these different things. Playing the blame game generally gets us nowhere though, because the only control we can exert is on ourselves by reducing energy use and material throughput through technology use reduction. In other words, the absolute best that can be achieved is a reduction of harm. The predicaments can neither be stopped nor reversed. Lessening the severity is the best that can be achieved.

Attempting to use politics to change the dynamics of collapse is nothing more than pure ignorance, hubris, and stupidity. The root issue of most all of the predicaments we face is unsustainable systems. I wrote two articles (here and here) in particular quite a while back (2 years ago) which provide a number of links to help one think more about our current situation. Another link that might be valuable to think about is this resource. Primarily, attempting to use politics always fails when it comes to any global predicament such as collapse, because it pits one nation against another when we all live in the same biosphere and nature doesn't recognize anthropocentric borders, as I pointed out in this article.

Technology addiction is no different than any other addiction. Denial of the issue initially prevents action that could begin to resolve the addiction. Blaming other issues projects and deflects responsibility onto others and away from oneself. Bargaining with the addiction as if one can negotiate with it creates the illusion of control. All of these issues tend to precede acceptance of the predicament, once one finally admits the reality to himself or herself that the situation is intractable and that nobody else has the ability to do anything about it - it must be dealt with from within, not externally. 

The sad truth is that some people are actually willing to die from their addiction. Some will die unintentionally from their addiction, either from a substance they abused or from something they did while under the influence of said substance. Considering this simple fact points out that some individuals would rather die than change their behavior, as pointed out in this comic I have posted before from Ken Avidor (creator of the Mazz Alone series):

So, our lack of agency here is quite intractable, and while individuals might be able to extend their relative safety for a while, sooner or later the predicaments we face will find them too. I once believed that I could strengthen and fortify my living arrangements to be "collapse ready." While I did make many improvements, I came to realize that I was fooling myself. Even if I had completed all the improvements, I began to comprehend that there was literally no way to avoid certain consequences of the predicaments we face. I also started seeing that the older I got, the less able I would be to physically be able to keep up with everything. I now see all these different ideas claimed as "solutions" or "mitigations" just like I do with so many other idealistic, noble ideas about life in general. Like many folks in their 20s, I once felt as if I was invincible too. The older one gets, the more he or she realizes how fragile human life truly is. The arrogant attitude changes into one with far more humility. This is the wisdom of experience and the experience of wisdom that come with maturity. 

That shall be my topic next time. Until then, please enjoy Gum Gap Overlook at Grandview and Popcorn Overlook and Black Rock Mountain State Park!