How does “go local” affect collapse? Probably not much, but those doing this will lead a more satisfying life integrating with their local community and protecting nature to a degree. That is there will be pockets of sanity - that may or may not survive the apocalypse
Going local creates more resilient and potentially autonomous areas. It is absolutely a vital element of any real resistance to the global industrial machine, and to a future that includes a livable planet. It’s just important to realize that localism alone is not enough to stop the global machine.
I like your honesty. We need more of it. I do not think the moral imperatives are as clear cut as you argue. Actions that precipitate any hastening of societal collapse directly cause the death and suffering of hundreds of millions, if not billions of real, currently living, human beings. Most of that number will be made up by the most vulnerable. Any given person that survives will know one or many of those who do not. It is Thanos-level hubris to believe so absolutely in your own moral framework and situational analysis that you would see it as and moral obligation to directly hasten a horrible outcome that you deem inevitable and inevitably worse if you don't.
I'm not saying you are necessarily wrong as I don't presume to have a better understanding of ethics, or a superior personal moral framework, than you. I also agree with your analysis of the double bind, the almost certainty of collapse within the 40 year timeframe, and the major contributing factors that you point to alongside the almost zero reason to believe anything will change.
But, and it's a big but, killing hundreds of millions of real people in order to hypothetically save the biosphere and humanity from extinction (hypothetical future lives) seems like a difficult step for anyone to take, and a difficult moral position to defend. I think it may be easier to defend if the complete destruction of the biosphere and human extinction were guaranteed on the current path, but it is vastly different to guarantee some kind of significant 'collapse' (which really does seem unavoidable) as it is to guarantee complete devastation and extinction.
The much greater likelihood is that the human species, for whatever reason, is just fundamentally wired to eventually end up in this position as certain social, cultural and genetic dynamics slowly but surely funnel the worst of humans to positions of outweighed power and influence that then build societies that magnify the incentive structure and lock up the dynamic. If this is the case, and i believe that it is, there is really nothing any one person can do about it except to try their best to live their own life with as much grace, love, integrity and joy as they possibly can. In this scenario, like any species that dives too far into overshoot, we obviously collapse/correct at some point. But unlike most species, that entirely lose the ability to survive at all with severely reduced genetic pools and in inhospitable habitats (and thus go extinct), humans will find a way to survive in smaller numbers and slowly regrow, and it all starts again, but this time, material constraints may force a very different path for future human societies as there will simply not be enough available energy to do again what we have done (Was it you that wrote about that? Or the honest sorcerer, someone did but I forget). The biosphere is resilient enough to outlast our collapse and the damage that we do to it up until that collapse. It will just keep slowly adapting, recovering and changing as it always has. Humans will only go fully extinct if conditions around the entire earth become entirely uninhabitable. That is unlikely to happen any time soon unless there is a major asteroid collision or a major nuclear war... which are obviously possibilities, but almost entirely outside of our control. Although, hastening collapse with direct sabotage and sending industrial civilisation into an uncontrolled death spiral would surely significantly raise the risk of nuclear war...
I probably haven't argued this all that articulately, but my point is that collapse will happen because it has to, hastening it for the sake of hypothetical outcomes within an incredibly complex model/system seems rash and wildly unethical, at least to me. Modern industrial society will be forced to start coming to terms with the inevitable sooner rather than later, and when it does, many hands will be forced, and we will see how they play out. My suspicion is that at least, at that point, when all are truly forced to face the truth, and the lies are all burst by brutal reality, there will be a chance for global cooperation, a change to devise some kind of strategy for a more controlled collapse and after-collapse plan. The mantras of progress and human exceptionalism will be shown for what they as all that survive see what they have wrought and those that survive will once again embrace interconnected biocentric worldviews, as much from necessity as from experience and gained wisdom.
This is in no way to argue against activism, calls for systemic revolution and rebuilding, it is simply to say that I do not believe that direct action to hasten collapse is defendable as an ethical obligation. Much love.
Hi, this is a deeply thoughtful response which I have great respect for and it’s definitely part of what I’ve grappled with. Are you familiar with the Trolly Problem? Five people on the track the trolly is heading for. If I pull a lever, I go to a track with one person on it. Utilitarians would say pull the lever. The deontological response would be not to pull the lever because it’s not about the outcome, it’s about not making a decision that would do harm.
With the first example in my article about the terminal patient, there isn’t a clear moral imperative either way. Just a double bind. There doesn’t seem to be one for the Trolly problem either.
As for global industrialism destroying the planet, you make some compelling points about what also could happen. Similar to the terminal patient, doctors can’t know for sure if a terminal patient might recover. New medical advances might suddenly cure them. Or they may heal by some unknown means. It’s happened. But I don’t think one could claim withholding the treatment that leads to a quicker death is immoral. Nor would I say the same about my thesis here. It’s a calculus, and the intent is probably the most important moral.
That said, it’s hard for me to ignore the fact that as we sit here and discuss, industrial civilization is destroying more of the planet at a faster rate. The speed at which we dismantle it is important, both for short term and long term reasons. Caution is appropriate.
One could frame this a number of different ways. If you believe in a slower transition, you can still resist industrial civilization and fight for ecosystems. You could still act outside the socially accepted methods and sabotage equipment being used to destroy ecosystems, or the infrastructure that sends fossil fuels around the planet and support radical transformation of society, even if you weren’t trying to suddenly collapse the entire thing.
Food for thought. I appreciated all that you shared. Ultimately love is at the center of what I propose. It is the love of life and a livable planet. I hope that comes through.
Thank you for such a thoughtful response. Your commitment to thoughtfully responding, always in the best of faith, to comments is one of the things that makes your page so compelling. You say your truth, which is often confronting, but always meet good faith disagreements with good faith replies. It's refreshing.
I know where you are coming from, as I have read a lot of your articles and comments so my difference of view is in no way suggesting that I think you have bad intentions or a questionable moral compass. We have a similar overall analysis of the current multicrisis predicament, but different conclusions about the moral reasoning and conclusions/obligations that it leads to.
I am familiar with the trolly problem, and like many moral hypotheticals, it can be argued every which way from many different philosophical/ethical frames. I am not entirely sure where I land on it to be honest. I find i can only land on preferred answers to such a questions when I have more context specifics attached to the scenario which allow me to rationalise my conclusions along my existing ethical 'maps'. From a purely utilitarian approach, your conclusion may well be correct, just as an AI, or insurance company algorithm might come to the same conclusion if programmed incentives were to limit damage to all life and the health of the biosphere and, possibly, to save humanity from extinction. Again though, without repeating myself, I think the priors I argued above are a big deal in that we have no guarantee that hastening collapse would give us any better chance of surviving extinction than any other option, or if it would possibly increase it, in any case where it radically increased the chance of nuclear war, which could be the overall worst outcome for both humanity and the biosphere if enough nukes were dropped. Nuclear war is a possibility in any scenario and its likelihood is difficult to model. And again, outside of serious nuclear war, which could poison everything on earth for millennia to come, I think that biosphere itself is entirely unconcerned with what happens to humans insofar as it will simply remodel itself once our impact is driven to zero through extinction or near enough through massively reduced numbers. It will find a new equilibrium and return its rhythms to the sway of much larger and slower processes once more until something entirely more cosmological in scale finally erases it.
As far as the trolly problem, maybe a recent anecdote from my life would shed light on how I see similar scenarios as far as they might pertain to a loved one (and when we are talking about human lives, we are talking about 'loved ones' down to every last life). My mum had alzheimers for the last 10 years of her life. She had an unrelated medical episode that sent her downhill fast and she very nearly died. She made it through but the couple of weeks of just holding on accelerated the neurological decline at such a rate that when she had 'recovered', she could no longer eat, walk, or be lucid for more than brief periods of the day. The doctors, who have seen such a thing happen many times over, and knew what the next years would likely look like for the patient and family, were pushing my father quite hard to let her go, effectively by taking out the feeding tube. My siblings and I were not against this idea, in fact, we had such a low confidence in the possibility of her recovering a level of health that would allow her to have an acceptable quality of life (however one measures 'acceptable quality of life'), and were quite sure that she herself would not want to live like that, that we thought it was likely the kindest path. We did not have any explicit last wishes from her recorded and she was not capable of telling us at that point. This was to be one of many similar scenarios over the next 9 months as she slowly but surely further declined because our father, who is a christian strongly believed that she should effectively only die when 'god wanted her to'. He effectively believed that she would believe the same and it was legally his decision to make. She did learn to eat again, and over 9 months of mostly hell, there were many brief periods of clarity that included laughs, and joy, and moments of connection with our mother. Apart from that, it was hell for her much of the time and extremely difficult for the whole family as she effectively needed someone with her all the time except for sleeping at night. I think I still believe that the kindest thing would have been to let the doctors do what they advised at the very beginning. Our father's path led to far more pain, but also those other moments of joy and connection, the worth of which is immeasurable. How do you do that math? What ultimately constitutes positive or negative quality of life? Who's decision was it to make in the absence of her explicit wishes? We all wanted the best for her in our own ways. The utilitarian approach was not equipped to grapple with the nuance, as it often isn't in human affairs and complex situations. My father's religious framework was equipped to provide an answer because it doesn't care about the nuance by way of its dogma. Did it do more harm, or was it worth it? I still don't know, all i know is that it sucked for everyone and answers were not easy but we muddled through and did the best we could. I feel like that is what humans do, at least the good ones. I suspect that is the only thing we can do in situations that are much greater than any one of us, or even any large group of us. In the basic trolly situation, if I was actually in the situation with zero context except for the lever and decision based on bare numbers of lives, I would pull the lever because it is the best decision I have at hand with the information on offer. I would make a decision based on that information knowing that it might be the wrong one if more information comes to light and knowing that I will not have that information before it is too late to make the decision. I would muddle through with the best intention based on the information I had. Not making the decision simply seems like cowardice being justified by unknown hypotheticals. Another person would make the argument that pulling the lever is rashness justified by overconfidence in limited information. So on this I may seem more aligned with your stated positions, however...
The situation we are currently in, we have too much information, and we just don't know what to do with it all because the world has become hypercomplex at almost every level. Too many possible outcomes, too many stakeholders and too many different frames of reference and philosophy. It is simply too complex to model and the stakes are as high as it gets from every angle. So I just don't see it as being comparable to the basic trolly scenario where the lack of information, and simplicity of the scenario are what provide the ethical ambiguity.
I care about the biosphere continuing, and am confident that it will. I care about there being as little human suffering as there needs to be, and as little non-human suffering as there needs to be. In our current systems, those two objectives are largely at loggerheads, but if i had to make a choice, and in the absence of widespread changes in human behaviours, I would choose the less human suffering, because I am human I guess, and my empathy is evolutionarily optimised for humans, and also because I am confident that the earth and its species will remodel themselves when humans and our civilisations are just memories buried in the layers of the earth.
My only moral imperative is to do the best I can with the information and wisdom that I have and can gain and hopefully inspire others to do the same. Deliberately and explicitly precipitating the death and suffering of others just doesn't fit into that if I have no guarantee that it will ensure a greater good. I think it is philosophically arrogant to think otherwise.
On the other hand, as you mention, fighting the systems of destruction both within and outside of its laws is open slather and all who believe such should do so as much and as far as their appetite for risk and potential martyrdom allows them. I respect anyone that risks their own comfort and survival to mitigate the destruction of the planet, even when I don't necessarily agree with their methods. Thanks again
You’ve added much to the discussion and I really appreciate it. You got me thinking. And I’ve always tried to take the position that people should be free to choose what role they play and how they respond to collapse… without judgement from me. Sometimes I feel the urge to push people to do more.
At the end of the day I agree with your thoughts on the grand scheme. There’s only so much we can do and we only matter so much. Ultimately, the universe is gonna do what it does and life will go on.
I remember one author comparing the natural world to a wife, daughter, sister or mother and asked if we’d stand by and watch as a deranged man beat and raped them. My answer was of course not. Then how about for a woman you don’t know. Less certain, but I hoped I would. He asked what was different about the natural world. Why wouldn’t we rush to her defense and stop to abuser? Wed have to have a close connection to the natural world. And maybe that’s why we don’t defend her. We are too separated.
Just more thoughts. Enjoy your day or evening. Cheers.
I'm glad my thoughts were of value. Your writings always help me to think through our situation more clearly, both when i agree and when I don't, because you are truthful, honest and searching for the best solutions.
The moral conundrum you lay out is an interesting one. Though I do know a reasonable amount about TEK and the various cultural, social and spiritual beliefs and behaviours of Indigenous peoples and ancient cultures through out history, I would not call myself and expert and I would not presume to speak for them, as it is not my place. However, it is indisputable that such peoples had, and continue to have as close a connection to the natural world as one could imagine, and as we see time and time again, they are at the forefront of fighting for the earth. There are also plenty of examples within such groups of the opposite occurring, but overall, their deeply layered interconnection with place and the natural world draws far more visceral and protective reactions than it does for the average 'modern' industrialised person. I am reminded by David Abrams work, arguing that many of today's ills can be drawn back to the gradual widening of the gap between human's and our fundamental and inescapable connection to the earth. The war has been won on that front by sheer numbers much greater even than a critical mass. Wetiko has won for now.
However, there is something to be said about the power dynamic involved also in those different scenarios. In scenario one, the personal stakes are so high and immediate that the potential consequences of the fight would not come into the analysis. I would simply act almost unconsciously, even if I did not think I had much a of a chance of stopping it or surviving. There is no other choice. In the second scenario, the emotional/empathetic connection would be less strong, but still powerful, and along with a feeling of moral injustice and obligation I would still like to think that I would act. However, my likelihood to act may be more affected based on a prediction of how I would fare. If I had any confidence that I would prevail and save the victim and survive myself then I would fight. I suspect though, and this may reflect badly on me, that every ascending level of doubt as to a positive outcome of the fight would add increasing caution to my own sense of self preservation and analysis of risk/reward. This is to say, I am certain that I would not even think about it in the first scenario, but in the second, without being in the situation and knowing for sure, I suspect that my decision would not be automatic. If I felt it largely hopeless, then I am not sure if my moral obligation would override my sense of powerlessness and self-preservation. I hope that I never have to find out.
In the third scenario, when it comes to nature, I think it is a very flawed comp, apples and oranges etc., as the natural world is a much larger, complex and diffuse entity than a human. It dies by a trillion cuts, and the abusers are legion and also diffused. The act/consequence is not quick and immediate. The power dynamic is also much different as it is not a one on one fight, it is individuals and small groups against a giant system again and again. It is fraught with far more inevitable failure than success, or ripples of success amongst an ocean of defeats. It requires increasing levels of self-sacrifice and martyrdom over and over again. It requires extraordinary people with particular beliefs. It requires those extraordinary people to commit their lives to it. While those that oppose them only have to commit their lives to the system that opposes and rewards them for doing so.
Such people willing to commit their lives to such cause are not a large percentage of the human population and I suspect they never really have been and never really will be. Self-interest is evolutionarily hardwired into a majority of the human population.
It is much more difficult, even for those with a close connection to the earth, to overcome their sense of self-preservation (and by extension that of those that rely on them) in order to repeatedly risk it in skirmish after skirmish in a clearly losing battle, and as you suggest, peaceful activism is important, but it doesn't really get the job done. The alternatives have grave personal consequences. The systems of power make sure of that. In a better world it would be a fair fight. We do not live in that world. If there was light at the end of the tunnel, and a reasonable analysis that showed a chance of eventual success, that might change the equation. I don't see that yet. I see more people waking up but I do not believe it will become a critical mass. Critical mass social revolutions may well be raised based on increasing inequalities and declining living conditions, i.e., based on issues of self-interest and self-preservation, but I don't think they will be raised by current populations in defense of earth and the biosphere.
“It is Thanos-level hubris to believe so absolutely in your own moral framework and situational analysis that you would see it as and moral obligation to directly hasten a horrible outcome that you deem inevitable and inevitably worse if you don't.” And that’s how to spot the narcissist. The movie 12 Monkeys comes to mind.
Agree, though for the record, I am not implying by that comment that Justin is a narcissist (or necessarily that you are implying as such with your reply) as I see his exploration of this kind of ethic in this article as more hypothetical than assured, and very much worth exploring as such. All angles of analysis must be considered when faced with the levels of threat and crisis that we are currently faced with, especially when positive outcomes seem increasingly hopeless. I respect him for raising the discussions. Much love
I like the energy of 'eat the rich', but I am yet to see the boundaries and logistics clearly mapped and defined, or the ethic well-justified.
I say/ask this in good faith. How exactly should the rich, figuratively, be eaten? Who gets to eat them? Who gets to define who is, or what constitutes 'rich'? Where exactly does does such a sentiment end, philosophically and politically, except for just a rehash of ideas that have already catastrophically failed in countless iterations already? I mean, billionaires are obviously a catastrophe, capitalism is in a death spiral, and no-one really knows how to fight or fix it, but eat the rich just seems far too vague as is to be useful as anything else than a callow and callous catch-cry or call-to-arms. If that is all it is, then that's fine, I respect the sentiment. I just don't see it as a viable or well-drawn solution.
This is a much more complex social, economic and political time than any proletariate revolutions of the past. There is a much larger comfortable middle class all around the world who are served by the current systems and will not fight it until it gives them cause to (which is may do, gradually or quickly). These people are not 'elites', quite normal by most standards, but they are most definitely still 'rich' compared to 80% of the rest of the world and they are not so bothered by a 1% being much richer than them. The elite classes have all threats against them on lockdown in most ways. We can't storm the castle, drag them out and put their heads in the guillotine anymore. They know what people are doing and if it comes down to it, they'll just send the fucking drones in.
I would be extremely receptive to a reasonable argument in defense of the catch-cry and an expansion on how it might actually work in reality as a reasonable solution with preferable outcomes. Much love.
OK ... this one is profound. I need to ponder a better/deeper/more thoughtful responce with care (because this is a public space and comments are magnified) ... but, in short, I AGREE WITH YOU, 100%, and commend your bravery for being the first one I've read here to spell the ugly truth out. This, in essence, is the crux of what we need to contemplate, and fast. The 'how' of it, needs a better mind than mine ... and I hope they are here. For what it is worth, I will cycle back with another comment later today. For now ... RESPECT.
Thanks for that. Historically, this is legally protected speech in the United States. Of course that doesn’t always matter in the real world. But it definitely needs to be said because like you pointed out, so few are direct about this. I remain open to better alternatives, but I haven’t seen anything that convinces me one exists.
Perhaps intentional human disruption of the fragile infrastructure of industrial civilization, will be unnecessary. As the fragility continues to intensify, like a small blood clot can cause a fatal stroke, it will, one day soon, require only a LA fire or Hurricane Helene disaster, to begin a fatal chain of disruptions
It’s crazy how few people recognize the role of sabotage in the case of Nelson Mandela. The cultural myth seems to believe it was all peace and nonviolence.
I think the open of your comments that stress we are in a double bind is right on point. I think the only way out of a double bind is to look for a third way. The coming collapse means billion of deaths, many by starvation, it is a horrible way to die. I think developing local sources of food makes sense. Ultimately if there are any survivors, they will be living in some form of village life.
My dude, one of the best weapons against the fascists is the TRUTH🤦♀️ If they're propaganda didn't work they wouldn't be spending billions of dollars on it. Just being kind and wearing a 😷 also fights fascism. You fight hatred with love🕊💕
Yes, an intelligencia is a crucial element of any revolutionary level resistance. The fact we are losing the fight is sort of the point here… it doesn’t matter if that is the reality. It’s still the moral choice.
We're only losing the fight because the cops are heavily armed and trained by the IDF. You saw how fast and hard they cracked down on the pro Palestinian protests. If we're ever going to have peace we have to dismantle capitalism. Which is easy just make forced starvation and evictions illegal. Know any politicians willing to even suggest such a "radical" thing? No? I thought not. Now why do you think that is?
You have nailed the dilemma on the head, business as usual ensuring extinction, or taking radical, dangerous, outside the norms, "illegal" action that means more immediate deaths now for an unknown raising of odds of something surviving in the future. I have skirted this topic in my own writing, but not addressed it directly this way. With the new administration opening the gates of climate change and overshoot hell, physically assaulting the system becomes the only choice. Those who have the courage and means to do so will pay the highest possible price with their lives, prison, and smearing by the oligarch owned media.
Have you read The Ministry for the Future by Kim Stanley Robinson? It proposes, through a fictional story, a road map (with many difficult decisions) to salvage humanity at the expense of society as we know it. It’s both gruesome and hopeful. Give it a look.
I love Stanley Robinsin's books, except that one. His view of how international politics will respond is hopium on steroids. In this area, I have some chops (to borrow McAffee's phrase). You want a more truthful, honest attempt, I suggest reading Juice by Tim Winton. It's a far more plausible capture of the path we are on.
You hit the targets: “Now that we’ve covered the alternative scenarios, and the rationale for framing this discussion as a binary, let’s get back to choosing collapse now, or extinction later. …. if you have a soul this isn’t an easy thing to approach. Most of us would rather not confront our brains with this crazy choice.”
There's a lot to think about here. I feel like part of the struggle, for me, is that it feels like the choice isn't just one that takes place on the macro/geopolitical scale, but also a personal one. It's not just about potential fatalities in a revolutionary uprising, it's about the people whose lives depend on the current status quo.
Eg, some of my loved ones are reliant on medication and treatments provided by the pharmaceutical industry. And while modern medicine, insurance, etc all have their own problems, it's very hard to imagine a hypothetical post-degrowth society maintaining a modern standard of medicine.
If it's a decision between cursing the next generation or endangering the lives of people I love in the here and now for a shot at a better future (that still isn't assured)... what kind of choice is that?
Absolutely. It’s a horrible choice. The first example about the terminal patient may not grasp the gravity, but it illustrates how favorable choices aren’t always possible. Accepting that does take some pondering. When I consider having a habitable planet vs having modern medicine for a few more decades, it becomes an easier choice for me.
In theory I think you're right. But it's the kind of thing that's a lot harder to stomach as action than thought. I imagine that's probably a major barrier for climate action.
And part of that is the cultural hegemony about actions outside the bounds of social acceptance. Violence by non-state actors has become considerably taboo in this culture. To such a point where even actions by Palestinians living in an open-air prison are considered only condemnable.
100%. I think that Americans & West Europeans are especially bad on this front because the vast majority of us live in heavily policed and highly privileged bubbles. We forget that rule of law is entirely artificial and only has power so long as people continue to believe in its ability to protect them and their loved ones.
Nor would I be, and while I am glad I didn't die, I think it's legitimate to ask whether using the technology that saved me (and lots of others) is really 'worth' the 'price' in the degradation of the planet. My answer is that I think not; really, in the name of all life on Earth, I should be dead.
I feel there's another way to contemplate this: do you believe in other people? Do you resonate with the divine (or however you wish to ascribe it) love and consciousness that connects human beings?
How much does that penetrate your soul?
If greatly, then by extension: you must accept that if one hopes to accelerate change by hastening an outcome that prevents the wind-down of techno-industrialism from yielding a smoldering, uninhabitable rock with no arable land nor resources for any survivors to inherit, then so too is collateral damage an inevitability.
Meaning: we love to paint with broad strokes about how hastening the end of the untenable would provide relief that almost overwhelms our imagination, but we don't relish considering that the people we love most will be swept away with the tide of change. The mother who passed without the life-support of her medication; the good buddy who worked for the "wrong" industry, and lost everything...then surrendered.
The double-bind here is the classic one I see in all revolutionary thought: "This will be better on the other side; the sacrifices we make today will provide a better tomorrow." So the unimaginable sacrifice ensues, yet the exit ramp to the better tomorrow fails to appear. We lose sight of it, because our essence is also our guidestar. Once we become something that relinquishes its humanity for the sake of a greater purpose, no matter how temporarily so, we then cease to be the very thing we recognize as worth preserving.
No wonder it is later so difficult to reconstitute healthy communities, when we sold our souls for the fortitude to pass through the crucible. Communities need souls: vibrant, fragile, whimsical, sometimes-innocent souls.
This kind of decision forecloses innocence. It changes us.
I'm not saying it is wrong. However, I am saying it is the single most momentous choice any of us can make. It requires holding two paradoxical things as true: one, that by accepting the incredible fact (and terrifying responsibility) that people love us--*really* love and believe in us, even when we feel they have no earthly right or reason to--so too do we receive loyalty and devotion. Yet two, this likewise means that any of us can willingly sign our own death warrant by aligning with someone whom we love and trust, and to whom we are devoted.
That is a terrible burden of accountability for the trusted. It is also the most sincere expression of devotion a human being can muster. It thus demands the greatest respect for the sacred nature of life, and what it means to both acknowledge that inimitable gift and be at peace with surrendering it. You live your life balancing that joy and sorrow in equal measure, moving forward toward what you hope to be right.
If you can't accept the love and devotion, then what is gained is impersonal. For all intents and purposes, humanity is extinct, with a slightly less-smoldering rock to show for it.
It all comes back to a koan of epic proportions: if you take the gravity of being beloved seriously, then it's almost impossible to escape. Conversely, if you don't really go there, it's much easier to be courageous for its own sake.
But to be humane, you have to feel both, to the absolute core of you. There is no "more one than the other," and there is nothing to hand to future generations if we can process the logic of it all, but not the burden of the heart that goes along with it.
If we can't, or we won't--if it's all excellent muse-fodder for writing, but makes us squirm where the rubber meets the road--then it's all academic anyway, and wherever we go, there we will be.
In the meantime, I'm going to focus on being there for the courageous people I know who love and trust me, since they often have no reason to...but I have every reason not to let them down.
Thanks for this. I’m more optimistic than this essay and think that purposeful sabotage will backfire.
I think our best chances are to radically disengage from consumption and to show to the best of our abilities how the wealthy can be leaders in a new vision of a different society.
Brilliant! We are 3,000 times more numerous today than were our ancestral Hunter-Gatherer clan/band dwelling fellows, who numbered no more than 150 (Dunbar number) per clan/band and lived in an ecologically balanced sustainable relationship with ALL the rest of Nature. I've written a book, "Stress R Us", about the "stress diseases" we are suffering from due to "population density stress", which encompasses alienation from Nature and her rhythms, the loss of the clan/band social structure, crowding stress, environmental degradation, ecological mismatch, climate collapse, and spiritual alienation. When I post, I nearly always recommend CONTRACEPTION so that the survivors will have at least the scraps to sustain themselves. Thank you for this heart-felt and prescient piece and all your work. Have a blessed day! Gregg Miklashek, MD
My own take on this is that there is no solution. Do we humans really have the hubris to think that we are some way in control over ultimate outcomes in 2050 or 2100?
My own belief is that weare being re-wilded, and that we will not control future outcomes.
The time when we could reduce our multiple mortal impacts on our habitat is long since over.
Our behavior now can be loving, and we can trust that the generativity of earth and the universe will make a way for life.
Earth still invites us into beloved community, even though our ecocidal assault on earth has ended the self-terminating machine of Modernity.
Loving action will differ in thst we are all in different places, relationships, and have different understandings of our predicament.
It helps to let go of some fixation on saving some people, a bioregion, or some species of which we are particularly fond.
We will each die eventually, and our species will go extinct eventually.
Meanwhile, we can love one another and our Mother Earth. We will likely do less harm if we truly savor (not consume) the beloved community of earth rather than try to save.
E. O. Wilson famously said that we humans are bewildered by our own existence, and are thrashing about with our god-like technology so that we are a threat to ourselves and to others.
Our response to collapse is mostly just a panicked continuation of the very thinking that caused the overshoot in the first place.
As the crisis grows more urgent, I slow down. As the end draws nearer, I trust the generativity of the universe more - not less.
My only hope for our species to have a future is that enough of the few who might survive the coming collapse and its attendant violent chaos will return to what is known as the 'Kinship Worldview' and its guiding principles. Basically, this means 'remembering' how we survived for countless millennia, before the 'Dawn of Civilization.'
The best move against industrial 'civilization' might not be to FIGHT it, but simply to WITHDRAW FROM it -- to cease to invest in it materially, intellectually, emotionally etc; to change your entire lifestyle so you no longer rely on it for anything at all (as far as possible); and to beckon to others to do the same. Fighting something results in RESISTANCE; what you're fighting fights back. This may actually sustain it further, because it MOTIVATES those who oppose you to sustain it further by investing MORE in it. Just look at all the anti-environmental vitriol around, which claims that environmentalists are part of some conspiracy via which the global elite keeps us under control. But if (enough) people simply DISENGAGE from it -- by following some alternative way of life -- then it will shrivel and die, because people no longer nourish and support it by investing in it. The main challenge then is to make people WANT TO disengage/withdraw from industrial 'civilization' -- by offering them a VISION. A vision of a saner, more satisfactory alternative way of life.
I actually think building alternatives is essential. I just don’t believe the people with the money and guns are going to take it lying down. They never do. Let’s use the metaphor of an abuser. They usually don’t stop because you ask nicely. Withdrawing is essential, but it most of the time will require force, either by police or otherwise.
How does “go local” affect collapse? Probably not much, but those doing this will lead a more satisfying life integrating with their local community and protecting nature to a degree. That is there will be pockets of sanity - that may or may not survive the apocalypse
Going local creates more resilient and potentially autonomous areas. It is absolutely a vital element of any real resistance to the global industrial machine, and to a future that includes a livable planet. It’s just important to realize that localism alone is not enough to stop the global machine.
This is the best strategy. No one will be coming to save us so we have to save each other 💕
I like your honesty. We need more of it. I do not think the moral imperatives are as clear cut as you argue. Actions that precipitate any hastening of societal collapse directly cause the death and suffering of hundreds of millions, if not billions of real, currently living, human beings. Most of that number will be made up by the most vulnerable. Any given person that survives will know one or many of those who do not. It is Thanos-level hubris to believe so absolutely in your own moral framework and situational analysis that you would see it as and moral obligation to directly hasten a horrible outcome that you deem inevitable and inevitably worse if you don't.
I'm not saying you are necessarily wrong as I don't presume to have a better understanding of ethics, or a superior personal moral framework, than you. I also agree with your analysis of the double bind, the almost certainty of collapse within the 40 year timeframe, and the major contributing factors that you point to alongside the almost zero reason to believe anything will change.
But, and it's a big but, killing hundreds of millions of real people in order to hypothetically save the biosphere and humanity from extinction (hypothetical future lives) seems like a difficult step for anyone to take, and a difficult moral position to defend. I think it may be easier to defend if the complete destruction of the biosphere and human extinction were guaranteed on the current path, but it is vastly different to guarantee some kind of significant 'collapse' (which really does seem unavoidable) as it is to guarantee complete devastation and extinction.
The much greater likelihood is that the human species, for whatever reason, is just fundamentally wired to eventually end up in this position as certain social, cultural and genetic dynamics slowly but surely funnel the worst of humans to positions of outweighed power and influence that then build societies that magnify the incentive structure and lock up the dynamic. If this is the case, and i believe that it is, there is really nothing any one person can do about it except to try their best to live their own life with as much grace, love, integrity and joy as they possibly can. In this scenario, like any species that dives too far into overshoot, we obviously collapse/correct at some point. But unlike most species, that entirely lose the ability to survive at all with severely reduced genetic pools and in inhospitable habitats (and thus go extinct), humans will find a way to survive in smaller numbers and slowly regrow, and it all starts again, but this time, material constraints may force a very different path for future human societies as there will simply not be enough available energy to do again what we have done (Was it you that wrote about that? Or the honest sorcerer, someone did but I forget). The biosphere is resilient enough to outlast our collapse and the damage that we do to it up until that collapse. It will just keep slowly adapting, recovering and changing as it always has. Humans will only go fully extinct if conditions around the entire earth become entirely uninhabitable. That is unlikely to happen any time soon unless there is a major asteroid collision or a major nuclear war... which are obviously possibilities, but almost entirely outside of our control. Although, hastening collapse with direct sabotage and sending industrial civilisation into an uncontrolled death spiral would surely significantly raise the risk of nuclear war...
I probably haven't argued this all that articulately, but my point is that collapse will happen because it has to, hastening it for the sake of hypothetical outcomes within an incredibly complex model/system seems rash and wildly unethical, at least to me. Modern industrial society will be forced to start coming to terms with the inevitable sooner rather than later, and when it does, many hands will be forced, and we will see how they play out. My suspicion is that at least, at that point, when all are truly forced to face the truth, and the lies are all burst by brutal reality, there will be a chance for global cooperation, a change to devise some kind of strategy for a more controlled collapse and after-collapse plan. The mantras of progress and human exceptionalism will be shown for what they as all that survive see what they have wrought and those that survive will once again embrace interconnected biocentric worldviews, as much from necessity as from experience and gained wisdom.
This is in no way to argue against activism, calls for systemic revolution and rebuilding, it is simply to say that I do not believe that direct action to hasten collapse is defendable as an ethical obligation. Much love.
Hi, this is a deeply thoughtful response which I have great respect for and it’s definitely part of what I’ve grappled with. Are you familiar with the Trolly Problem? Five people on the track the trolly is heading for. If I pull a lever, I go to a track with one person on it. Utilitarians would say pull the lever. The deontological response would be not to pull the lever because it’s not about the outcome, it’s about not making a decision that would do harm.
With the first example in my article about the terminal patient, there isn’t a clear moral imperative either way. Just a double bind. There doesn’t seem to be one for the Trolly problem either.
As for global industrialism destroying the planet, you make some compelling points about what also could happen. Similar to the terminal patient, doctors can’t know for sure if a terminal patient might recover. New medical advances might suddenly cure them. Or they may heal by some unknown means. It’s happened. But I don’t think one could claim withholding the treatment that leads to a quicker death is immoral. Nor would I say the same about my thesis here. It’s a calculus, and the intent is probably the most important moral.
That said, it’s hard for me to ignore the fact that as we sit here and discuss, industrial civilization is destroying more of the planet at a faster rate. The speed at which we dismantle it is important, both for short term and long term reasons. Caution is appropriate.
One could frame this a number of different ways. If you believe in a slower transition, you can still resist industrial civilization and fight for ecosystems. You could still act outside the socially accepted methods and sabotage equipment being used to destroy ecosystems, or the infrastructure that sends fossil fuels around the planet and support radical transformation of society, even if you weren’t trying to suddenly collapse the entire thing.
Food for thought. I appreciated all that you shared. Ultimately love is at the center of what I propose. It is the love of life and a livable planet. I hope that comes through.
Thank you for such a thoughtful response. Your commitment to thoughtfully responding, always in the best of faith, to comments is one of the things that makes your page so compelling. You say your truth, which is often confronting, but always meet good faith disagreements with good faith replies. It's refreshing.
I know where you are coming from, as I have read a lot of your articles and comments so my difference of view is in no way suggesting that I think you have bad intentions or a questionable moral compass. We have a similar overall analysis of the current multicrisis predicament, but different conclusions about the moral reasoning and conclusions/obligations that it leads to.
I am familiar with the trolly problem, and like many moral hypotheticals, it can be argued every which way from many different philosophical/ethical frames. I am not entirely sure where I land on it to be honest. I find i can only land on preferred answers to such a questions when I have more context specifics attached to the scenario which allow me to rationalise my conclusions along my existing ethical 'maps'. From a purely utilitarian approach, your conclusion may well be correct, just as an AI, or insurance company algorithm might come to the same conclusion if programmed incentives were to limit damage to all life and the health of the biosphere and, possibly, to save humanity from extinction. Again though, without repeating myself, I think the priors I argued above are a big deal in that we have no guarantee that hastening collapse would give us any better chance of surviving extinction than any other option, or if it would possibly increase it, in any case where it radically increased the chance of nuclear war, which could be the overall worst outcome for both humanity and the biosphere if enough nukes were dropped. Nuclear war is a possibility in any scenario and its likelihood is difficult to model. And again, outside of serious nuclear war, which could poison everything on earth for millennia to come, I think that biosphere itself is entirely unconcerned with what happens to humans insofar as it will simply remodel itself once our impact is driven to zero through extinction or near enough through massively reduced numbers. It will find a new equilibrium and return its rhythms to the sway of much larger and slower processes once more until something entirely more cosmological in scale finally erases it.
As far as the trolly problem, maybe a recent anecdote from my life would shed light on how I see similar scenarios as far as they might pertain to a loved one (and when we are talking about human lives, we are talking about 'loved ones' down to every last life). My mum had alzheimers for the last 10 years of her life. She had an unrelated medical episode that sent her downhill fast and she very nearly died. She made it through but the couple of weeks of just holding on accelerated the neurological decline at such a rate that when she had 'recovered', she could no longer eat, walk, or be lucid for more than brief periods of the day. The doctors, who have seen such a thing happen many times over, and knew what the next years would likely look like for the patient and family, were pushing my father quite hard to let her go, effectively by taking out the feeding tube. My siblings and I were not against this idea, in fact, we had such a low confidence in the possibility of her recovering a level of health that would allow her to have an acceptable quality of life (however one measures 'acceptable quality of life'), and were quite sure that she herself would not want to live like that, that we thought it was likely the kindest path. We did not have any explicit last wishes from her recorded and she was not capable of telling us at that point. This was to be one of many similar scenarios over the next 9 months as she slowly but surely further declined because our father, who is a christian strongly believed that she should effectively only die when 'god wanted her to'. He effectively believed that she would believe the same and it was legally his decision to make. She did learn to eat again, and over 9 months of mostly hell, there were many brief periods of clarity that included laughs, and joy, and moments of connection with our mother. Apart from that, it was hell for her much of the time and extremely difficult for the whole family as she effectively needed someone with her all the time except for sleeping at night. I think I still believe that the kindest thing would have been to let the doctors do what they advised at the very beginning. Our father's path led to far more pain, but also those other moments of joy and connection, the worth of which is immeasurable. How do you do that math? What ultimately constitutes positive or negative quality of life? Who's decision was it to make in the absence of her explicit wishes? We all wanted the best for her in our own ways. The utilitarian approach was not equipped to grapple with the nuance, as it often isn't in human affairs and complex situations. My father's religious framework was equipped to provide an answer because it doesn't care about the nuance by way of its dogma. Did it do more harm, or was it worth it? I still don't know, all i know is that it sucked for everyone and answers were not easy but we muddled through and did the best we could. I feel like that is what humans do, at least the good ones. I suspect that is the only thing we can do in situations that are much greater than any one of us, or even any large group of us. In the basic trolly situation, if I was actually in the situation with zero context except for the lever and decision based on bare numbers of lives, I would pull the lever because it is the best decision I have at hand with the information on offer. I would make a decision based on that information knowing that it might be the wrong one if more information comes to light and knowing that I will not have that information before it is too late to make the decision. I would muddle through with the best intention based on the information I had. Not making the decision simply seems like cowardice being justified by unknown hypotheticals. Another person would make the argument that pulling the lever is rashness justified by overconfidence in limited information. So on this I may seem more aligned with your stated positions, however...
The situation we are currently in, we have too much information, and we just don't know what to do with it all because the world has become hypercomplex at almost every level. Too many possible outcomes, too many stakeholders and too many different frames of reference and philosophy. It is simply too complex to model and the stakes are as high as it gets from every angle. So I just don't see it as being comparable to the basic trolly scenario where the lack of information, and simplicity of the scenario are what provide the ethical ambiguity.
I care about the biosphere continuing, and am confident that it will. I care about there being as little human suffering as there needs to be, and as little non-human suffering as there needs to be. In our current systems, those two objectives are largely at loggerheads, but if i had to make a choice, and in the absence of widespread changes in human behaviours, I would choose the less human suffering, because I am human I guess, and my empathy is evolutionarily optimised for humans, and also because I am confident that the earth and its species will remodel themselves when humans and our civilisations are just memories buried in the layers of the earth.
My only moral imperative is to do the best I can with the information and wisdom that I have and can gain and hopefully inspire others to do the same. Deliberately and explicitly precipitating the death and suffering of others just doesn't fit into that if I have no guarantee that it will ensure a greater good. I think it is philosophically arrogant to think otherwise.
On the other hand, as you mention, fighting the systems of destruction both within and outside of its laws is open slather and all who believe such should do so as much and as far as their appetite for risk and potential martyrdom allows them. I respect anyone that risks their own comfort and survival to mitigate the destruction of the planet, even when I don't necessarily agree with their methods. Thanks again
You’ve added much to the discussion and I really appreciate it. You got me thinking. And I’ve always tried to take the position that people should be free to choose what role they play and how they respond to collapse… without judgement from me. Sometimes I feel the urge to push people to do more.
At the end of the day I agree with your thoughts on the grand scheme. There’s only so much we can do and we only matter so much. Ultimately, the universe is gonna do what it does and life will go on.
I remember one author comparing the natural world to a wife, daughter, sister or mother and asked if we’d stand by and watch as a deranged man beat and raped them. My answer was of course not. Then how about for a woman you don’t know. Less certain, but I hoped I would. He asked what was different about the natural world. Why wouldn’t we rush to her defense and stop to abuser? Wed have to have a close connection to the natural world. And maybe that’s why we don’t defend her. We are too separated.
Just more thoughts. Enjoy your day or evening. Cheers.
I'm glad my thoughts were of value. Your writings always help me to think through our situation more clearly, both when i agree and when I don't, because you are truthful, honest and searching for the best solutions.
The moral conundrum you lay out is an interesting one. Though I do know a reasonable amount about TEK and the various cultural, social and spiritual beliefs and behaviours of Indigenous peoples and ancient cultures through out history, I would not call myself and expert and I would not presume to speak for them, as it is not my place. However, it is indisputable that such peoples had, and continue to have as close a connection to the natural world as one could imagine, and as we see time and time again, they are at the forefront of fighting for the earth. There are also plenty of examples within such groups of the opposite occurring, but overall, their deeply layered interconnection with place and the natural world draws far more visceral and protective reactions than it does for the average 'modern' industrialised person. I am reminded by David Abrams work, arguing that many of today's ills can be drawn back to the gradual widening of the gap between human's and our fundamental and inescapable connection to the earth. The war has been won on that front by sheer numbers much greater even than a critical mass. Wetiko has won for now.
However, there is something to be said about the power dynamic involved also in those different scenarios. In scenario one, the personal stakes are so high and immediate that the potential consequences of the fight would not come into the analysis. I would simply act almost unconsciously, even if I did not think I had much a of a chance of stopping it or surviving. There is no other choice. In the second scenario, the emotional/empathetic connection would be less strong, but still powerful, and along with a feeling of moral injustice and obligation I would still like to think that I would act. However, my likelihood to act may be more affected based on a prediction of how I would fare. If I had any confidence that I would prevail and save the victim and survive myself then I would fight. I suspect though, and this may reflect badly on me, that every ascending level of doubt as to a positive outcome of the fight would add increasing caution to my own sense of self preservation and analysis of risk/reward. This is to say, I am certain that I would not even think about it in the first scenario, but in the second, without being in the situation and knowing for sure, I suspect that my decision would not be automatic. If I felt it largely hopeless, then I am not sure if my moral obligation would override my sense of powerlessness and self-preservation. I hope that I never have to find out.
In the third scenario, when it comes to nature, I think it is a very flawed comp, apples and oranges etc., as the natural world is a much larger, complex and diffuse entity than a human. It dies by a trillion cuts, and the abusers are legion and also diffused. The act/consequence is not quick and immediate. The power dynamic is also much different as it is not a one on one fight, it is individuals and small groups against a giant system again and again. It is fraught with far more inevitable failure than success, or ripples of success amongst an ocean of defeats. It requires increasing levels of self-sacrifice and martyrdom over and over again. It requires extraordinary people with particular beliefs. It requires those extraordinary people to commit their lives to it. While those that oppose them only have to commit their lives to the system that opposes and rewards them for doing so.
Such people willing to commit their lives to such cause are not a large percentage of the human population and I suspect they never really have been and never really will be. Self-interest is evolutionarily hardwired into a majority of the human population.
It is much more difficult, even for those with a close connection to the earth, to overcome their sense of self-preservation (and by extension that of those that rely on them) in order to repeatedly risk it in skirmish after skirmish in a clearly losing battle, and as you suggest, peaceful activism is important, but it doesn't really get the job done. The alternatives have grave personal consequences. The systems of power make sure of that. In a better world it would be a fair fight. We do not live in that world. If there was light at the end of the tunnel, and a reasonable analysis that showed a chance of eventual success, that might change the equation. I don't see that yet. I see more people waking up but I do not believe it will become a critical mass. Critical mass social revolutions may well be raised based on increasing inequalities and declining living conditions, i.e., based on issues of self-interest and self-preservation, but I don't think they will be raised by current populations in defense of earth and the biosphere.
Thanks again!
“It is Thanos-level hubris to believe so absolutely in your own moral framework and situational analysis that you would see it as and moral obligation to directly hasten a horrible outcome that you deem inevitable and inevitably worse if you don't.” And that’s how to spot the narcissist. The movie 12 Monkeys comes to mind.
Agree, though for the record, I am not implying by that comment that Justin is a narcissist (or necessarily that you are implying as such with your reply) as I see his exploration of this kind of ethic in this article as more hypothetical than assured, and very much worth exploring as such. All angles of analysis must be considered when faced with the levels of threat and crisis that we are currently faced with, especially when positive outcomes seem increasingly hopeless. I respect him for raising the discussions. Much love
Self defense and self preservation dictates that we fucking start eating the rich.
_______
|| . ' |
|| ,` |
| |
|_____|
_|_( )_|_
I like the energy of 'eat the rich', but I am yet to see the boundaries and logistics clearly mapped and defined, or the ethic well-justified.
I say/ask this in good faith. How exactly should the rich, figuratively, be eaten? Who gets to eat them? Who gets to define who is, or what constitutes 'rich'? Where exactly does does such a sentiment end, philosophically and politically, except for just a rehash of ideas that have already catastrophically failed in countless iterations already? I mean, billionaires are obviously a catastrophe, capitalism is in a death spiral, and no-one really knows how to fight or fix it, but eat the rich just seems far too vague as is to be useful as anything else than a callow and callous catch-cry or call-to-arms. If that is all it is, then that's fine, I respect the sentiment. I just don't see it as a viable or well-drawn solution.
This is a much more complex social, economic and political time than any proletariate revolutions of the past. There is a much larger comfortable middle class all around the world who are served by the current systems and will not fight it until it gives them cause to (which is may do, gradually or quickly). These people are not 'elites', quite normal by most standards, but they are most definitely still 'rich' compared to 80% of the rest of the world and they are not so bothered by a 1% being much richer than them. The elite classes have all threats against them on lockdown in most ways. We can't storm the castle, drag them out and put their heads in the guillotine anymore. They know what people are doing and if it comes down to it, they'll just send the fucking drones in.
I would be extremely receptive to a reasonable argument in defense of the catch-cry and an expansion on how it might actually work in reality as a reasonable solution with preferable outcomes. Much love.
🥾👅
OK ... this one is profound. I need to ponder a better/deeper/more thoughtful responce with care (because this is a public space and comments are magnified) ... but, in short, I AGREE WITH YOU, 100%, and commend your bravery for being the first one I've read here to spell the ugly truth out. This, in essence, is the crux of what we need to contemplate, and fast. The 'how' of it, needs a better mind than mine ... and I hope they are here. For what it is worth, I will cycle back with another comment later today. For now ... RESPECT.
Thanks for that. Historically, this is legally protected speech in the United States. Of course that doesn’t always matter in the real world. But it definitely needs to be said because like you pointed out, so few are direct about this. I remain open to better alternatives, but I haven’t seen anything that convinces me one exists.
Perhaps intentional human disruption of the fragile infrastructure of industrial civilization, will be unnecessary. As the fragility continues to intensify, like a small blood clot can cause a fatal stroke, it will, one day soon, require only a LA fire or Hurricane Helene disaster, to begin a fatal chain of disruptions
Great point!
Still, if the strike or clot is the metaphor, small actions might facilitate things sooner rather than later.
It’s crazy how few people recognize the role of sabotage in the case of Nelson Mandela. The cultural myth seems to believe it was all peace and nonviolence.
There is precedent! Luke Skywalker’s single strike, destroying the DeathStar.
I think the open of your comments that stress we are in a double bind is right on point. I think the only way out of a double bind is to look for a third way. The coming collapse means billion of deaths, many by starvation, it is a horrible way to die. I think developing local sources of food makes sense. Ultimately if there are any survivors, they will be living in some form of village life.
My dude, one of the best weapons against the fascists is the TRUTH🤦♀️ If they're propaganda didn't work they wouldn't be spending billions of dollars on it. Just being kind and wearing a 😷 also fights fascism. You fight hatred with love🕊💕
Yes, an intelligencia is a crucial element of any revolutionary level resistance. The fact we are losing the fight is sort of the point here… it doesn’t matter if that is the reality. It’s still the moral choice.
We're only losing the fight because the cops are heavily armed and trained by the IDF. You saw how fast and hard they cracked down on the pro Palestinian protests. If we're ever going to have peace we have to dismantle capitalism. Which is easy just make forced starvation and evictions illegal. Know any politicians willing to even suggest such a "radical" thing? No? I thought not. Now why do you think that is?
We need a values revolution, or we all die
You have nailed the dilemma on the head, business as usual ensuring extinction, or taking radical, dangerous, outside the norms, "illegal" action that means more immediate deaths now for an unknown raising of odds of something surviving in the future. I have skirted this topic in my own writing, but not addressed it directly this way. With the new administration opening the gates of climate change and overshoot hell, physically assaulting the system becomes the only choice. Those who have the courage and means to do so will pay the highest possible price with their lives, prison, and smearing by the oligarch owned media.
Have you read The Ministry for the Future by Kim Stanley Robinson? It proposes, through a fictional story, a road map (with many difficult decisions) to salvage humanity at the expense of society as we know it. It’s both gruesome and hopeful. Give it a look.
I love Stanley Robinsin's books, except that one. His view of how international politics will respond is hopium on steroids. In this area, I have some chops (to borrow McAffee's phrase). You want a more truthful, honest attempt, I suggest reading Juice by Tim Winton. It's a far more plausible capture of the path we are on.
Will do!
You hit the targets: “Now that we’ve covered the alternative scenarios, and the rationale for framing this discussion as a binary, let’s get back to choosing collapse now, or extinction later. …. if you have a soul this isn’t an easy thing to approach. Most of us would rather not confront our brains with this crazy choice.”
There's a lot to think about here. I feel like part of the struggle, for me, is that it feels like the choice isn't just one that takes place on the macro/geopolitical scale, but also a personal one. It's not just about potential fatalities in a revolutionary uprising, it's about the people whose lives depend on the current status quo.
Eg, some of my loved ones are reliant on medication and treatments provided by the pharmaceutical industry. And while modern medicine, insurance, etc all have their own problems, it's very hard to imagine a hypothetical post-degrowth society maintaining a modern standard of medicine.
If it's a decision between cursing the next generation or endangering the lives of people I love in the here and now for a shot at a better future (that still isn't assured)... what kind of choice is that?
Absolutely. It’s a horrible choice. The first example about the terminal patient may not grasp the gravity, but it illustrates how favorable choices aren’t always possible. Accepting that does take some pondering. When I consider having a habitable planet vs having modern medicine for a few more decades, it becomes an easier choice for me.
In theory I think you're right. But it's the kind of thing that's a lot harder to stomach as action than thought. I imagine that's probably a major barrier for climate action.
And part of that is the cultural hegemony about actions outside the bounds of social acceptance. Violence by non-state actors has become considerably taboo in this culture. To such a point where even actions by Palestinians living in an open-air prison are considered only condemnable.
100%. I think that Americans & West Europeans are especially bad on this front because the vast majority of us live in heavily policed and highly privileged bubbles. We forget that rule of law is entirely artificial and only has power so long as people continue to believe in its ability to protect them and their loved ones.
I should note my wife wouldn’t be alive today but for very advanced surgical procedures reliant on industrial civilization.
Nor would I be, and while I am glad I didn't die, I think it's legitimate to ask whether using the technology that saved me (and lots of others) is really 'worth' the 'price' in the degradation of the planet. My answer is that I think not; really, in the name of all life on Earth, I should be dead.
I feel there's another way to contemplate this: do you believe in other people? Do you resonate with the divine (or however you wish to ascribe it) love and consciousness that connects human beings?
How much does that penetrate your soul?
If greatly, then by extension: you must accept that if one hopes to accelerate change by hastening an outcome that prevents the wind-down of techno-industrialism from yielding a smoldering, uninhabitable rock with no arable land nor resources for any survivors to inherit, then so too is collateral damage an inevitability.
Meaning: we love to paint with broad strokes about how hastening the end of the untenable would provide relief that almost overwhelms our imagination, but we don't relish considering that the people we love most will be swept away with the tide of change. The mother who passed without the life-support of her medication; the good buddy who worked for the "wrong" industry, and lost everything...then surrendered.
The double-bind here is the classic one I see in all revolutionary thought: "This will be better on the other side; the sacrifices we make today will provide a better tomorrow." So the unimaginable sacrifice ensues, yet the exit ramp to the better tomorrow fails to appear. We lose sight of it, because our essence is also our guidestar. Once we become something that relinquishes its humanity for the sake of a greater purpose, no matter how temporarily so, we then cease to be the very thing we recognize as worth preserving.
No wonder it is later so difficult to reconstitute healthy communities, when we sold our souls for the fortitude to pass through the crucible. Communities need souls: vibrant, fragile, whimsical, sometimes-innocent souls.
This kind of decision forecloses innocence. It changes us.
I'm not saying it is wrong. However, I am saying it is the single most momentous choice any of us can make. It requires holding two paradoxical things as true: one, that by accepting the incredible fact (and terrifying responsibility) that people love us--*really* love and believe in us, even when we feel they have no earthly right or reason to--so too do we receive loyalty and devotion. Yet two, this likewise means that any of us can willingly sign our own death warrant by aligning with someone whom we love and trust, and to whom we are devoted.
That is a terrible burden of accountability for the trusted. It is also the most sincere expression of devotion a human being can muster. It thus demands the greatest respect for the sacred nature of life, and what it means to both acknowledge that inimitable gift and be at peace with surrendering it. You live your life balancing that joy and sorrow in equal measure, moving forward toward what you hope to be right.
If you can't accept the love and devotion, then what is gained is impersonal. For all intents and purposes, humanity is extinct, with a slightly less-smoldering rock to show for it.
It all comes back to a koan of epic proportions: if you take the gravity of being beloved seriously, then it's almost impossible to escape. Conversely, if you don't really go there, it's much easier to be courageous for its own sake.
But to be humane, you have to feel both, to the absolute core of you. There is no "more one than the other," and there is nothing to hand to future generations if we can process the logic of it all, but not the burden of the heart that goes along with it.
If we can't, or we won't--if it's all excellent muse-fodder for writing, but makes us squirm where the rubber meets the road--then it's all academic anyway, and wherever we go, there we will be.
In the meantime, I'm going to focus on being there for the courageous people I know who love and trust me, since they often have no reason to...but I have every reason not to let them down.
Thanks for this. I’m more optimistic than this essay and think that purposeful sabotage will backfire.
I think our best chances are to radically disengage from consumption and to show to the best of our abilities how the wealthy can be leaders in a new vision of a different society.
I don’t think we can seek justice
Brilliant! We are 3,000 times more numerous today than were our ancestral Hunter-Gatherer clan/band dwelling fellows, who numbered no more than 150 (Dunbar number) per clan/band and lived in an ecologically balanced sustainable relationship with ALL the rest of Nature. I've written a book, "Stress R Us", about the "stress diseases" we are suffering from due to "population density stress", which encompasses alienation from Nature and her rhythms, the loss of the clan/band social structure, crowding stress, environmental degradation, ecological mismatch, climate collapse, and spiritual alienation. When I post, I nearly always recommend CONTRACEPTION so that the survivors will have at least the scraps to sustain themselves. Thank you for this heart-felt and prescient piece and all your work. Have a blessed day! Gregg Miklashek, MD
My own take on this is that there is no solution. Do we humans really have the hubris to think that we are some way in control over ultimate outcomes in 2050 or 2100?
My own belief is that weare being re-wilded, and that we will not control future outcomes.
The time when we could reduce our multiple mortal impacts on our habitat is long since over.
Our behavior now can be loving, and we can trust that the generativity of earth and the universe will make a way for life.
Earth still invites us into beloved community, even though our ecocidal assault on earth has ended the self-terminating machine of Modernity.
Loving action will differ in thst we are all in different places, relationships, and have different understandings of our predicament.
It helps to let go of some fixation on saving some people, a bioregion, or some species of which we are particularly fond.
We will each die eventually, and our species will go extinct eventually.
Meanwhile, we can love one another and our Mother Earth. We will likely do less harm if we truly savor (not consume) the beloved community of earth rather than try to save.
E. O. Wilson famously said that we humans are bewildered by our own existence, and are thrashing about with our god-like technology so that we are a threat to ourselves and to others.
Our response to collapse is mostly just a panicked continuation of the very thinking that caused the overshoot in the first place.
As the crisis grows more urgent, I slow down. As the end draws nearer, I trust the generativity of the universe more - not less.
My only hope for our species to have a future is that enough of the few who might survive the coming collapse and its attendant violent chaos will return to what is known as the 'Kinship Worldview' and its guiding principles. Basically, this means 'remembering' how we survived for countless millennia, before the 'Dawn of Civilization.'
The best move against industrial 'civilization' might not be to FIGHT it, but simply to WITHDRAW FROM it -- to cease to invest in it materially, intellectually, emotionally etc; to change your entire lifestyle so you no longer rely on it for anything at all (as far as possible); and to beckon to others to do the same. Fighting something results in RESISTANCE; what you're fighting fights back. This may actually sustain it further, because it MOTIVATES those who oppose you to sustain it further by investing MORE in it. Just look at all the anti-environmental vitriol around, which claims that environmentalists are part of some conspiracy via which the global elite keeps us under control. But if (enough) people simply DISENGAGE from it -- by following some alternative way of life -- then it will shrivel and die, because people no longer nourish and support it by investing in it. The main challenge then is to make people WANT TO disengage/withdraw from industrial 'civilization' -- by offering them a VISION. A vision of a saner, more satisfactory alternative way of life.
I actually think building alternatives is essential. I just don’t believe the people with the money and guns are going to take it lying down. They never do. Let’s use the metaphor of an abuser. They usually don’t stop because you ask nicely. Withdrawing is essential, but it most of the time will require force, either by police or otherwise.