This is the fifteenth of 18 installments in the Metastatic Modernity video series (see launch announcement), putting the meta-crisis in perspective as a cancerous disease afflicting humanity and the greater community of life on Earth. Having received a metastatic cancer diagnosis, how do we react to the news? What emotions and responses are appropriate or productive?
As is the custom for the series, I provide a stand-alone companion piece in written form (not a transcript) so that the key ideas may be absorbed by a different channel. The write-up that follows is arranged according to “chapters” in the video, navigable via links in the YouTube description field.
Introduction
This is the usual short naming of the series, of myself, and the topic of this episode (reacting to the cancer diagnosis) as part of our effort to put modernity into context.
The Bad News
In the last episode, I compared modernity to cancer: a glitch in our programming that took us far from our ecological context and began a campaign of ecological ruin. Modernity is terminal. Unsustainable things just are.
Okay, sure: in the final analysis, everything is terminal: increasing solar intensity will evaporate the Earth’s oceans in something like a billion years, and the universe itself will run out of juice to make new stars, eventually fading out. But these developments operate on exceedingly long timescales compared to modernity’s lightning-fast 10,000 year run. For me, the relevant timescale is a million years, plus-or-minus an order-of-magnitude—because this is the scale on which species evolve and inhabit an ecological niche.
So, yes, even though everyone will die someday, a cancer diagnosis that gives a 20-year-old one month to live still comes as a bit of a shock. Likewise, learning of modernity’s rapid approach to a terminus can knock us off balance.
Just as metastatic cancer is pervasive in the body, and can’t be extracted without causing fatal damage, modernity is so deeply woven into the fabric of human life that its compulsory failure is bound to bring pain and suffering.
But it’s like having the wolf by the ear. It’s an unfortunate situation to find oneself in, with no easy answers for how to get out of it.
The Five Stages of Grief
It is completely understandable that anybody would react to this news in one or all of the five stages of grief. For each, I offer what I think would be typical reactions in the vein of each stage. Maybe you’ll recognize some. I can say that I have spent time in each stage, although I did not dwell long on the first two.
Denial
This can’t be true. I mean, look around us. Things have never been better. Moore’s Law. High literacy rates. The Concorde. The Space Shuttle. Advanced medical care. Smart Phones. AI will solve our problems and usher in a golden age. We will soon have Mars and other planets to expand onto, like a reset button. It’s just not as bad as they say. The human mind has infinite potential, and we are just starting to unlock the secrets of nature—perhaps soon to achieve immortality.
I could go on, because we are swimming neck-deep in this viscous cultural mythology. To me, it reeks of delusion. I mean, the sequence above started off real enough, but suffered a tunnel vision that ignored the necessary ecological flip side and the rapid, temporary nature of “now.” That’s denial for you.
Anger
Anger could take at least two forms, depending on how the denial resolves. If keeping one foot in denial, the anger might be directed toward the messenger—often laced with insult. If appreciating the general veracity of the case, anger might be directed at the system.
How could they let this happen? Why didn’t my sources of news alert me to this reality? Who’s fault is this mess? It’s those damned Liberals. It’s those damned Conservatives. How can so many smart people be so wrong about this (see denial, above)?
This sort of anger is not unjustified.
Bargaining
Bargaining is the final stop for many, living comfortably under the hope of poorly-evaluated options that seem possible when paired with typical levels of ignorance (primarily of the ecological sort). Why can’t we switch to solar power? Why can’t we recycle everything? Maybe if we all had our own water bottles… What new things can I buy that will set things right? I’m prepared to make a big sacrifice and practice Meatless Mondays. If closer to acceptance, the bargaining offer might be to revert to 1850’s lifestyles, which weren’t so bad.
It seems to me that bargaining involves a tacit acknowledgement that things can’t continue as they are, but the focus becomes offering meaningless trades so that the real prize (modernity) need not be sacrificed. It’s another form of delusion.
Depression
Those who see the pointlessness of denial and anger, and the emptiness of bargaining, might well sink into depression. All is lost, then. What’s the point in going on? It’s all been for nothing. The dream is dashed. We’re doomed.
It may, in fact, be avoidance of this state that keeps people in the bargaining phase: they want no part of depression and doom, understandably.
Acceptance
On the other side of depression is acceptance. It could not be any other way. And all is not lost: lots of good things are left in the absence of modernity. The problem is in believing that modernity was the point, the correct dream, what brought meaning to this world. I see now the narrowness and misguided nature of that view. I can find awe, wonder, amazement, gratitude, laughter, meaning, love, and community in other ways.
A Glimmer of Good News
The sentiments around acceptance get at the crucial point:
Modernity ≠ Humanity
We tend to conflate these two things, modernity being viewed as the crowning achievement of humanity. Modernity will end, but Homo sapiens is not biophysically dependent on modernity. Rather, humanity is biophysically dependent on ecological health. As long as modernity leaves enough biodiversity and ecological function intact, humans may fare okay—in smaller numbers and modest, ecologically-rooted lifestyles. Unlike cancer, enough healthy tissue may be left after modernity’s failure for humans to convalesce.
Sure, it won’t be painless. Modernity has such a complete grip on most aspects of our lives that its failure will require lots of adjustment. But modernity is not intrinsic to humans—not part of our DNA. We know this because the vast majority of time humans have been on the planet has not looked anything like modernity.
The Self-Cure Plan
Modernity is an artificial layer that humans introduced to the world, and as such can be taken out. By “artificial,” I mean not vetted by evolution, not integrated into reciprocal ecological relationships, and still very new/experimental. If we recognize the futility and destructive nature of modernity, we can stomp it out by being vigilant and by practicing a reluctance to engage in the cancerous behaviors of our current culture.
Many Indigenous cultures operating outside of modernity rejected the notions of modernity, wanting nothing to do with it. It’s not because they were “dumb savages” or similarly ignorant, insulting, offensive epithets. Explicit practices to deliberately refrain from modernity-like behavior were common features. The perils of narcissism, power concentrations, possessions, and overtaxing the local ecology led to conventions like meat shaming (also here), demand sharing (community ownership), the honorable harvest, and loads of stories that reinforced positions of humility and gratitude. Such forms of wisdom would be beneficial to whatever modes of living we try after modernity.
Historical accounts indicate that many Indigenous folks who came in contact with European colonizers were alarmed by “fictional” constructs such as property rights and money. This wasn’t for lack of comprehension. I mean, really: how hard are these concepts to understand? It was more that they instantly saw the damage potential, shunning the practices. The jacked-up notions did not mesh with their ecologically-rooted cultural belief systems.
How would we defeat the cancer of our culture? We starve it of its blood flow. Stop engaging in the activities that feed it. Find value in other places. Turn our backs on elements of it—not all at once, but in progressive stages that may not be complete in our lifetimes. No harm in starting: baby steps. The most important thing is the attitude. Stop buying into the mythology. See it for what it is: empty delusion that is doing far more harm than good in the broadest sense. I’ll have a bit more on this in the final episode.
Death Throes
The optimal outcome would be a no-drama winding-down—perhaps driven by a natural demographic decline currently in the making. In this scenario, economies (somehow) transform from growth to contraction. The scale of our enterprise winds down. Population density declines and some areas are effectively abandoned. The community of life is given room to breathe, and bounces back—much as it has in Chernobyl.
That’s the fantasy version. Economies will not react well to compulsory contraction, and will probably go through convulsive fits. Efforts to maintain customary flows of energy and materials (i.e., money) may trigger wars. Supply chain disruptions on a scale much larger than what surfaced in COVID would cripple industries and could lead to a non-linear (opposite of no-drama) cascading contraction. Modernity will not cope well with such major challenges—especially if the guiding principle for the power players is that we must prevent modernity’s failure and restore its glory.
I believe that efforts to keep the wheels on the cart will prove to be futile, because it turns out we don’t live in a fantasy world of conjured reality. Biophysical and ecological realities are actually in charge—not notions or wishes in brains. The biophysical world just tolerated our foibles for a while. But unsustainable things fail, and modernity is not at all conceived on an ecologically sustainable foundation. Such considerations essentially never crossed the minds of modernity’s architects.
Starve the Beast
Modernity feeds on faith in the myth of progress. But it was never a viable dream. It was never ecologically vetted in relation to the community of life as a regenerative, reciprocal actor in evolutionary terms.
The best move at this stage may be to starve it of its fuel. Don’t fall for the false promises of utopia. These amount to a detachment from reality: the myth that we can achieve perfection in this artificial construct if we only change the nature of the world, of humans, of ecologies to somehow suit modernity. This is the wrong way around. The universe is bigger and was here first. The community of life—and humans as dependent parts of it—were shaped over eons, and are not about to suddenly conform to some notional half-baked, untested, and temporary “reality” of our mental creation.
The fundamental flaw is the conceit that the world somehow can fit into our heads under the banner of modernity. No: our brains are biophysical organs incapable of actualizing such grandiosity. We have no real, lasting choice but to humbly conform to the provisions of an ecological web of life. Modernity is so utterly ecologically ignorant that this all-important foundation is treated like an irrelevant afterthought. How many courses have you taken that spend the first week or two establishing ecological foundations before moving on to topics of modernity—always evaluating how the constructs can mesh into an ecological context? It doesn’t happen. Despite the extreme and ultimate importance of ecology, all our talk of how to “modern” completely skips any substantive discussion of the ecological factors at play. When they do appear, it tends to be in a naive and cursory manner. Ecological modernity is not a real thing.
Let me be clear: I myself am woefully ecologically ignorant. But my own ignorance only reinforces my point: modernity does not produce ecologically-aware members, while ecologically-rooted humans see right through modernity as a devastating mistake—while being powerless to oppose it.
Time for Hospice
When it is clear that a loved one has a terminal condition and nothing more can be done to extend life with any measure of quality, we often call Hospice. The goal is to make the process of dying as comfortable as it might be. It is still an emotionally difficult time—the sense of loss sometimes becoming overwhelming.
Hospicing Modernity
Vanessa Andreotti (also goes by Vanessa Machado de Oliveira) wrote a fantastic book called Hospicing Modernity. What a great title! I mean, bingo! That’s what we need. Rather than angrily dumping modernity’s dying body into a ditch, we can show it some respect, grieve for its losses, allow it a dignified passing—but all while accepting the unavoidable truth of the matter: modernity can’t be long for this world, and its continuance threatens the existence of the community of life upon whose health we ourselves depend.
Big Changes Afoot
Life will not be the same. A big adjustment is required. To the extent that modernity provided a sense of meaning or purpose in life, those things will need to come from elsewhere. But guess what: that’s totally possible! In fact, it’s modernity whose meaning and purpose are empty. Modernity is, after all, something of a sham: a patently unsustainable mode of living whose perks are more than outweighed by its ills. Keeping the perks was never a viable option, in the long run.
Where might one look for meaning? The guideline is simple. If it requires non-renewable materials, modern forms of energy (fossil fuels, nuclear, electricity from any source), industrial processes, or purchase with money, then it’s probably best to treat it as being devoid of meaning.
What could possibly be left? Almost everything in the universe! Think about relationships—between people, animals, plants, bodies of water, mountains, and the weather. Things like love, laughter, singing, dancing, awe, health and fitness are valuable to us without costing anything or demanding industrial backing. Because the trappings of modernity have displaced many of these more intrinsic appreciations—like a tumor displaces healthy tissue—our culture is sick now, unaware that we crave these things and as we try to substitute the missing sources of meaning by modern devices—which never fully satisfies.
At the end of our own life, we will likely not reflect on material aspects, but on moments and relationships that were powerful to us—and didn’t cost a thing. Let’s prioritize such things in life, while minimizing the industrial elements.
Floodwaters Quote
The prospect of shedding elements of industrial life may seem overwhelming, which is why I like this bit from Hospicing Modernity:
There is a popular saying in Brazil that illustrates this insight using water… The saying goes that in a flood situation, it is only when the water reaches people’s hips that it becomes possible for them to swim. Before that, with the water at our ankles or knees, it is only possible to walk or to wade. In other words, we might only be able to learn to swim—that is, to exist differently—once we have no other choice.
Vanessa Machado De Oliveira
In other words, don’t fret too much about the fact that your life, integrated as it is into a sick culture, requires a car and a house, or whatever. It’s not all your fault. Just falling out of love with modernity is a huge step in the right direction. Maybe resent being trapped in an abusive relationship. You can recognize that modernity does not pursue appropriate goals, and look forward to a changed world. That attitude shift alone will make you a driving force for a changing world. And that doesn’t sound too hard, does it? You can start today!
Closing
I’ll have more to say about personal response in the final episode. Next time, I’ll work to synthesize key lessons from the entire series in order to help hold the whole picture at once.
Views: 1939
Thanks tom for all this vulgarization and communication work. I'm a recovering physicist too (from teaching). I hope I'll have the energy to translate in French this series (and Nate Hagens excellent "blue" animations)…
This was a fantastic installment. I'm really glad you included that quote about the coming flood. I remember hearing you discuss this on a podcast some time ago, and it brought me comfort by helping me realize that I don't need to have everything figured out for the future right now. I have no idea how things will unfold, so no amount of preparation can shield me from all pain. The idea of 'learning to swim' and the reminder not to blame others for our shared human predicament are some of the best ideas for navigating the future I've found so far.
I'm delighted to be of help to even a single individual on this planet! The flood quote definitely helps, but of course isn't absolution to embrace the destructive behaviors: just permission to not hold ourselves to unattainable purity standards, as we step our way into living differently.
The main thing I don't like about the quote is that a future of swimming seems pretty dire and uncomfortable. That's why I flipped the situation in my post called Learning to Walk Again. We're on the boat of modernity on a raging river heading for a waterfall. We'll need to abandon ship and swim for a bit (scary, perilous), but eventually our feet start touching bottom and we can progressively get closer to walking, eventually wading out of the water and getting back to our comfort zone: walking, as we are built to do. Neither the boat of modernity nor the river were correct context. We won't have to swim forever.
Yes! You have helped me tremendously. Probably my all time favorite is Galactic Scale Energy, where you made me realize, for the first time, growth will end. It now seems foolish to say, but I needed that silly mathematical proof to help me see more clearly.
I just read Learning to Walk Again. I agree, that metaphor is also great. Maybe the boat should have a motor that has at least 2 billion hands pushing on the throttle? Or maybe the flood metaphor should be thought of as a temporary flood. Either way, they are helpful. And I couldn't agree more that it's not absolution to embrace destructive behaviors, but just a way to relax when I get a little too critical of myself. Thanks for sharing your ideas!
My personal estimate is that the oil crisis of the 1970s, and specifically the Carter Administration, was our last viable off-ramp to safely de-industrialize. That was certainly the last time environmentalism had any true popular momentum. Unfortunately the unfettered avarice of Reagan-omics, Thatcherism, globalization, and neo-liberalism took hold.
Few people, and certainly none of our mercurial powerful, fully comprehend how little of our destiny we now control. The Laws of Physics are not inclined to leniency. I find the scientific evidence very compelling that at least by the turn of the 21 century multiple strong destructive feedback cycles had already been triggered; from run away climate heating, to ice sheet collapse, albedo loss, permafrost thawing, ocean acidification, forest fires, desertification, invasive species, irrecoverable habit fragmentation and destruction, the list goes on…
I am sure you are aware of another physicist Peter Kalmus with a prescription 'Being the Change: Live Well and Spark a Climate Revolution'.
Great quote from Hospicing Modernity. Apart from a few remaining uncontacted peoples, we certainly don't know how to live without modernity, in some way. It's one of the things that concerns me (only one of the things) about the way down. I can prepare by growing my own food, learning how to preserve foods, and so on, but I'm under no illusion that I and my descendants could continue to do that indefinitely as modernity falls apart. So the quote offers some hope that we'll figure it out.
This hope is blunted a bit by the knowledge of how much of a mess we've made and the fact that we'll have to cope with the consequences of that mess (e.g. continued climate change, sea level rise and what happens to introduced species) as modernity inevitably contracts. And as it contracts, we will have less and less ability to cope with those consequences.
As I look at the news and social media of even those who are aware of our predicament, I see that most who aren't in denial are probably in bargaining. This is why I usually get shouted down when I say renewables and EVs are not a solution. This bargaining stage seems to have captured most climate scientists also. I don't think I've ever come across one who doesn't see the renewables revolution as the answer, though some wonder if it will happen quickly enough. It's almost pointless arguing with them because they all want modernity to continue and they all think it can. Somehow.
Has anyone here heard of the Olduvai Theory by Richard Duncan?
That theory states that Industrial civilization is more fragile than thought.
I appreciate your posts, they are really incisive and open the mind to so many considerations. However, I find that they lack the political dimension. Let's not forget that Great Acceleration has gone exponentially unchecked since the 1950s, and has skyrocketed since the 1970s with the ever-increasing success of neoliberalism and unbridled capitalism.
Scholars such as, for example, Jason Hickel, through economic and socio-anthropological analyses, suggests ways out: an exit from capitalism (as the economic system aimed at consumption and not real needs); therefore, an abandonment of the growth economy in favor of a degrowth (or total removal) of sectors not necessary for real welfare; a rebalancing of wealth (again understood as real welfare) with the global South; a fruition of universal public services (education, health, transportation, etc.). In short, a piloted decrease in energy and resource consumption in favor of a stationary economy (as much as possible).
It sounds incredible, Hickel calculated that decent living standards (DLS) could be provided for 8.5 billion people using 30 percent of current energy and material resources (Jason Hickel, Dylan Sullivan, 2024. How much growth is required to achieve good lives for all? Insights from needs-based analysis. World Development Perspectives, Volume 35, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wdp.2024.100612).
Finally, I would like to emphasize that degrowth must be driven, and contextualized in a changing socio-economic system. This is certainly not possible in a free market capitalist system. Hickel’s works seem to me a positive approach to the problem, and the message is encouraging, although the whole thing seems very difficult to me.
But it's important to remember that the rapid advancements we've experienced were only achievable because we relied on burning fossil fuels.
Science and religion are our best tools in pursuit and honor of truth. Proficient scientists and spiritual people know it is essential to identify, sideline, see-through, tame–and perhaps even participate in the eradication of Ego because Ego contaminates good science and religion.
How do we remove the modernity module? It's simple, but not easy. Sidelining Ego for only a day radically transforms our senses. When we become proficient at sidelining Ego the question arises what remains? How we answer depends on how intently we pursue and honor truth. What is the future of truth?
Modernity has little knowledge about participating in the annihilation of Ego. Here's a 6-page essay called Start Here that introduces the process. It opens the book No Ego Odyssey which will be published Fall 2024.
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/06mntymg2hyih6c7ddjs8/Start-Here.pdf?rlkey=1lbbq4jreanfx781anojegwrq&st=8hgx423w&dl=0
I'm in a pessimistic state of mind about climate change these days, so (for the moment anyways) I'll grant that you're probably right about most of this Tom. Let's say that we can't keep any of the good, including the modern medical science without which many people in this world COULD NOT be alive, such as Type 1 diabetics. And that's just the tiniest example. In response to this, you've said stuff along the lines of "it's sad but the longer population grows, the harder it will crash in the future".
So let me rephrase it. If modernity must crash, as you argue, then most of us "must" die. I put that word in quotations, because I know you're not some asinine, amoral anarcho-primitivist who "eagerly waits" for the crash of modernity from behind their keyboard (as I've seen one person in these comments say verbatim). But nevertheless, with how you've framed the overreach of modernity, the scarcity of resources to support it indefinitely and human "supremacy", that is the inevitable conclusion. This planet, by that standard, ain't big enough for all of us.
So. I'd like to see you write a post addressed to the people whom you tacitly believe are doomed to die. Not because of simple mortality, but because a post-crash world under even an optimistic scenario may not be able to support their existence. People who will probably die in that crash. Because in your attempt to dis-equate modernity with humanity (as you're right to do), you forget that for many individual people, they cannot be disentangled. It isn't just modernity that has the terminal diagnoses, if you're right. It's individual people. Probably you and me as well.
How now shall these individuals live Tom? If they truly have no possible future, what should they do with their time?
Write a post that grapples honestly with THAT, and you'll have done far, far more than almost anyone else in the collapse-o-sphere online has ever done.
My first reaction as I read your comment was: of course we all must die. Later, you clarified: not because of simple mortality. What seems very likely is that in several hundred years, Earth will not host anything close to 8 billion people, and maybe not even a billion or two. What we don't know with any certainty is that the ecologically-mandatory reduction will involve large-scale trauma, such as widespread famine. It is *possible* that the steep fertility declines in progress paired with "simple mortality" does most of the work. I don't know that I'd call this *likely*, but neither do I consider it to be an absurd possibility. I can at least hope for it.
I'll have to think about your challenge. You are correct that I do not relish the notion of major trauma: I'm not a misanthrope. At the same time, I have come to peace with the distinct possibility that my own end may be one of hunger in a broken food distribution system upon which I will probably always be reliant. Perhaps that's my best angle in addressing the doomed: as a possible (likely?) victim myself. How do I feel about my own death due to collapse? Off the cuff, I think: oh well, that's unfortunate. It wasn't my fault, but our species got over its skis, and that's just the hard truth of the matter. At some level, we as a culture earned such a fate (worked hard for it), and have made PLENTY of other species suffer already. Is it unfair that Homo sapiens might get a turn? No biophysical get-out-of-jail-free cards. I placate myself by hoping that a tragic outcome would be a searing lesson that whips survivors into ecological attentiveness, and that I might play some small role in seeding that awareness for a better (far) future. My own death is guaranteed. Untimely might be unfortunate, but not the end of the world.
[edited]
The Chambers dictionary defines 'supremacy' as 'state of being supreme', and 'supeme' as 'highest ; greatest ; most excellent'.
The fact that you've written 'human supremacy' with 'supremacy' in quote marks, suggests that you don't believe that human supremacism is one of the characteristics of modernity (maybe its chief characteristic).
If that is the case, the true horror of it has escaped you. Maybe that's true of the majority of comfortable people living in the 'developed' world, who believe in the idea of progress.
They have been spoiled by a plethora of creature comforts, consumer goods etc, often gained at the direct expense of poor people living far away, who suffer the mining and associated destruction, pollution, ill health etc. first hand.
It's the recipients of the gadgets and gimmicks who believe in the myth of progress, and who believe the adverts which tell them 'because you're worth it'.
Was modernity 'worth it'? No, it was not. It's destroyed whole species and habitats, generates toxic pollution, and creates obscene gradients of wealth / poverty. It will keep doing those things until it ends.
some asinine, amoral anarcho-primitivist who "eagerly waits" for the crash of modernity from behind their keyboard
I may not be the author of the comment you read, but I'll accept the label of "eager waiter". That's because I've long ago thought things through to their logical conclusion.
Despite Murphy's speculation that low fertility will allow population decline to occur gradually, with few premature deaths, this is a very unlikely prospect. And even if it happened, the damage being done will continue, perhaps for centuries, making the world far less hospitable for the trillions of humans who could yet be born in our species lifetime.
Think about the long term. Do we want to consign all future generations to the miseries of hothouse earth? Shouldn't we be doing everything we can to protect and nourish our descendents?
But the most likely prospect is that a sudden failure of agriculture, a major war, or a really bad pandemic will rapidly kill off billions of people. This is not something to rejoice in, but to stoically endure. It can't be avoided. If a major dieoff is certain, that certainty means the timing of doom is the only variable to consider.
Consider the timing. In view of the damage being done, on top of that which has already occurred, wouldn't it be better for an invevitable dieoff to happen sooner rather than later? Of course it would. Recognizing that fact is neither asinine, nor amoral, and the whole thrust of Murphy's series is that primitivism is the only way we human's can integrate with the wider ecosystem in a healthy way.
By the way, I'm far less of a primitivist than Murphy. I think that very small-scale horticulture and pastoralism are compatable with global ecological integrity. In any case, I'm sure that even Murphy would agree that a world of a few hundred million humans living as was done in the early to mid-Holocene would be a great improvement on metastatic modernity.
This brings us to your most important question: what should doomed people do with their time before they die? My view is that they should try to prepare the world so that as many people as possible can live non-modern lives.
This preparation also has the advantage of minimizing current damage, although exactly how that works is too long a discussion for this comment. Just think soil fertility and biodiversity.
Preparing for the inevitable is just common sense. At the very least, enlarge the Overton Window by talking about it with friends and family. If people are in positions of political or economic influence they can do a lot to help prepare for a post-collapse world.
P.S. I'm just an "eager waiter". I'm sure there are people out there who have come to the conclusion that sabotaging modernity and actively precipitating the dieoff is the morally correct course of action. I wonder what you think of them?
Agree with the thrust of your comment. I thought that a "What If" post might be appropriate and this comes pretty close.
What if we do nothing and continue on the same road. We have a fairly good idea of the destination but what of the journey?
What if the majority of countries agree to all the measures proposed in Tom's series on modernity, but one doesn't. Say the USA. What then? More locally, what if your neighbour has a decades worth of diesel stored for his SUV and generators and won't listen to reason. What then?
The changes we need to make are long overdue and with each passing day, it becomes more difficult, nay impossible, to see any navigable way ahead without destroying life, as we know it, on this planet.
If an individual threatens to detonate a bomb inside a theatre crowded with children, it would not be unreasonable to think that the police would eliminate the threat.
We go to war at the drop of a hat and are prepared to kill millions of innocent people to further a political ideology – or to steal natural resources (oil and gas predominately).
But try and discuss population control – or worse, reducing the population to sustainable levels – you become the monster. I tend to agree with Tom's suggestion that no one is to blame; show compassion and kindness and understanding – but what if this has no impact. What then?
As someone who has been aware of the dangers and limits of modernity since the early 1970s and who has worked for a transition to a world using less energy and no fossil fuels, only to see business-as-usual continue unimpeded, I don't expect anything substantive to be done by anyone. No one may be blameworthy, but it's still a crying shame.
Modernity will just keep going until something outside human control stops it. I just hope the stopping happens sooner rather than later.
But even if it is later and time allows a continuing decline in the total fertility rate, it won't be late enough for the human population to decline significantly. Billions will pay the price with their very lives.
The Hubbert Peak for oil has probably already happened (2018), climate change effects on agriculture will accelerate and a worldwide financial crisis could happen any day. The downslope of the carbon pulse is upon us and I expect things to fall apart in the next decade or two. I certainly hope so.
"Modernity will just keep going until something outside human control stops it. I just hope the stopping happens sooner rather than later."
Possibly. Or it might be otherwise. It could be that some people share the same views but are in a position to influence events beyond what you or I are able to do. We know what is possible in science today and it isn't particularly difficult to genetically engineer novel pathogens with a high mortality rate. Given our intensive farming practices & etc – such a scenario could well happen with a natural zoonosis – but if this is a "good thing" perhaps we should contemplate self sacrifice for the greater good?
I'm 63 and was diagnosed with Ca. colon 12 months ago. I've had the usual investigations but still waiting for the surgical consult. I'm perfectly content to let things be, despite having ambition to do many other things in life. The only real contribution I can make now is to write about my time on this planet – the peak of our civilisation – in the hope that future generations have some knowledge and insight of these times.
So if you or anyone else has ulterior motives – and I couldn't criticise you is that were so – please wait a couple of years until I finish!
Sorry to hear about the cancer! I hope you don't find the series title to be in poor taste. My guess is that the experience provides sharper insights into the parallels between modernity's mortality and our own, and how to approach both with equanimity. On the flip side of acceptance is denial, and we see where that gets us.
No apology required, Tom and thank you for the consideration. There may be an element of synchronicity, but whilst our own mortality is a certain, that of our species need not be – if we could gain an understanding of our involvement and responsibilities.
I don't think any change will be driven by governments – quite the opposite in many cases; there will be much resistance – all we can do is set a good example and hope it becomes fashionable and desirable.
Which is what you are doing. Good luck.
https://www.gocomics.com/calvinandhobbes/2024/08/10