It can be hard to get one's mind around why we are letting the world go to hell in a handbasket, when we know the damage we're causing. But when one realised a few fundamental things about humans it becomes clear (at least for now - I might have it all wrong and someone will put me right).
As you've implied, without perhaps saying it explicitly, humans are a species. Like all species, they evolved based on mutations that were beneficial now, not beneficial over the long term. This is how evolution works. Humans are no different from other species in that they maximize energy throughput. Humans are superb at accessing resources and chanelling energy, which is why we've done so much damage. True, for hundreds of thousands, even millions, of years, we seemed to fit in as part of climax ecologies but I think this was an illusion because innovations and discoveries that allowed us to succeed, in the moment, occurred very slowly. Humans had to make the discoveries first and then work to perfect them. And there were so few humans. Some of the innovations allowed humans to spread around the globe and wreak even more havoc in ecosystems where we didn't evolve. Humans can't stop being species just because some of us realise the effects we're having.
Also, it's clear that there is no such thing as free will (for example, see Robert Sapolsky's book, Determined: A Life Without Free Will). There are only the neural nets that have evolved as part of us (same for all species with a brain). Our decisions are the results of the firing of a set sequence of neurons, that we have no conscious control over. So the only way to get humans to act differently is to alter the way neurons connect and what prompts them to fire. Providing information to the brains can cause some alteration but most of how a brain developed is already baked in: our genes, the environment and epi-genetics, our upbringing, our culture. Then there is the weather, how badly we slept, the toxins we breathe in or consume, and so on. Discovering and communicating reality is just one part of what goes into our neural make up. So it can't change quickly.
But even if our brains could be rewired in a way that gets us to act, what would we try to achieve? A sustainable way of life is not one that includes the use of non-renewable resources (since they are a one-off limited resource). The only sustainable way of life, I can think of is a hunter-gatherer existence using only simple wooden or woven tools and equipment. But that isn't the type of existence that 8.2 billion people can undertake on the planet as it stands. So what do we want people to do? This is something I'm wrestling with. It's not going to be possible to rewire the brains of enough people to willingly regress to a hunter-gatherer existence. Perhaps we just have to be happy with a return to some way of life that was much much simpler, perhaps from a few centuries ago in western nations. But for all peoples of the world?
I just don't see a path forward but maybe with enough minds thinking about it, we can come up with just about acceptable ideas? One thing I know, though, is that we have to realise what is actually possible and sustainable, even if only for a few millennia.
I too was a fan of James Kunstler, both on Peak Oil and on urban planning, and even used his Ted Talk on American urban design failures for lecturing Sustainable Development before I retired. Sadly I lost respect for his political views with his support for Trump, which surprised me.
May I add two comments on your comprehensive post. The first is to recognise that 75% of any population are statistically under 110 IQ, and the average IQ of someone going to university is around 115 to 120 IQ, depending on whether it is a sociology or STEM degree. Whilst we all know that IQ is an imperfect measure, it is still indicative of part of the wider problem - that a majority of people are ill equipped to deal with existential problems that are outside their sphere of personal experiences.
To take that one stage further, any politician that wants to get elected by a popular vote must first reflect the views of the majority of the electorate, and that 75% IS the majority.
Secondly the predominant driver and framework of all decision-making in the Westernised countries is Capitalism, and its unit of measure, GDP. The system is set up to focus on profit, not just for business but also to judge the 'worth' of people and families and communities, even personal worth and status. All decisions are therefore made to favour maximising profit, and one way to do that is to externalise costs, risks and damages.
That in a nutshell explains the climate and ecological crises, where profit is maximised when CO2 and pollution is externalised, and explains corporate and government failure to address the CO2 and pollution issues because there is not only no profit in it, but there are net costs. It is instructive that the only attempts to remove CO2 is by financialising them as 'carbon credits' for corporate profit, and even then corporations and governments gamed the system to cheat the results and maximise profits!
My view, for what it is worth, is that the only solution is a comprehensive collapse of the debt-ridden Western economies, particularly the worst polluter, the USA, and also a collapse of the human population from its current 8.2 billion and projected 10+ billion, back to levels last seen back when I was born in the 1950's,around 2.5 billion or less. Yes, in just one lifetime and 3.5 to 4 times the population - no wonder we are in so much trouble!
However you look at the numbers, those two together are the only way that runaway climate change MIGHT be slowed, and even then it is doubtful because we seem to have triggered so many tipping points; the ice will still melt, the methane will still explode the climate, and the mass migration will still mean abandoning some countries and overwhelming others.
The 'good' news is the American markets and economy are barrelling toward a major crash, and that will bring down most Western markets. I doubt they will ever recover as the costs of accelerating climate catastrophes overwhelms us. But the population crash will be harder to watch. Or even to survive.
Thank you for the comments. I think you will find some of what you say reflected in the essay series. There are over a dozen in the pipeline. That should be enough to scare subscribers away.
2-3 billion is a number suggested, credits are indeed a furphy, and financial collapse is highly likely, democracy too I suspect, perhaps for the reasons you propose.
I seem to recall that ‘may you live in interesting times’ is a euphemistic curse, although apparently not of Chinese origin.
It can be hard to get one's mind around why we are letting the world go to hell in a handbasket, when we know the damage we're causing. But when one realised a few fundamental things about humans it becomes clear (at least for now - I might have it all wrong and someone will put me right).
As you've implied, without perhaps saying it explicitly, humans are a species. Like all species, they evolved based on mutations that were beneficial now, not beneficial over the long term. This is how evolution works. Humans are no different from other species in that they maximize energy throughput. Humans are superb at accessing resources and chanelling energy, which is why we've done so much damage. True, for hundreds of thousands, even millions, of years, we seemed to fit in as part of climax ecologies but I think this was an illusion because innovations and discoveries that allowed us to succeed, in the moment, occurred very slowly. Humans had to make the discoveries first and then work to perfect them. And there were so few humans. Some of the innovations allowed humans to spread around the globe and wreak even more havoc in ecosystems where we didn't evolve. Humans can't stop being species just because some of us realise the effects we're having.
Also, it's clear that there is no such thing as free will (for example, see Robert Sapolsky's book, Determined: A Life Without Free Will). There are only the neural nets that have evolved as part of us (same for all species with a brain). Our decisions are the results of the firing of a set sequence of neurons, that we have no conscious control over. So the only way to get humans to act differently is to alter the way neurons connect and what prompts them to fire. Providing information to the brains can cause some alteration but most of how a brain developed is already baked in: our genes, the environment and epi-genetics, our upbringing, our culture. Then there is the weather, how badly we slept, the toxins we breathe in or consume, and so on. Discovering and communicating reality is just one part of what goes into our neural make up. So it can't change quickly.
But even if our brains could be rewired in a way that gets us to act, what would we try to achieve? A sustainable way of life is not one that includes the use of non-renewable resources (since they are a one-off limited resource). The only sustainable way of life, I can think of is a hunter-gatherer existence using only simple wooden or woven tools and equipment. But that isn't the type of existence that 8.2 billion people can undertake on the planet as it stands. So what do we want people to do? This is something I'm wrestling with. It's not going to be possible to rewire the brains of enough people to willingly regress to a hunter-gatherer existence. Perhaps we just have to be happy with a return to some way of life that was much much simpler, perhaps from a few centuries ago in western nations. But for all peoples of the world?
I just don't see a path forward but maybe with enough minds thinking about it, we can come up with just about acceptable ideas? One thing I know, though, is that we have to realise what is actually possible and sustainable, even if only for a few millennia.
Good and informative post. Thank you.
I too was a fan of James Kunstler, both on Peak Oil and on urban planning, and even used his Ted Talk on American urban design failures for lecturing Sustainable Development before I retired. Sadly I lost respect for his political views with his support for Trump, which surprised me.
May I add two comments on your comprehensive post. The first is to recognise that 75% of any population are statistically under 110 IQ, and the average IQ of someone going to university is around 115 to 120 IQ, depending on whether it is a sociology or STEM degree. Whilst we all know that IQ is an imperfect measure, it is still indicative of part of the wider problem - that a majority of people are ill equipped to deal with existential problems that are outside their sphere of personal experiences.
To take that one stage further, any politician that wants to get elected by a popular vote must first reflect the views of the majority of the electorate, and that 75% IS the majority.
Secondly the predominant driver and framework of all decision-making in the Westernised countries is Capitalism, and its unit of measure, GDP. The system is set up to focus on profit, not just for business but also to judge the 'worth' of people and families and communities, even personal worth and status. All decisions are therefore made to favour maximising profit, and one way to do that is to externalise costs, risks and damages.
That in a nutshell explains the climate and ecological crises, where profit is maximised when CO2 and pollution is externalised, and explains corporate and government failure to address the CO2 and pollution issues because there is not only no profit in it, but there are net costs. It is instructive that the only attempts to remove CO2 is by financialising them as 'carbon credits' for corporate profit, and even then corporations and governments gamed the system to cheat the results and maximise profits!
My view, for what it is worth, is that the only solution is a comprehensive collapse of the debt-ridden Western economies, particularly the worst polluter, the USA, and also a collapse of the human population from its current 8.2 billion and projected 10+ billion, back to levels last seen back when I was born in the 1950's,around 2.5 billion or less. Yes, in just one lifetime and 3.5 to 4 times the population - no wonder we are in so much trouble!
However you look at the numbers, those two together are the only way that runaway climate change MIGHT be slowed, and even then it is doubtful because we seem to have triggered so many tipping points; the ice will still melt, the methane will still explode the climate, and the mass migration will still mean abandoning some countries and overwhelming others.
The 'good' news is the American markets and economy are barrelling toward a major crash, and that will bring down most Western markets. I doubt they will ever recover as the costs of accelerating climate catastrophes overwhelms us. But the population crash will be harder to watch. Or even to survive.
Interesting times!
Thank you for the comments. I think you will find some of what you say reflected in the essay series. There are over a dozen in the pipeline. That should be enough to scare subscribers away.
2-3 billion is a number suggested, credits are indeed a furphy, and financial collapse is highly likely, democracy too I suspect, perhaps for the reasons you propose.
I seem to recall that ‘may you live in interesting times’ is a euphemistic curse, although apparently not of Chinese origin.
Perhaps a curse for some. Manna for others of us that might otherwise be bored with living here in Heaven! 🙂