Category: Behavior

By Charles & Chris: Doomers Anonymous

Le Deluge by Léon Comerre

Un-denial regulars Charles & Chris (aka paqnation) collaborated on this essay exploring the psyche of doomers.

They discuss in detail characteristics common to the doomers they know. I have not observed the same common characteristics in the overshoot aware people I follow, and I elaborate a bit on this at the end of the essay.

It will be interesting to hear from others in the comments what they observe about doomers.

Introduction

Today, we are exploring a topic, which is rarely addressed in the doomosphere. We are not going to describe material limits and extraction trends, evaluate which DEFCON level is currently on, uncover the early and now increasingly advanced signs of collapse, speculate on the origin, mechanism or inevitability of our collective demise, attempt to predict the exact date of societal breakdown, lament over denial, wonder if Good(TM) and nature will prevail, or debate in which exquisite torments the human species will go extinct. But rather, for once, we focus on the personal: we observe the observer.

This is a topic Charles had wanted to explore for quite a long time but didn’t know how to. Following recent comments at un-Denial, Chris privately inquired if he was detecting some bargaining or desperation. This led to an interesting observation: we both recognize how precarious this fleeting moment is in human experience. However, we arrived at different accepting states: Charles tenaciously follows his heart, at his small scale, with faith, whatever the outcome, whereas Chris lives with kindness, relieved to witness the demise of this destructive species. So what would be the common characteristics of doomers? How does this impact their personal life, in particular in their social interactions? And what are some of the strategies that they can deploy to balance their nature?

Disclaimer: we are not trained psychologists. So, although we drew from our personal experiences and observations, there is no claim of any general validity. We still hope this may be of some use, especially, for those, increasingly numerous, who are just starting their journey down doomers’ lane: beware since this is a bumpy route. If not, then just read this piece lightly, on the beach as you would a summer article from Vogue magazine.

Birth and Discovery

Our study starts from the second best resource for any serious contemporary heavily funded research project: Wikipedia (the first one being some AI-powered scam-selling chatbot).

The page on doomers states that they “are people who are extremely pessimistic or fatalistic about global problems”. Well, that’s clearly the description of doomers from the external point of view of a normie. While it is true doomers think most exclusively at the global scale, they would disagree about having a pessimistic perspective. For them, the rest of society suffers from optimism bias, even denial. They would readily argue, some even ferociously, their outlook is realistic, if not the only possible outcome. There is a story behind this stance.

Nobody is born a doomer. Even if there may be some psychological predisposition, anyone can become a doomer. The typical doomer didn’t even willingly decide to become one, in the same way he would start tennis. This is a condition one develops when bitten by a radioactive spider: maybe he read some piece in a newspaper about the end of oil, or was shaken by some internet news about deforestation trends. With the impacts of climate change starting to be tangible, these animals can be encountered in the wild a lot more easily than they used to be. Most of, if not all of, these articles end on a positive note: how some substitutes are being worked on, or some politicians are about to regulate, or how anybody can participate in harm reduction by behaving as a responsible consumer. The soon to become doomer finds himself unknowingly at a turning point, he stands just before the gate which will eventually shake his world upside-down: he can accept the convenient conclusions at face value and forget, or start asking questions.

If he takes the red pill, a series of discoveries and shocks about the “true” nature of his world awaits him. This is the start of a long learning phase, a period of gradual uncovering and revelations. Unrolling the wool ball, teaches him rudiments in fields as diverse as mathematics, history, ecology, system dynamic, physics, evolutionary biology, geology, political science, sociology (and maybe even linguistics), psychology… Every day, he spends multiple hours reading books, listening to experts, skimming the internet in search for obscure blogs, hidden gems of knowledge. And gradually, piece by piece, he patiently assembles a small holistic inner “model of everything”, a mini-world comparable to a computer simulation. With this model, he hopes to understand the world, in its entirety, not only in its current state, but also its origins and future dynamic. He constantly refines the model, incorporates new findings. And he always comes up with the same, disappointing, but inescapable answer: 42. Scratch… Rewind… Sorry, wrong story… The Soon to Be All Ending Catastrophe.

Growth and Action

Once he is completely convinced of the folly of conventional wisdom, the doomer starts to act. In doing so, note that he is still following a very conventional cultural pattern: identify a problem then act in order to reach a solution.

His motivations vary according to his nature: inflect the global dynamic, avert the crash, if only for his group, lessen the blow, or deal with personal guilt or anger. He acts differently according to who he is and what he values: he may become an activist, teach other, learn to live thriftily, disconnect from the machine, travel, even follow a spiritual path. He tries to spread the word, finds his tribe. He may be learning new skills: growing food, doing preserves, managing a stock of perishable goods, metal-work, carpentry, communication, horticulture, bushcraft, homesteading, cooking, knitting, hunting… In some cases, this may go as far as to change him into an accomplished survivalist, a hermit, or even a pagan druid. He is forward-looking, cautious. He likes to stay on the safe side, keep margins of errors. Simultaneously, he is innovating, willing to take risks to explore non-conventional paths. He perceives the unexpected and plans for it. The doomer walks the talk, he is ready to step out of his comfort zone, experiment with activities he doesn’t necessarily (initially) enjoy. This all proves his tenacity, and that he is willing to make genuine sacrifices for the greater good. He is resilient, independent, autonomous. He does not need to rely and may even be defiant towards authority, central power.

This is a time of radical changes: the slow intellectual maturation process of the preceding phase is brought to fruition. This is also a constructive phase in the trajectory of the doomer. He has impacts, some he is unaware of. He can shock other people who may initially reject his perspective, but won’t forget. He rings the alarm bell, plays the societal role of the canary, shows alternative ways of living, out of the norm. Overall, he is able to nudge the collective perception of reality, instill doubt in the official narrative. But until it is the right time, this will not, this cannot scale up.

He thinks global, he expects to see global changes. So he eventually takes notice of the great gap between his efforts and expectations.

Stagnation and Isolation

At this point, he can feel pretty down. The beverage from the doomer’s chalice is about to turn sour. He may have paid, a sometimes pretty heavy, price for following this trail: maybe he lost all interest in his work and was fired, or he was abandoned by friends after repetitive bouts of anger, divorced his wife who couldn’t bear his constant mulling. Seeing the normies still going on with it, his life may not feel as enjoyable: the tasteless military canned food, the cold showers, the lack of finance, the crazy entourage, the aging and aching body, the absence of children’ laughter. Sometimes it feels all he achieved was only to travel down the social ladder and preemptively self-destruct. He may regret his sacrifices. All for nothing.

It seems the doomer is particularly vulnerable and obnoxious in his social interactions. Traveling for so long outside of the societal norm, having to constantly battle one’s beliefs in opposition to the group, is corrosive. It has forged his identity in a way that few can appreciate his company. The doomer is eternally focused on future and grandiose issues, to the point he may disregard immediate concerns or current concrete people’s suffering. This can easily and rightfully be felt as selfishness. It seems he eternally postpones the time he will allow himself to live, to be happy, to be. Instead, it is constant high alert: prepare, anticipate, protect, hide…

More importantly even, he feels he is not being listened to. If only they would follow his plan. If only they would all behave reasonably like himself. However, he never really acknowledges the other party either. He has only one channel of communication: verbal mental logic, within his own little “model of everything” at that. Maybe, he doesn’t understand the other modes of communication, doesn’t know they exist. He will invariably steer discussions towards collapse, like a reliable magnet. He feels it is his duty of explaining the world to other. So he often ends up sounding like a patronizing self-righteous bastard preaching from his ivory tower, a clear know-it-all. He stubbornly offers depressing tales of defeats without any room for breathing. He will not tolerate any difference of opinion or alternative views, about something which is, after all, to a large degree unknown and unknowable. It is never enough, no “solution” can work. No amount of preparation will do, no effort matters, it is never enough. Doesn’t it seem like the opposite, and very similar, side of the growth mentality? And then he rambles about his preferred course of action: the ultimate solution in a long list of solutions which all try to solve problems brought about previous solutions. Some kind of “final solution” of a new kind. Sounds totally reasonable to him. He has lost touch with society. He is now entirely engulfed in a handmade world of his own making, his precious.

If he can control it, a doomer with children can certainly not allow himself to dive, in their presence, that far within the depths of his dark psyche. This would be a sure way to crush them and repeat the curse down the next generation (in the small probability, there is a next generation ;). Are we seeing here a hint of what lies behind many doomer’s mask of cold-hearted objective thinking?

So he avoids social interactions, hides far away to protect oneself and others. His experience of the now, forever tainted by the future imagined catastrophe. A continuous mourning over that which has not yet happened.

Hitting diminishing returns, the doomer’s dynamic has gradually entirely morphed into a nihilistic descent, a downward spiral. The tryptic of fear, anger and sadness overwhelms him. Depression can hit. His activity, fueled by a now sterile obsession, turns compulsive. He keeps on beating the dead horse, eventually becoming a lone addict, fulfilling the prophecy before its time, a potent curse.

Elements of Doomer’s Psychology

Let us pause here for a moment. Being a doomer implies the bondage to a process of both light and darkness: it arises, grows inward, expresses outwards and decays. Why are some people more prone to become doomers than others? Is there some root cause, or is just fluke? And, more importantly maybe, is there life after death (of the arc of doom ;)? Before we attempt to answer these questions, let us recapitulate the psychological traits that seem common to most doomers.

Doomers have an unusual relation with spatial and temporal scales. They see far ahead. This makes them very patient when they need to reach any far-fetched objective. But they need some effort to be present to integrate what’s in their vicinity. They will easily switch off and ruin their immediate experience whenever they are enthralled in thoughts: they can miss many bright aspects of life, the multiple hints of love around them. Especially, since they tend to automatically filter everything which does not interest them. That which does not constitute a threat. They rarely stand still but always run “one step ahead”, thinking about the next move, making predictions. Paradoxically, they can be extremely sensitive to early warning signals, which for them, stand out amidst flows of data. At times, they experience information overload and that may be the real reason they need to isolate themselves. They will integrate in their mental models small details which may have large implications and be able to draw surprisingly accurate conclusions or sometimes turn out radically wrong.

Doomers are very cerebral: they think incessantly. Their inner monologue slithers unabated like a powerful tireless snake. They easily end up caught in obsessive mental loops. This grants them an exceptionally strong will, on the fringe of stubbornness. Otherwise, they wouldn’t be able to live in constant antagonism with most of society. Otherwise, they wouldn’t persevere in things they do not particularly enjoy just to prepare for a potential negative outcome sometimes in the far future (less far now).

Here the figure of Noah, building the gigantic ark on its own, with the help of God only instead of fossil fuels, may come to mind.

And they often excel at thinking: they are rational, logical, uncompromising, independent intellects, who do not trust nor rely blindly on figures of authority. Naturally, they respect people of high integrity, and are particularly skilled at detecting scammers, which they despise with a passion. Even if, sometimes, only the Trickster can allow irreconcilable demands of society to unfold, for better or worse. They work ceaselessly on an impossible project: their intellect wants to encompass even that which cannot, cage absolutely everything in the box of the mind. This is the ultimate quest for total knowledge, the final conquest of light over darkness. Their perfectionist control freak inner voice shouts: “Let them all be statistics, cells in excel sheets! I will make their life perfect. I have a plan.” In combination with their obsessive nature, this makes them inflexible figures easily drawn to dogmatism. Never face a doomer in a confrontational argument on his preferred topic.

Unfortunately for them, this rigidity affects them equally (You shall love your neighbor as yourself): they won’t easily allow themselves to live spontaneously, free from any clear pre-set goal. In that, they ironically have totally internalized the very core of industrial productivism. They have difficulties dealing with their emotions, sometimes even completely severed from them. This may be the key of one of their contradiction: the desire to protect an abstract entity, the whole species, while not noticing the immediate needs of the actual person just in front of them.

The next item on the list may be a consequence of their mental fixation, or just a characteristic prevailing in most dwellers of the modern world. Most doomers seem to have issues with their image of self. It might be incorrectly calibrated: either under or over-valued. Since they believe living conditions are about to become dramatically harsher than they already are, they feel natural to deploy more efforts and expect less rewards than the rest of the pack. Ironically this makes them an ideal target for ruthless practitioners of growth. You may hear them profess implacable credos of flamboyant macho bravado. Are these genuine expressions of their resilience or hints of a lack of confidence, of an underlying fear? “Hard times don’t last, hard people do” can be read in the doomer’s entry of Wikipedia. How much of a doomer’s rational rhetoric hides a self aggrandizing fantasy?

At the opposite end of the spectrum, some doomers display the arrogance of humanism dialed up to the end of the gauge. Isn’t the idea that the collective behavior ought to be controlled, the trajectory of the species planned in order to maximize survivability or minimize suffering, a delusion completely devoid of any humility?

Many doomers identify with a collective: the group of all humans or the whole living planet as a unique organism, Gaïa. Otherwise, how could the consequences of the activities of the whole species be a reason for personal shame? It can be suspected that some doomers have an even more unconventional notion of self: either setting only fuzzy boundaries, or simply considering it as an arbitrary construct of the mind. Who can say what’s what? Holobionts come to mind.

This is all surprising, isn’t it? We would have expected meeting a Cassandra-like creature instead, it’s the Carl Jung archetype of Apollo which seems to be emerging. According to Wikipedia the Apollo archetype:

“personifies the aspect of the personality that wants clear definitions, is drawn to master a skill, values order and harmony. The Apollo archetype favors thinking over feeling, distance over closeness, objective assessment over subjective intuition.”

Apollo, the bearer of light. The enlightenment. The statue of liberty. The Apollo space program. The template of a now bygone era. All his creations turned into a gigantic farce: advanced mathematics powered AI to generate pornographic images of lascivious beings endowed with cat or androgynous attributes (no, this sentence was not generated by a chatbot); extravagant expenditure of engineering, fuel and other resources only to send a few tons of metal into space at 0.00015% the distance to Mars; feats of programming, automation, slavery, life stripping exploitation to publish these words into the great silicon web of matter-less opinions, to reach you…

We can now better understand the doomers’ fascination with derelict places, decay, the morbid. His thoughts are crystallized on the edge of the observable, the end of his light. The fixation aimed at some imagined brief moment in the future: a turning point, a tipping point, the end times, the apocalypse, total annihilation, extinction. Before this point, the dumb masses rule. After, it the doomer won’t need to struggle anymore because all will be over. He is proven right, it’s a victory, a Pyrrhic victory, at last, just before the closing curtain. More importantly maybe, everybody will then experience the same discomfort he finds himself in right now.

Tentative Explanation: Unconscious Root Motivation

This section will be more hypothetical: it’s an attempt at finding some plausible root causes of the doomer’s dynamic.

On the surface, doomers seem to be disappointed idealists. Humanists who are not accepting the failed (in comparison to their own standard) experiment that either the species or this specific culture proves daily to be. They long for a world of reason, beauty or harmony. They simply can’t really get over the large gap between their expectations and reality.

But, really, maybe, idealism was born out of the necessity to compensate an even deeper issue, a trauma, in some form or another. Doomers are in a state of shock. It would explain the fear. It would explain the challenges with the self.

It would explain the addictive behavior. It would explain the propensity for seclusion. It would explain the dissociation from emotions. It would explain the tendency to preemptively put oneself in conditions harsher than needs to be. It would explain the elitism of placing oneself above and untouched, as a neutral observer. It would explain the constant assessment of danger. These are all habits and defense mechanisms adopted during past stressful circumstances. Doomers have been hard-wired, psychologically trained in tough times. What they imagine of the future, is a reflection of their past, now buried in the unconscious. In a way, they are optimized for survival in extreme situations and wither during lax times.

Let us not dwell too long on that, as this is highly circumstantial. Everyone will judge for himself the validity of this hypothesis. Let us just stress the fact that trauma comes in various degrees and does not correspond only to a one-time brutal event but may also be activated by a continuous feeling of danger during childhood.

Family history could play an important role here. We are almost all offsprings of horrors: genocides (Native American, holocausts), slavery, wars; killers, rapists, survivors. There have been so many tragedies in relatively recent human history, that almost no-one is psychologically untouched. So maybe it’s just the normality of life.

In contrast, the western middle class is materially extravagantly sheltered, while totally dependent on an overarching, psychologically oppressive system: replete with propaganda, disheveled morality, betrayals, tricks and manipulations of the mind. This fosters wild imaginations, delusions, various degrees of psychosis. A bit like industrial farm chickens on steroids (which they are not), many haven’t had the opportunity to grow up fully in balance. Diminished humans. Living in this unnatural, bullying society, considering the prospect of shortages, observing from afar, through the distorting lens of the media, the implacable destruction of multiple life forms on the planet is, in itself, enough for trauma. And we are back to a circular argument.

Maturation Out of the Loop of Doom

Are there happy doomers, content with their mental state? Probably.

But doomerism is usually a heavy load to carry. So one might reasonably want to mature past this state, grow out of the addiction and self-destruction. If doomerism is really a consequence of a form of trauma, then it is only natural, this will take some time to resolve. Hopefully, there are many strategies, which, in time, can bear their fruits. These strategies are not a rejection of the rational conclusion of the doomer about the state of the world. That’s one thing. It’s rather a movement of further expansion. It is about the recognition of other aspects, which can coexist with the certainty of collapse:

  • recognition of the destructive effect of doomerism on oneself,
  • recognition of the limits of individual power, to understand and control,
  • recognition of the bounded responsibility of oneself in global issues,
  • recognition of the load that one carries,
  • recognition of the diversity: of forms and beings, down to the way of seeing the world,
  • recognition of the emotions, past and current: anxiety, pessimism, shame, despair, fear, anger, sadness,
  • recognition of that which lies in one’s shadow,
  • recognition of all the things that are going fine, right now, the love around.

Habits and multiple rationalizations of the mind will naturally present themselves and prevent change. They protect the stability of the psychic equilibrium achieved in reaction to past circumstances. This equilibrium has served its purpose and has now become counterproductive. To break the deadlock, there are multiple small practices, which progressively, gently rectify our stance. There is a lot of activities we may choose from, here are a few non-exhaustive examples:

  • breathe, relax, meditate,
  • practice compassion, to others, to yourself,
  • treat yourself, care for yourself, listen to your needs,
  • focus on the small things you have control over, you can handle,
  • congratulate yourself, smile to yourself, pat yourself on the back,
  • cultivate gratefulness: note the things that go well,
  • appreciate the word “enough”,
  • find a safe zone, find your tribe,
  • express yourself,
  • perform service to others,
  • confront your fears by overcoming real world hardships, travel the world, gain confidence,
  • observe events, without tainting, without trying to anticipate,
  • study your thoughts: see their origins, differentiate between the group’s and yours, observe the repetitions, the patterns, the tricks of the mind,
  • keep a log of your predictions: write them down as precisely as possible and then compare with actual events,
  • study your emotions, dive in the darkness of the forbidden ones, do not block them, let them unfold, run their full course,
  • listen to other people’s viewpoints without jumping to conclusion, pause whenever you feel the urge to react automatically, compare with your viewpoint,
  • study family history,
  • bring things back to the concrete, root yourself, limit the habit of thinking in generalities,
  • consider therapy, follow some form of spiritual practice,
  • take the leap of faith, rely on higher intervention, a higher force, abandon control, let life be.

In a way, this is nothing new, already in 2012, Paul Chefurka talked about the inner path and the outer path. This all boils down to experimenting the “outside” while listening to the “inside” until there is no more friction.

Conclusion

Being a doomer is a bit like being an alcoholic. Some are able to drink a few drinks and stop. Other will start with only half a drink and find 13 years of their life has passed by without notice. Although, it is most probably some form of escapism, like Bovarysme, doomerism is grounded in legitimate concerns.

Now, these concerns are reaching gigantic proportion. Everybody can see collapse at their doorstep. Everybody will soon have to deal with the consequences, envisioned by doomers. There are no easy answers, doomers can simply share their journey.

Chris

I was hesitant to team up with Charles for this experiment. I joke about him being my spiritual advisor, but him and I have been going in opposite directions for a while now. I guess my hesitancy was in thinking that this would be too pro human or too spiritual for my taste. I was relieved when he sent me his first draft. I was on board with everything he was saying. IMHO, his analysis about the typical doomer is spot on.

Now I also think we could flip the script and make this piece about the overshoot aware Spiritual person instead. Dive in to see what makes him/her tick. Try to see how they believe what they believe in the face of no evidence whatsoever. And yet they are very well versed to reality and our predicament. Have a feeling that story would sound very similar to the doomer. But that’s a different essay for someone else to tackle.

During this process of back-and-forth notes with Charles, a pattern was emerging. It was clear to me that he was worried about offending the doomer crowd. It was also clear to me that because of his experience of being one himself, he would be able to draw heavily on that, and rather than being offensive, it would be respectful.

On occasion I try to rattle Charles by sending him a shock jock belief of mine or a quote like this one from James at Megacancer. “The story of life: The quest for profit and growth will continue as it has since the first organic cell fissioned. The End.”

Nothing fazes him. In fact, most of the time he ends up liking what I said, or it gives him ideas to come back at me with something better. I guess what I’m trying to say is that Charles is tolerant to pretty much anything. And if you ever have a chance to interact with him outside of un-Denial, do it! He’s much more comfortable with one on one email.

Charles

Writing this piece, I didn’t want to gaslight the doomer: overshoot and collapse are real. Still, I also think, there is a psychological basis, an interplay between the macro and the micro, a link between individual psyches and collective dynamic. I believe material collapse will happen in synchronicity of a mass regulatory psychological event. I hope so: although extremely alluring, this culture is insane. It’s been hard to maintain integrity.

I have been a doomer, a part of me will always remain one. I slowly am retiring. Contemplating, as much as it is granted to me, life peacefully, joyfully, in awe.

I enjoyed very much working with Chris on this piece. More than anything else, I especially appreciate his accepting, encouraging presence, true to his first name as the carrier of Christ.

Sunrise Dam Gold Mine
Map of Hell by Botticelli

Rob here with a few thoughts.

I have followed quite a few overshoot aware people over the last 15 years including Gail Zawacki, Nicole Foss, Gail Tverberg, Alice Friedemann, Jay Hanson, Nate Hagens, Dennis Meadows, William Rees, David Korowicz, Jean-Marc Jancovici, Tim Watkins, Jack Alpert, Michael Dowd, Tim Morgan, David J.C. McKay, Tom Murphy, Tim Garrett, William Rees, Charles Hall, Paul Chefurka, Sam Mitchell, Jason Bradford, Andril Zvorygin, Steve St. Angelo, Simon Michaux, Hideaway, xraymike79, James, B, Mike Stasse, Irv Mills, and a few others.

I have not observed in these people many of the characteristics that Charles & Chris think are universal. I do lack visibility into the personal lives of most of these people so perhaps Charles & Chris have access to insights I do not have, or perhaps they follow different people. Hopefully examples of people with the common characteristics that Charles & Chris observe will be provided in the follow-up comments.

What I observe is that the majority (say 80%) of the tiny minority (say 1000 out of 8,000,000,000) people who have become deeply aware of our overshoot predicament tend to become obsessed with the topic and spend a lot of time discussing it. Very rarely an individual, like Paul Chefurka or Nicole Foss, breaks free of the obsession and retreats to live the balance of their life thinking about other things, but this is the exception rather than the norm.

Speaking for myself, I am unable to unsee a cliff we are accelerating towards, and I am fascinated why 8 billion minus maybe 1000 brains of an otherwise extraordinarily intelligent species are unable to understand the obvious, nor to take any actions to minimize the coming suffering of their beloved children and grandchildren.

I also do not think any normal person can easily become a doomer as claimed in the essay above. My personal experience has been that the majority of people are unable to understand the information necessary to become a doomer, regardless of their intelligence or education, or how simply and thoroughly the information is fed to them. In other words, no amount of data or logic is sufficient to explain the reality of overshoot to most people.

I think Dr. Ajit Varki discovered the answer to this mystery with his MORT theory, which also explains why only one super-intelligent species evolved on this planet despite the obvious fitness advantages of high intelligence, and why that species is also the only species that believes in gods.

Perhaps there is a better explanation than MORT for what we observe, but I have not yet found it.

By paqnation (aka Chris): Humans Are Not a Species

Today’s essay by un-Denial friend paqnation (aka Chris) takes a fresh big picture look at the uniqueness of humans and concludes our use of fire is at the core, and is the real creator and destroyer.

Modernity’s colossal level of separation & superiority beliefs is perfectly valid. It’s the only rational/sane choice. Although it’s not a choice, it automatically comes with breaking through the three sacred energy constraints of fire, agriculture, and fossil fuels. And the belief is exponential. Grows stronger with every so-called step of progress. Only one group out of billions slipped through the cracks and pulled off all three. Nobody else has ever come close to breaking just one. Pretty damn separate & superior if you ask me. Thinking that I can get people’s worldviews to turn upside down is the only irrational/insane choice. That’s why I’m done trying and more interested in preaching to the choir. 

Planets can have one species completely dominating it for long periods of time (dinosaurs 150 million years). But the golden rule is still the same: no broken energy constraints allowed. Fire by itself is not evil, at all. Harnessing it is. Everyone misses this point when trying to break down our story and how we got here and what we need to do to change things. It’s too dark at first, that’s why. Whether its Daniel Quinn and his takers & leavers, Nate Hagens and the great simplification, or Michael Dowd with his sustainable vs unsustainable cultures. It’s all predicated on the notion that you can break certain energy constraints and still fit in with Mother Earth and the rest of life. Spoiler alert: you can’t.

My entire overshoot/collapse journey has been full of ideas about agriculture and fossil fuels being evil. But almost zero talk about fire. For example, Quinn’s “takers” concept is built around the fact that humans turned the second energy constraint of captured solar energy into totalitarian agriculture (and if we had done agriculture differently, our world would be much better). In his view, two broken energy constraints are perfectly acceptable. Quinn was magnificently underestimating those built in exponential separation & superiority worldviews.

Humans are no longer a species. I say you cease being one as soon as you get to that unique position of breaking the first energy constraint. It’s actually shocking that we have allowed ourselves to still be labeled as such. It invokes some kind of connectedness. I’m in favor of going all the way with separation and removing humans from those labels of species, primates, mammals and putting us in a whole new separate category. It might even help with this insanely incorrect line of reasoning that certain broken energy constraints are acceptable (this would have saved me a lot of time on my journey).

As soon as the first constraint is broken, the countdown to the second one begins. It took 1.5 million years for the homo genus to conquer fire. Then took another 1.5 million years to get to agriculture. Pretty easy to accept why the first one took so long, but why so long for the 2nd? Most of my sources have said because of the Holocene period. 12,000 years ago, the climate got warmer and stabilized for the first time in a long time. In the 1.5 million years since we conquered fire, climate was never ripe for agriculture until 12kya? Hmmm. But its the wrong question because human brains were not equipped to pull off agriculture until only recently. We had our last major evolutionary process about 100,000 years ago (in other words this exact version of us today is 100kyo). I’m talking about the MORT theory.  

If you believe this theory, as I do, then you know this was an astronomically rare situation with evolution unlocking our extended theory of mind (eToM) and mind over reality transition (MORT) at the same time. Without these evolutionary processes, we would still only be at one broken energy constraint. And if we had never figured out fire, we would not have been in a position to receive those evolutionary gifts/curses that gave us the capability to bust through agriculture.

So my question about the climate being ripe for agriculture changes to the last 100k years (ever since we’ve been capable). And yes, the Holocene is the only time in that stretch where the conditions were ripe. (another hidden bonus with MORT theory is that it gives me very logical answers to some of these questions).

In our group essay I had this line, “I am now slowly shifting to a new state of mind where it’s all about energy constraints and you can pretty much throw everything else out the window”. This has been growing stronger by the day. Putting the first constraint into the same importance (evilness) category as #2 and #3 seemed like a big reach. But I now have it as the most important because it’s the only possible way to get to the much more ecologically destructive agriculture and then final solution of fossil fuels. 

I asked Rob for some help on this topic. As always, he came through with some excellent advice: 

Humans are the only species to use fire and this behavior has profound implications. This is a very interesting topic with many dimensions you could explore. For example:

  1. Predigesting food by cooking allowed resources to be shifted from the gut to the brain (see Richard Wrangham). 
  2. Increasing productivity beyond what muscles alone can accomplish. 
  3. Disrupting the natural carbon cycle to influence the climate. 
  4. Why is our species the only species that leveraged fire in a big way, despite its obvious advantage to reproductive fitness. Usually when something is really helpful, like say eyesight, evolution “discovers” and deploys it multiple times.

I started to get overwhelmed when I began to research Rob’s suggestions, almost turned me off from writing this essay. So I did what any true Empire Baby would do, I aborted on the research. (A good future essay would be to take his 1st and 2nd points and tie it in with how fire is all about slowly preparing you for MORT). But here is a quick thought on each of his topics:

  1. This is the main ingredient that allowed evolution to make that freakishly rare final version of us 100kya. I suspect Hideaway’s vitamin B12 theory to play heavy into this: Perhaps the need for B12 supplementation is attached to the gene that gave us ability to deny bad outcomes and believe in magical solutions to problems (god), and the ability to talk, while meaning only those that ate meat thrived in early Homo sapiens development, separating us from other Homo species.
  2. More help in getting us to that final version. These first two are telling me that fire is the one and only key to unlocking MORT (all the way).
  3. Gloriously and stunningly separate & superior. 
  4. Because evolution is as confused as us. We are “off the grid”.

Fire is a constant taking from the planet, and a constant exuding of pollution. It should be the beginning stage of Quinn’s “takers”. If you are cutting down live trees to burn, then you can add a thousand other negative effects. Let’s stick with deadwood only. That piece of wood is going to be feasted on by fungi, moss, and a million other life forms until it is completely gone or decomposes back into the soil. But you just took it away from them and made it disappear. In other words, you stole it. (if you had eaten it or made tools/shelter with it, that would be ok because its more in line with the rest of life “on the grid”). And you didn’t quite make it all disappear either. You created some pollution that is now in the atmosphere and will eventually have to be dealt with. It’s so radically new from the planet’s perspective. First time ever that a species is stealing (constantly) and polluting (constantly), all for their advantage and at the expense of everyone else. But no serious worldwide damage because population can never explode (need agriculture). But very serious internal damage with staying on the correct path of life. 

I love Dowd, Quinn, and Hagens. They were big parts of my journey. MORT is what prevents them from seeing this. Focusing on the energy constraints led me to fire and now it’s as obvious as some of these overshoot concepts. Understanding MORT has helped me get to a place that is probably the hardest to get to. The very top of collapse mountain where the unthinkable awaits: If we can’t even have fire, then what’s the fucking point? LOL. And that’s what breaking energy constraints does right there. It creates something (not a species) that is actually complaining about the meaning of it all. So damn separate & superior, my god!  

If it’s all about life, then the planet has a purpose. To provide resources round the clock. Life’s purpose is to thrive (aka: Do whatever it takes). The two mix very well together. Until an ultra-rare unnatural event tilts the scales. Like 66mya when a big asteroid hit earth. Or 1.5mya when a curious species started playing around with fire. Same result. Most if not all life on earth eventually wiped out. From Life’s point of view, it’s very easy to see that harnessing fire is not acceptable and is off limits. Ditto for Mother Earth. 

It seems to me the only purpose of conquering fire is to get to MORT. Purpose of MORT is to get to agriculture. Purpose of agriculture is to get to fossil fuels. Purpose of fossil fuels is to eliminate life in a speedy fashion. Purpose of eliminating life is so that the Great Reset can get the planet (resource provider) back to no broken energy constraints. LOL. Sounds biblical. And fire is the apple. At the very least it’s a hell of a good fail-safe plan. And all of the terms we use to describe human problems like parable of the tribes, tragedy of the commons, multipolar trap, etc.… they don’t apply to us. They apply to conquering fire. “It just takes one” to create the Great Reset.

Five hundred years ago our population was only 500 million and 90% of them were “on the farm”. Would have been impossible to deduce that we are not a species. Today it’s much more obvious with 8.1 billion and 2% on the farm. Getting this far into the journey is not for everyone. One of my favorite collapse writers, Tom Murphy, can barely even consider it. Few months ago, I mentioned to him that Leavers had not figured out how to bust though the energy constraints and that’s all it is. If they could have figured it out, they too would have become Takers in a heartbeat. Tom had more to say but his core message was, “I prefer to operate on the premise that we’re not just rotten to the core and thus are wasting our time trying to find better ways to live”. Very anthropocentric, Thomas😊. And too much denial for my lack of denial to accept. 

Starting your overshoot journey first leads you to understanding how unsustainable and destructive fossil energy is. That’s the easy constraint to “get”. Stick with it long enough and you’ll think the same about agriculture. But that’s usually the end of the journey and most can’t even make it that far. Lonesome territory at the top of collapse mountain. But once you get here, your journey is a wrap. You will see how silly all this frantic and desperate clinging on is (like Nate’s The Great Simplification). You’ll especially get a kick out of anything involving an awakening of consciousness or a paradigm shift. Dowd had a great line, “if you don’t understand overshoot, you will misinterpret everything that’s important”. Time to change “overshoot” to “fire”.

The good and the bad of this outlook, good first. It will put an end to those “rotten to the core” thoughts that humans are hardwired for destruction. Conquering fire is what’s hardwired for destruction, period. The simplification makes it much easier to stop focusing on all those things that are hardwired into breaking energy constraints (extreme overshoot & ecological degradation, Wetiko, MPP, climate change, collapse, etc). Which in turn gives me a much better chance of letting go of it all and just sit back and genuinely be entertained by watching it unfold. Helps me to understand why humanity is drenched in evil. Which actually helps me to forgive myself and the rest of humanity for going down this road. (kind of like the famous “it’s not your fault” scene from Good Will Hunting. 

And the blame game starts to evaporate. No longer valid for me to point the finger at elites, USA, white skin, politicians, technology, etc. But the best benefit is the same relief as when I found un-Denial/MORT. Being able to understand the batshit crazy times we are in is the greatest joy/relief one can receive post red pill. It makes swallowing the pill (which I regretted many times) much more bearable. 

Morpheus: This is your last chance. After this, there is no turning back. You take the blue pill – the story ends, you wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill – you stay in Overshootland, and I show you how deep the rabbit hole goes.

Now the bad. Obviously, the big one is the darkness of it all. Understanding that there is not supposed to be any intelligence higher than pre fire (in the universe), will mess with your modern (human centered) brain. If you’re not careful you could end up in a very nihilistic state of mind. Also, this might make you doubt or cloud up any religious beliefs you have (My spiritual advisor on this site, Charles, and his views about “the world is 1 without 2. It is as it is and not some imaginary else. There is nothing to be either fearful, angry, saddened or cheerful about. It is just as it is.” LOL, three years ago I would have dismissed him as a lunatic and now I’m all about trying to find that exact frequency). 

And the entertainment value for movies/tv is dropping significantly for me (I’m losing interest in watching off grid life pretending to be comedic and dramatic). But I’ll take the tradeoff because certain music is now hitting me on a much deeper level. 

In closing, I would like to give you my quick pitch. If you can’t get yourself to agree that fire and agriculture are evil, then move over to fossil fuels. Any events in history that can be traced to using fossil energy (and that no other species had ever done prior to or since) is absolutely not acceptable and completely off limits per life and the planet. Fire is the one that starts it all. I’m sure there are important evolutionary events (or freak accidents) that lead to fire, but I’m sticking with the flame as the beginning of evil (going off grid).   

Over 100 billion stars in our galaxy (and ours is an average one). Two trillion Milky Ways in the universe. Certainly, there is much life out there. If MORT is as rare as we think, then most species that break the 1st energy constraint never get to the 2nd one. That paints an incorrect picture that fire is acceptable. MORT is inevitable for everyone who cracks the 1st barrier. It’s all part of the fail-safe plan. (if you don’t believe MORT theory then it should be even easier to see that fire automatically leads to agriculture). If MORT is astronomically rare, then so is harnessing fire. 

The maximum power principle (MPP) always frustrated me because I was looking at it wrong. I thought it meant that if you run the human experiment 100 times, every time it’s going to play out similar to our story. I was taking it too literal. Every planet that has had a Great Reset to get back to no broken energy constraints will look identical as far as the processes in chronological order; new species, fire, MORT, agriculture, fossil fuels, extinction. This fail-safe plan is another word for MPP. But the way each planet gets there can be drastically different. I’m sure some had no concept of monetary value. Or some went all in with space travel. Others may have avoided war altogether. And maybe some even perfected the equality aspect and truly lived in a utopian civilization (for their species only of course). And as hard as it is to believe, I bet some even did it much worse than us. 

But regardless of how they got to their “Peak of what’s possible in the universe”, they all have the same thing in common. They’re off the grid from the rest of life (no longer a species) and they are solely responsible for their planet’s Great Reset because they started playing around with fire (something that had never been done on that planet prior). This simplifies things quite a bit for me about our insane civilization (and human behavior). Everything after breaking the first energy constraint is irrelevant. Good, evil, indifference… irrelevant. (See, I sound like Charles already 😊) 

I like this quote from Leave the World Behind because it sums up everything and is so easily understood from the top of collapse mountain:

We fuck each other over all the time, without even realizing it. We fuck every living thing on this planet over and think it’ll be fine because we use paper straws and order the free-range chicken. And the sick thing is, I think deep down we know we’re not fooling anyone. I think we know we’re living a lie. An agreed-upon mass delusion to help us ignore and keep ignoring how awful we really are.

By paqnation (aka Chris): My Final Act

Today’s guest essay by paqnation (aka Chris) tackles a challenging topic with deep ties to Dr. Ajit Varki’s MORT theory which inspires un-Denial.com.

Chris discusses yet another strange behavior that is unique to our species.

And how hard it is to do the right thing in our modern world.

I have been fixating on evil lately (on an individual level). And by evil I am just limiting it to anything that degrades ecological integrity. I don’t think it’s an exaggeration to say that 100% of my everyday actions are steeped in evil. There is nothing I do that does not involve evil towards the planet. Just typing this essay on my internet computer in my house powered by electricity with the heater on. Everything in my home used up resources and fossil fuels to get to me. And I pay for it by working at a corporation that only creates more evil in the world. Jeez! Too much evil within evil within evil, to even comprehend. Driving my car is the same story. Ditto for eating my grocery store bought food. Every action a person takes in this civilization already has loads of evil baked into it. So what is the opposite of this. Planting trees, gardening, rewilding land, composting my toilet waste? Yes, but I’m sure there is lots of evil within that, just to get to the non-evil deed. Besides, I don’t do any of those things. And even if I did, ok fine, maybe I get my 100% evil actions down to 99%.

It’s obvious that there is a threshold for an acceptable amount of evil that Mother Earth can tolerate and would even expect. Heck, just picking up a piece of deadwood and using it to make a fire is evil. So there is no way to avoid it. The ecological overshoot graphs we’ve all seen time and time again explain what this “threshold” limit looks like. Just another thing that comes down to balance, harmony, and equilibrium. Which, of course, human civilization, by default, cannot achieve.

That got me focusing on my greatest act of evil. It feels like something related to my eating habits would be the winner. The wasting of all the food throughout my lifetime. Or just the day-by-day participation in this horrendous cycle of how we eat in today’s world. But this is more about the accumulation that makes it so evil. I’m looking for a single act that can be labeled “most evil thing I’ve ever done”. Flying on a plane maybe? Prior to my awakening to reality, I was guilty of some horrible acts. On multiple occasions I have dumped trash/junk out in the desert to avoid landfill fees. When I was a teenager, I once changed my car oil and dumped the old oil on the side of the road. At least I’ve never started a forest fire, which has to take the cake for the most evil one person can do (or maybe I’m not thinking hard enough). But I believe I have a clear-cut winner that most of us will be guilty of and does not happen until we are dead.

A lot of people write about nature’s contract or the social contract. Here is a great link on the topic by Tom Murphy: In Breach of Contract.

The core of these “contracts” seems to me is the create/sustain/end part. The “end” portion is where I think our biggest act of evil may rest. We are the only species in which the dead do not return naturally to the eco-system.

Long-life coffins, clothes & decor, deep burial and embalming (which contaminates the soil and groundwater) result in the dead remaining intact for a very long time. Overall, embalming for burial uses over 800,000 gallons of toxic chemicals every year. As well as the costs thru time of mowing around your grave and re-erecting your crumbling gravestone. Not knowing much about this topic, I found out that we put coffins (wooden and metal) inside bigger cement coffins. Our fear of critters eating our corpse is laughably insane. This type of burial practice is just over a hundred years old, which makes perfect sense considering the insanity of modernity and being alive in the most abnormal moment in human history.

Cremation (which I have always preferred) is even worse and turns your body into air pollution and barren ash. Studies of emissions reveal that cremation turns people into at least 46 different pollutants. Some of these, like nitrous oxides and heavy metals, remain in the atmosphere for up to 100 years causing ozone depletion and acid rain. Cremation emits mercury, sulfur dioxide, and, in the US, about 360,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions into our air every year. Our bodies, on average, take three hours to burn in a crematorium, using up large quantities of fuels like electricity and natural gas. Once again, our fear of critters eating our corpse is laughably insane.

I was bouncing around the internet to get this info. And maybe my stats and figures can be debated, but I think everyone who is this far along into their collapse journey can easily understand how giving my 220 pounds of resources back to Mother Earth is much more beneficial than disintegrating my resources into ashes or keeping them preserved in a metal box inside of a concrete box. (and this is why it feels like my final act will be my most evil)

I can almost hear the absurd conversation with our “Creator/Sustainer/End” in my head. It goes something like:

Mother Earth: Ok, here’s the contract. I am going to create you using my resources, then sustain you with my resources, and when you die I will end you by consuming your resources so that I can keep creating and sustaining in this beautiful cycle of life. Deal?

Modern Humans: Ok, I’ll take you up on your offer for creating and sustaining me, but when it comes time for the end portion, I will renege on our deal and not allow you to use my resources for your benefit. In fact, I’m gonna go out with one last bang and continue harming you even though I’m dead. Deal?

Take, take, take. Never give. Just follows the normal human civilization theme of “everything we do and how we do it is wrong (evil)”.

Natural burials and green burials seem like a better way to go. A quick definition in case you’ve never heard of green burial: designed to have a minimal environmental impact and conserve natural resources. It emphasizes simplicity and sustainability. In a typical green burial, the body is not cremated, prepared with chemicals, or buried in a concrete vault. And some of the green burial sites sell it with options where you are buried with no casket and then a tree is planted on top of you. Having a tree sprout above my corpse is a beautiful idea that I would have mocked (or been grossed out by) prior to my “awakening”.

Unfortunately, the cost is high and availability is low. Average pricing (for my state) is $5,000. And for comparison, traditional burial is $8,000 and cremation is $1,500 (although, when my Dad passed away a few years ago, the cremation cost $2,500. No service or fancy urn. Just the bare minimum). And it looks like there is an even better way called human composting. Which is pretty much exactly what it sounds like. But this is only available in a handful of states (mine is not one of them). And cost is $5,000 – $7,000.

I will definitely be looking into these alternatives more because I prefer my final act to not be evil if I can help it (and afford it). Might be my one and only good deed towards ecological integrity. There should be a legal, easy & inexpensive way to put our dead naked bodies into the soil for two obvious reasons. First and foremost, so that Mother Earth gets full maximum benefit. And second so that modern humans can at least honor a portion of our contract.

One last note. I came up with this topic by staring at the table below. Sounds weird, I know. I created this simple table a while back (which I’m sure can be nitpicked to death) for the sole purpose of keeping me on track. My bargaining phase gets me to waste time chasing magical solutions. Looking at this chart helps bring me back down to reality. Another positive outcome is that it gets me thinking about stuff I that I’ve never thought about.

Thanks for listening, Chris

Rob here, I can confirm Chris’ research because one of my university summer jobs was making precast concrete coffin liners.

Chris’ essay reminded me of a comedy skit on peak oil from the 2005 play by Robert Newman titled Apocalypso Now.

It’s a fun reminder of how many of us doomers thought 20 years ago.

If you’re in a hurry, skip ahead to the 6 minute mark for the relevant joke.

By Mike Roberts: Humans are a species

Today’s guest post is by un-Denial regular Mike Roberts. Mike has on several occasions commented that “humans are a species” and this best explains our overshoot predicament. In this essay Mike nicely elaborates his idea.

I was a regular reader of Dave Cohen’s posts at Decline of the Empire. He had a great writing style and was always very rational in laying out his arguments (although, as always, that’s a personal opinion). Many of his posts made the point that humans are a species and what you see is what you get.

Here is an example in which he makes a pertinent point:

If you want to know how late Stone Age humans might have behaved in the 21st century, look in the mirror, read a newspaper, watch TV, or browse the internet. They were us, and we are them.

This kind of analysis eventually made me realise that humans are a species and so its characteristic behaviour (what you see humans doing in a collective sense) is built in. The characteristic behaviour of a species can’t be altered by wishing it. It can only be altered, over deep time, through an external consistent influence, like a changing climate, which may ultimately lead to a new species or simply to a superficial change in a population (like skin colour).

Our polycrisis could be regarded as a profound stressor which could alter collective human behaviour. But though it’s happening quite rapidly, compared to environmental changes of the past, it’s still too slow for humans to really take it seriously enough that it becomes a consistent stressor which can alter behaviours. It will only be enough once a significant minority are having their lives forcibly changed and most everyone else notices. There is no way out, and it just is what it is. It will have to play out. This is the kind of thinking I was applying at the time.

However, my thinking was honed more with much of the information that was flowing through un-Denial.

A Nate Hagens round table featuring William Rees, Nora Bateson and Rex Weyler confirmed that humans are a species and should act like other species insofar as the consumption of resources go. Any species who is given easy access to resources which help them (immediately – there is no forward thinking) will use whatever they can, as quickly as they can. Any genes which enhance this ability will be much more likely to propagate in the population, thus being self-reinforcing. This is until the resources become harder to access (perhaps through depletion, competition or environmental change). Eventually, the ecosystem settles into a relatively stable state, the climax state, until something perturbs it again (e.g. climate change or an invasive species). Humans are fairly well adapted to accessing resources as they have opposable thumbs and a quite large encephalization quotient, making them clever. Consequently, they are likely to become the apex predator in any ecosystem that they encounter.

Recent posts have also introduced the Maximum Power Principle: organisms that capture and use more energy than their competition will have a selective advantage in the evolutionary process. This reinforces the idea that humans are a species, acting like other species but being more successful because they are able to capture and use far more energy and resources than other species.

We’re now getting at the essential idea, not that human behaviour can’t be voluntarily changed, but that humans really act like all other species. How could it be otherwise?

Sapolsky’s views on free will add further support to these ideas. As he mentions, we all recognize that the world, including us, is made up of various molecules, atoms, electrons and so on, but still, some of us think there is room for something else, that can manifest as “free will.” No-one can explain how this other stuff interacts with our molecules to cause the actions involved in our free will decisions. With no known mechanism (nor any empirical, or mathematical knowledge of this other stuff) for this to happen, it is easy to deduce that it doesn’t happen, that there is no other stuff. A belief in free will may well require a belief in an all-powerful creator who can simply imbue humans with a mechanism which does not require adherence to physical laws. So, all species arose by the same mechanism (filtered random variation), even if we haven’t yet figured out how the first species emerged, and so we should expect all species to act in the same way, at the most basic level.

There have been many studies trying to determine the mechanism of how we make decisions. For example, this study appears to suggest that decisions are made subconsciously well before (in some cases, up to 10 seconds before) we are aware of those decisions. This fits quite well with Sapolsky’s position. Our apparent free will is simply us rationalising decisions which our subconscious has already made. And decisions made in our subconscious mind can only be due to all the factors that lead to where we are at the time of our decision; our genes, our upbringing, what we read yesterday, what the weather was like on our way to where we are, and so on.

Of course, humans are unique, in many ways, but so are many other species. They all have special qualities and abilities that can’t be found in other species, or only in a very limited number of other species. But in the essential attributes of a species, humans are identical to all other species. Consequently, it seems reasonable to conclude that the Maximum Power Principle, MORT and other attempts to figure out why humans act like we do, are simply consequences of our being a species. It can’t be any other way. I’m afraid that there really is no way out. The unique human ability to understand stuff should make these realisations hard to take. We can’t even think, “what if we had done something different at that point in history,” because almost nothing would have changed except the timeline. Other species are largely employed at staying alive, as are some members of our species, but most of us have the luxury of spare time to contemplate other stuff and, to some extent, to enjoy living.

Still, maybe I’m wrong. Maybe Cohen, Sapolsky, Lotka and Wyler were wrong. Apparently, it’s in our genes to be optimistic, and no-one can predict the future. So we can live in hope for the rest of our lives even if society and civilisation are crumbing around us, even if the environment is collapsing. Maybe someone will think of something and delay the inevitable for a few centuries. Or decades. Or years.

By Gaia Gardener: On Our Hall of Denial Mirrors

Today we have another guest post by a member of the un-Denial community, Gaia Gardener, who posted these thoughts on denial as a comment. I thought they were interesting enough to warrant promoting them to a more visible post.

Hello friends, thank you for a very interesting discussion about the realities of denial and how we humans seem to be able to manipulate all perceptions to fit our chosen narrative, whether or not we are consciously aware of our programmed beliefs however they were initialised and ingrained.

I am wondering if we can look at another subject, removed from overshoot, in which denial plays a big role in our actions/inactions so we can step back and dissect out a bit more how denial originates and becomes intrenched without us even realising our immersion in it, just like we in the small minority see happening to the masses and even polymaths in regards to overshoot denial.

The topic I think can fit the bill is the question of the ethics of eating animals, namely farmed animals which we consume in the billions every year. I won’t cover using animals for our labour and experimentation as the ethics of these actions can be construed to be justified in benefitting humankind which the majority of human beings would be in favour of. But the eating of animals in the modern world is not only unnecessary (and we can be spared the example of Inuits or other very minority population cultures who rely solely on animal products for sustenance, we do not have their situation in the least) but in fact there is convincing evidence that it is harmful to both our physical bodies and the planet, but for the sake of this argument, one need not consider either of those reasons to engage in a discussion of why we cannot eat animals nor their products if we believe we have a moral obligation to another sentient being. Let’s face it–we eat meat because we were brought up to do so and it tastes good (to most human taste buds) and it’s readily available without much effort on our part. However, the fact that animals suffer solely for our pleasure, tradition, and convenience is not enough moral ground to do so, for one can easily see how this disconnect can apply to any sentient being, including other humans, which is so obviously not an ethical choice. And yet, we are in complete denial that it is okay to eat chicken, cow, and pig but outrageously wrong to eat dog, cat, or horse. It is fine for us to imprison a member of a food species in the most horrendous conditions but we can be charged with abusing and neglecting other species we call our domestic companions. We can kill a food species animal way before their natural life span in a most horrific manner (everyone knows a slaughterhouse isn’t a happy place) so we can buy our sanitized plastic-wrapped packages of pork, beef, and healthy white meat chicken, but if we organise a dog fight and enjoy it, that is disgusting and shameful. You’re right, it’s not about education (most of us know that a live being had to be killed to get meat on the plate), or even more extreme forms of presenting the facts (how many of us would volunteer to witness what happens in a slaughterhouse, or even more tellingly, choose that as our job?). Yes, we have been lied to about happy free-range chickens or happy cows enjoying being milked on the happy dairy farm, but how many of us actually have spared more thought for what really happens in these industries, we’re only too happy ourselves to buy the more expensive organic or free-range option as if that absolves us from the guilt we still harbour knowing that no matter how happy the picture of the old MacDonald’s farm, we know this is a fantasy. Every animal still comes to an end in a way far from their natural choice and inclination.

I can sense the mounting justifications and counter-arguments–we need meat for our health or else we would get sick and die, if we didn’t raise the food animal they wouldn’t have a chance at life at all, what about if we were stuck on an island with only rabbits to eat, you can see how inane these points are, and generally stated to obfuscate the moral issue at hand. I am talking about modern day humans who now have access to a wide range of very suitable and healthful plant-based protein, and the methods we use to obtain our meatstuffs, even the question of whether or not it is our evolutionary diet (very debatable) isn’t the point here. The point is our denial of other factors which should be considered when making the choice of whether it is ethical to eat farmed animals, or even a beloved family pet lamb (just these words should put it in perspective that it isn’t but somehow we still do it–is that denial? ) What is it that keeps the majority of people still reaching for their burgers and steaks and fried chicken and bacon and eggs despite knowing what everyone should know? Is it denial of the truth because to face the ethical question front on would demand a choice and most humans just cannot overcome the continuation of pleasure, tradition, and ease of living, especially if it means realising it is a morally wrong thing to do so. So it is far easier to adopt cognitive disconnect, join the masses who are in your camp, degrade and exclude those who are not, and just keep doing what you want for one more day after day as long as it can last because at least you got to enjoy it and no one can take that away. Sound familiar? See how easy denial becomes just our way of perceiving our reality, and that is why I chose this example to prove that point. Every thought that is possibly going through your head now is a function of denial, one way or another, and none of it was even conscious before I brought this so called controversial topic up–if one can deem supporting active suffering of sentient beings just because we like it, to have any controversy attached.

I guess what I’m trying to express, which is in full agreement with what has been discussed, is that all of us have the capacity for denial (whether or not MORT is the primal reason) but we can’t see it as denial when we’re in the thick of it because that is just our chosen narrative. The way we dichotomise over overshoot, population control, Covid, Russia, just about any topic you can name, all confirm this. Only others outside that narrative (and usually the minority) can see that there is another perspective (because it’s their reality) and then call out the majority as in denial, which is exactly what the majority thinks of the outliers! It’s like that endless hall of mirrors reflecting back to you ad infinitum, whichever way one looks, there’s another image looking away from you, too, with the prime cause of the illusion being your own presence and perception of your reality. I think denial is a bit like that–it’s what holds us in our place, and helps define our sense of self by creating another version of possible self to bounce off of. I’m not saying there’s any right or wrong in this, it just seems to be how we are wired and until now, it has kept us on the survival ascendancy (that and a whole heck of fossil fuels!)

I think a good question to always be ready to ask ourselves in any situation to draw out denial is “What knowledge or understanding or different perspective that I may not have now but is available to gain or learn, would change or enhance the way I see the situation? ” Try it, it is very hard to allow oneself the possibility of overcoming our deep-rooted beliefs but yet that is precisely the attitude it will take for us to change them. Forcing education upon others doesn’t work as we have seen, it has to come from a self-directed intention to fill the knowledge gaps (isn’t that how we all arrived at our overshoot awareness and acceptance? We didn’t find this site because we were lectured into it, we found it because we sought it out) and then an even more entropy defying self push to change our actions to match our new insights. If the motivation is great enough, this can and will happen, but everyone has a different threshold before the fire is lit under our bums. Maybe that is why we need to head hell-bent towards full-on collapse, perhaps the only way to save ourselves is to first come within a nanometer of destroying ourselves. I still take comfort and security from the once inviolable Newton’s third law and trust that is will prove true for this case, for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Let us pray for calamity that we will reach that opposite reaction with the same energy swinging us out of our doom as going into it, and preferably very soon!

Namaste, everyone. Thanks for bearing with another Gaia attack.

Sidestepping Genetic Reality Denial by Manipulating Behavior for Overshoot Harm Reduction

It’s rare to encounter a new and constructive idea for addressing human overshoot that is not fatally flawed by a lack of understanding of either thermodynamic and geophysical constraints, or the strong genetic behavior to deny unpleasant realities that enabled the human species to emerge and dominate the planet.

For anyone still looking for technically feasible solutions that have a non-zero probability of success for reducing harms from human overshoot I recommend the most recent Planet: Critical podcast in which Rachel Donald interviews Joseph Merz.

https://www.planetcritical.com/p/urgency-action-and-ethics-joseph?s=r

There are no easy solutions to the climate crisis—most governments admit their hope lies in technology which doesn’t even exist yet. Science and “visionaries” propose increasingly mad ideas, like refreezing the Arctic, or sending humans to live in Space. But given the urgency of the situation, would we be mad not to consider these mad ideas?

Joseph Merz thinks we’ve run out of time to ask questions. He founded the Merz Institute to combat the climate crisis, gathering some of the world’s best scientists to establish what is going wrong and how to fix it. He says the answer is behavioural change—and they’re developing a programme that would manipulate mass behaviour on a subconscious level.

How? Well, using the same techniques as the advertising industry.

Key points made include:

  • It is too late to avoid suffering caused by human overshoot.
  • There may still be time to make the future less bad.
  • All actions we might take to reduce future suffering require changes in human behavior to consume less and have fewer children.
  • Information and education to date have proven completely ineffective at changing human behavior in a positive direction, and we are out of time to try new methods of education.
  • The advertising industry has developed technologies that are very effective at manipulating people to desire and acquire things they do not need to be happy, and in many cases cannot afford.
  • Merz proposes to redeploy these proven marketing technologies to manipulate people to desire happiness associated with lower consumption and fewer children.

Neither Rachel Donald or Joseph Merz appear aware of Varki’s Mind Over Reality Transition (MORT) theory but I’m thinking that Merz’s proposal might sidestep the fatal flaw in most other overshoot harm reduction proposals that require humans to first acknowledge the reality of their predicament, which appears to be impossible because of MORT.

The beauty of Merz’s plan is that it does not require reality awareness because it will manipulate humans at a subconscious level.

It will be interesting to see if the marketing technologies are powerful enough to override the Maximum Power Principle (MPP) which is another powerful genetic behavior that pushes us in an overshoot direction. I’m thinking (without any evidence or data) that it might be possible to override the MPP because we are such a strong social species.

Godspeed to Merz and screw the ethics.

P.S. I doubt it is true, but I observe that if you assume the WEF Great Reset has good intentions grounded in overshoot awareness, it is possible they are thinking along the same lines as Merz with their “you will own nothing and be happy” campaign. The WEF campaign does seem rather clumsy compared to say associating happiness with a Corona beer on a high-carbon long distance vacation. I think it is more likely the WEF is trying to prepare citizens for a Minsky moment in which much asset ownership will transfer to the state.

P.P.S. It’s fascinating that so many overshoot aware people are active in the small country of New Zealand.

Reality Blind by Nate Hagens and DJ White

Nate Hagens has published a new book on the predicament that fossil energy consumption and depletion, and our denial of this reality, have created for life on this planet.

A skim suggests the book will be excellent and I hope to write a review after reading it.

I observe there is no mention of Varki’s Mind Over Reality Transition (MORT) theory which is sad because MORT provides an evolutionary foundation for the denial that Nate discusses, and explains why only one species has emerged with the intelligence to exploit fossil energy.

Denial of our genetic tendency to deny reality is apparently the strongest form of denial, even among the few of us that are aware of the human predicament.

You can read Nate’s book for free and purchase a copy here:

https://read.realityblind.world/view/975731937/i/

Click to access reality-blind-by-nate-hagens-and-dj-white-2021.pdf

In case you missed it, this year’s annual Earth Day talk by Nate is on the same topic and is a masterpiece.

Denial with Cortical Columns

I just finished the new book by Jeff Hawkins titled “A Thousand Brains: A New Theory of Intelligence”.

A bestselling author, neuroscientist, and computer engineer unveils a theory of intelligence that will revolutionize our understanding of the brain and the future of AI. 

For all of neuroscience’s advances, we’ve made little progress on its biggest question: How do simple cells in the brain create intelligence? 

Jeff Hawkins and his team discovered that the brain uses maplike structures to build a model of the world-not just one model, but hundreds of thousands of models of everything we know. This discovery allows Hawkins to answer important questions about how we perceive the world, why we have a sense of self, and the origin of high-level thought. 

A Thousand Brains heralds a revolution in the understanding of intelligence. It is a big-think book, in every sense of the word.

I’ve followed Hawkins for many years and he’s one of my favorite neuroscience researchers. He started as an electrical engineer and created in 1996 the groundbreaking handheld PalmPilot (which I owned 🙂 ), and then switched careers to his passion of figuring out how the brain works.

In his book he proposes a new theoretical framework for how intelligence works. I think he’s on to something important. So does Richard Dawkins who wrote the forward and compares the book to Charles Darwin’s On the Origin of Species.

I see an opportunity to build on Hawkins’ intelligence framework to push Varki’s MORT theory forward by refining why and what we deny, and how denial is implemented in the brain. Some of my still rough ideas are presented at the end of this essay.

There’s a second aspect of Hawkins’ book that is also interesting.

After presenting his new theory on intelligence, Hawkins spends the last half of the book explaining how our old brain behaviors and false beliefs (aka denial) threaten the survival of our species, and he proposes several ways we might avoid these threats.

He’s clearly worried and knows we are in trouble.

Yet when discussing the threats to our species he is blind to the biggest, imminent, and certain threat we face: fossil energy depletion. Hawkins, like most polymaths, can’t see that the technology he loves, was created by, and totally depends on, rapidly depleting non-renewable resources.

So we have a world expert on how and why our brain creates false beliefs, that can’t see his own false beliefs.

We could ask for no better evidence that MORT is true! 

But wait, there’s more.

In the last chapters Hawkins obsesses over inventing a lasting means for our species to signal to other life in the universe that human intelligence once existed. As I was reading this I kept thinking, what the hell are you going on about? The odds are extremely low that other intelligent life will ever see our signaling satellites, and who the hell cares if they do? Then a light went on. His signal is a high tech version of an Egyptian pyramid, and is his brain’s mechanism for denying death.

So how could it get any better?

  • a well written enjoyable book
  • with an important new theory
  • on the most interesting aspect of a unique species
  • that may push forward Varki’s MORT theory on why we exist
  • by a brilliant polymath
  • that is blinded by the same denial that created his species

Following is a brief recapitulation of Hawkins’ cortical column framework for intelligence integrated with my musings on how it might be used to clarify and focus Varki’s MORT theory.

This hypothesis will be revised, possibly substantially, after I complete a 2nd more careful reading of Hawkins’ book and published papers, which I’ve just started. I’m also hoping to incorporate criticism from Dr. Varki which may improve or kill my ideas.

Downvoting the Cortical Column Death Model to Breach the Extended Theory of Mind Barrier

Version 1.2, April 17, 2021

Note: For the sake of brevity, every occurrence of “not die” should be read as “not die until viable offspring are produced”.

  • Genes evolve and collaborate to create bodies.
  • Bodies exist to replicate genes.
  • A body must not die to achieve its purpose of replicating genes.
  • The brain exists to help the body by choosing the best action to not die for a given set of sensory inputs.
  • The old brain uses simple static models to directly cause actions to not die.
  • The neocortex uses more complex learned models to indirectly cause actions to not die by requesting the old brain to execute actions.
  • Learning is moving: the neocortex learns by moving senses around the subject to create (up to about 1000) reference frame models.
  • Thinking is moving: concepts without physical form, like mathematics, are learned by moving between models to create new reference frame models.
  • Models have redundancy which makes knowledge more resilient and repurposable.
  • Models are stored in cortical columns.
  • The neocortex is composed of many nearly identical cortical columns.
  • Senses (and outputs from other models) are evaluated for matches by models.
  • Models collaborate by voting to decide our conscious reality.
  • The agreed reality is used by other models to select the best action to not die.
  • Evolution increases the number of cortical columns in species that benefit from more intelligence to not die.
  • Social species have the most cortical columns because modeling social relationships is hard.
  • The human neocortex has about 150,000 cortical columns.
  • There are two important thresholds on the continuum of increasing social intelligence.
  • “Theory of mind” is the threshold where a brain learns a model of another brain, and that model includes an understanding that the other brain can die.
  • “Extended theory of mind” is the threshold where a brain learns that its model of another brain also models itself, and that it can also die.
  • The extended theory of mind threshold may be difficult for evolution to cross, because it has happened only once on this planet.
  • A model that predicts possible death from injury and certain death from old age results in fewer actions to not die.
  • Fewer actions to not die is called depression.
  • Genes for an extended theory of mind thus do not persist.
  • To break through the barrier, evolution requires a mechanism to prevent the learned death model from evaluating true.
  • A mechanism consistent with the archeological record was to learn a model for life after death (aka God) which downvotes the death model thus continuing the actions to not die.

Modern Implications of the Death Model

  • Climate change acceptance combined with the common false belief that renewable energy can replace depleting non-renewable fossil energy, and the common false belief that technology can remove sufficient CO2 from the atmosphere, does not trigger the death model, and the false beliefs cause our species to take actions that worsen our overshoot predicament.
  • Awareness of human overshoot and its implications are present in less than 0.01% of humans, including most highly educated polymaths, because it triggers the death model. Most people deny overshoot with false beliefs that non-renewable resources are abundant.

By William Rees – Climate change isn’t the problem, so what is?

Thanks to friend and retired blogger Gail Zawacki at Wit’s End for bringing this excellent new talk by professor William Rees to my attention.

Rees discusses our severe state of ecological overshoot and the behaviors that prevent us from taking any useful action to make the future less bad.

Rees thinks there are two key behaviors responsible for our predicament:

  1. Base nature, which we share with all other species, to use all available resources. Most people call this the Maximum Power Principle.
  2. Creative nurture. Our learned culture defines our reality and we live this constructed reality as if it were real. “When faced with information that does not agree with their [preformed] internal structures, they deny, discredit, reinterpret or forget that information” – Wexler.

I don’t disagree with Rees on the existence or role of these behaviors, but we also need Varki’s MORT theory to explain how denial of unpleasant realties evolved and is symbiotic with our uniquely powerful intelligence, and other unique human behaviors, such as our belief in gods and life after death.

Some interesting points made by Rees:

  • The 2017 human eco-footprint exceeds biocapacity by 73%.
  • Half the fossil fuels and many other resources ever used by humans have been consumed in just the past 30 years.
  • Efficiency enables more consumption.
  • The past 7 years are the warmest 7 years on record.
  • Wild populations of birds, fish, mammals, and amphibians have declined 60% since 1970. Populations of many insects are down about 50%.
  • The biomass of humans and their livestock make up 95-99% of all vertebrate biomass on the planet.
  • Human population planning has declined from being the dominant policy lever in 1969 to the least researched in 2018.
  • The annual growth in wind and solar energy is about half the total annual growth in energy. In others words, “renewable” energy is not replacing fossil energy, it’s not even keeping up.
  • The recent expansion of the human enterprise resembles the “plague phase” of a one-off boom/bust population cycle.
  • 50 years, 34 climate conferences, a half dozen major international climate agreements, and various scientists’ warnings have not reduced atmospheric carbon concentrations.
  • We are tracking to the Limit to Growth study’s standard model and should expect major systemic crashes in the next 40 to 50 years.
  • This is the new “age of unreason”: science denial and magical thinking.
  • Climate change is a serious problem but a mere symptom of the greater disease.

P.S. Stay for the Q&A session, it’s very good.

The un-Denial Decision Tree

This post was inspired by a comment from reader Kira. She asked if denying climate change was the same as denying death. I answered as follows:

“I suspect there are 2 main groups of people:

One group is the 95% of the population that doesn’t really understand the science or the severity of the problem. They see bad things happening with the weather, but they also hear on the news that countries have signed an agreement to prevent the temperature from rising more than 2 degrees, and they see neighbors buying solar panels and electric cars, which they’re told by experts are solutions to climate change, so their optimism bias that comes from genetic reality denial leads them to conclude that the climate problem is being addressed, and they put it out of mind.

The other group is the 5% that does understand the science and the severity of climate change. These people have enough intelligence and education to conclude that we are already screwed regardless of what we do, and that any effective mitigation effort must involve a rapid decrease in population and/or per capita consumption. It is within this group that genetic denial of unpleasant realities is operating in full force. Most of these experts genuinely believe that climate change can be safely constrained, and economic growth can continue, by replacing fossil energy with solar/wind energy and by using machines to remove CO2 from the atmosphere. These beliefs are so absurd, and so contrary to basic high school level science, that there can be no other explanation than genetic realty denial. In this group, maybe it is death that is the main thing being denied.”

Kira said she agreed and then suggested it might be better to let people, and especially young people, remain in blissful ignorance so that they do not become depressed and lose a sense of purpose.

I thought about it and created the following decision tree of possible paths to answer her question.

  1. Humans are in serious trouble
    1. Disagree (I believe in God or Steven Pinker)
      • path: Carry on and oppose anything that threatens your beliefs and lifestyle
    2. Agree (I believe my eyes)
      1. It’s too late to do anything useful (nature’s forces now dominate human forces)
        1. Agree (a reasonable position given the data, but only if you think other species don’t matter, and 8 billion suffering humans is no worse than 8 billion minus 1 suffering humans)
          • path: Try not to think about it and enjoy the good days that remain and/or do some prepping to extend your good days
        2. Disagree (there’s still time to make the future less bad, even if all we do is reduce harm to other species and/or total human suffering)
          1. Humans can’t or won’t change their behavior in time
            1. Agree (most of history says we only change when forced, and the coming debt/energy/climate collapse will be too severe for any good to come of it)
              • path: Try not to think about it and enjoy the good days that remain and/or do some prepping to extend your good days
            2. Disagree (I believe Sapolsky that behavior is plastic and we have enough energy left to build a softer landing zone)
              1. Genetic reality denial blocks any useful change
                1. Disagree (I deny that I deny reality)
                  • path: Make yourself feel good by recycling your garbage, shopping with reusable bags, buying an electric car, and voting Green
                2. Agree (it’s not possible to act optimally without understanding reality)
                  1. Awareness of genetic realty denial will increase awareness of reality
                    1. Disagree (most people just want to pay their bills and watch TV)
                      • path: Try not to think about it and enjoy the good days that remain and/or do some prepping to extend your good days
                    2. Agree (most people want to learn)
                      1. Awareness of reality will cause positive behavior changes
                        1. Disagree (if the majority understood reality it would be Mad Max)
                          • path: Try not to think about it and enjoy the good days that remain and/or do some prepping to extend your good days
                        2. Agree (most people want to do the right thing, especially if pain is shared fairly)

This tree of (usually subconscious) decisions a person must make to decide which path to take about human overshoot results in 7 possible paths.

Six of the paths do not improve the outcome. One of the paths might improve the outcome, but has a very low probability of success because it’s currently occupied by a single old uncharismatic antisocial engineer.

Most people who really understand our overshoot predicament would probably discard my complicated decision tree and focus on a single issue: humans can’t or won’t change.

This view was recently voiced by reader Apneaman in a comment:

But can’t/wont. Have not.

Why? Like Sabine says…………

“Now, some have tried to define free will by the “ability to have done otherwise”. But that’s just empty words. If you did one thing, there is no evidence you could have done something else because, well, you didn’t. Really there is always only your fantasy of having done otherwise.“

No plan, no matter how spiffy & technically feasible, or logical argument can convince me that the humans are capable of collective change. I’ll need to see it to believe it. Same as God. Only Jesus floating down from the firmament & performing 10 miracles that are so spectacular they would make illusionist David Copperfield blush could convince me of the supernatural.

While true that it’s difficult to cause people to collectively do things they find unpleasant, or that conflict with the MPP objectives of their genes, it’s not impossible and not without precedent. I gave the following examples:

When the Canadian government says to its citizens:

  • Everyone must pay about 50% of their income as tax to operate the country.
    • Most citizens comply, and those that don’t are usually caught and forced to pay an extra penalty.
  • Germany has attacked our friend and we need our young men to risk their lives by fighting a war on a different continent.
    • Most eligible young men volunteered.
  • A virus threatens to overrun our healthcare system and we need citizens to stay at home except for essential activities which must be conducted with a mask.
    • Most citizens will comply.

Now if the Canadian government said to its citizens the combined threats of climate change and diesel depletion threaten our food security within 10 years, so we are putting in place incentives to encourage local food production and processing, and to decrease food imports, I think most citizens would support the plan.

If then after a couple years of further study and communication on the threat, the government said we don’t think there will be enough food to support our population in 10 years so we are stopping immigration and requiring families to have no more than one child, I think most citizens would comply.

The issue of course is that the Canadian government is not going to acknowledge or act on our overshoot threat in this manner.

Why?

I think it’s due to our genetic tendency to deny unpleasant realities, whenever we can get away with it.

Taxes, war, and viruses are very unpleasant, but they’re in your face and impossible to deny.

Food shortages 10 years out are easy to deny.

How do we change this?

It has to start with discussing and trying to understand our genetic tendency to deny unpleasant realities. Hence the path I’ve personally chosen in the above tree.