MM #16: Recap and Mythology

This is the sixteenth 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. This installment tries to round up perspectives developed so far, and throws in a bit of mythology at the end.

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.

1. Introduction

The original intent for this episode was a summary of the episodes so far, the goal being to help synthesize a single, coherent view—to facilitate holding all these perspectives at once. I still pursue that goal, but add on a bit about mythologies that I realized needed to go somewhere, and fit reasonably well here as a contrast to the perspectives I have laid out.

The following sections each correspond to an episode in the series, numbered accordingly and linked to the associated write-up (with embedded video). Because the treatment here of each topic is comparatively cursory, please see each full episode for more complete context.

2. Cosmology

We are one of about 10 million species in a gossamer-thin shell of life around a dust mote of a planet orbiting an insignificant speck of a star as one of 100 billion pinprick stars in a smudge of a galaxy that itself is unremarkable among 100 billion other smudges within sight. Our universe, which may itself be one of countless instances, likely contains at least millions of times more galaxies than we can see, given the finite travel speed of light in a universe of finite age.

Anatomically modern humans have been around for only about one-ten-thousandth the age of the universe. If the universe is all about us, it sure has a funny way of showing it!

3. Early Life

Billions of years of evolution patiently worked out genius solutions to the extraordinarily hard problem of how to live, reproduce, metabolize energy, build proteins as chemical catalysts, process nutrients, and lots of other nifty capabilities. We share one-third of an amoeba’s considerable genetic makeup, as a testament to how much we rely on this ancient heritage. We’re effectively just fancier versions of aggregated single cells in a cooperative, symbiotic arrangement. We share a tremendous amount of kinship with all life on Earth.

4. Evolution

The community of life is bound by an intricate web of relationships too complex and multi-dimensional for our primitive brain hardware to fully grasp. Evolution had unfathomable amounts of deep time to experiment and produce this tangled web, which is put
to the hard test every second of every day, and has lasted for the simple reason that it works. Things that don’t work in relation to all the rest are not tolerated to stay.

5. Our Biological Inheritance

Not only did we inherit basic tools and processes of life from microbes, but all our senses and—yes, even our precious brains are hand-me-downs worked out in a long evolutionary chain before us. We didn’t invent much of anything about ourselves. We don’t have the best vision, hearing, smell, taste, touch, dexterity, speed, stealth, strength, or ability to fly or swim. What we don’t know and can’t sense could fill a universe!

6. Accidental Tourists

Humans are not here on purpose, but by pure happenstance. The road here involved an unimaginable number of twists and turns—and just as many lie ahead. If evolution was aiming for us, it has lousy aim, producing 10 million other species along with us. We are accidental guests on planet Earth, not its purposeful owners.

7. Ecological Nosedive

Since agriculture began 10,000 years ago, humans have executed a super-exponential growth trajectory at the expense of the more-than-human world. Biodiversity is tanking, fast, as the activities of modernity displace, diminish, and eradicate the multitude of “economically useless” members of the community of life. By all appearances, we have initiated a sixth mass extinction, which incidentally can’t be good for large, hungry, high-maintenance animals like humans.

8. Timeline

All this is happening very fast in ecological terms. Comparing the time humans have been on Earth to the life history of a 75-year-old, agriculture started just 3–4 months ago. Science burst onto the scene a mere 4 days ago. We’ve only used fossil fuels at any appreciable scale for the last 36 hours, and most of our considerable ecological destruction has happened in the last 12 hours. From this perspective, it looks like an out-of-control rampage—as abrupt as slamming into a brick wall.

9. Recipe for Disaster

Once we started “totalitarian” agriculture, everything changed. Control over what plants and animals lived or died, over the fate of water and land, and over other humans was accompanied by settlements, armies, cities, kingdoms, conquest, domination, and human supremacy. On ecologically relevant timescales, this fleeting, untested experiment does not appear to be going well.

10. Ditch the Bad?

Contrary to our habits and propensity for wishful thinking, we can’t separate the Likes of modernity from the resultant Dislikes. The pursuits of modernity have devastating impacts on the living world, and denial/escapism isn’t a legitimate response.

11. Renewable Salvation?

Renewable energy is not any sort of solution to the core predicament. Yes, replacement of fossil fuel energy by solar and wind helps CO2, but oh what joy if that was the main problem! First, renewable energy is not actually renewable in practice because the technology is utterly dependent on non-renewable materials in a never-ending treadmill of mining that recycling doesn’t solve. More importantly, the central aim is to keep modernity fully-powered—and to what end, exactly? The implicit goal is to continue pursuit of Likes that are responsible for all the Dislikes and for initiating a sixth mass extinction. Way to go, folks! We’ll get it done one way or another, right?

12. Human Supremacy

Perhaps one of the deepest challenges is that we live in a culture of human supremacy—originating, I believe, in the agricultural departure from our original ecological context. We, as a global culture, have come to consider ourselves as the pinnacle of evolution: as it’s masters; its rightful owners; God’s gift to the world; superior over all things that creepeth over the earth; justified in any action for the short-term benefit of humans.

Even if we had perfect democracy, gender equality, racial equality, technology, etc., the actions taken by a human-supremacist regime will be ugly and brutal for the community of life, acting only to accelerate ecological decline and thus our own peril.

13. A Species out of Context

As I’ve mentioned a time or two by now, this all started when some humans stepped away from our original ecological context to begin totalitarian agriculture. By totalitarian, I mean plowing fields, eradicating “weeds” and “pests,” expanding, assimilating, conquering. Forgetting who we are as a species sent us on an unsustainable rocket ride into unknown territory—which is exhilarating, but very risky. It’s a path not vetted by evolution to work. All evidence is that it is failing the ecological test badly, and that it can’t work, in the end.

14. Cancer Diagnosis

Modernity is like metastatic cancer. It is a growth-based condition starting in a single species (organ) that is uncharacteristic of its time on Earth. It represents an evolutionary dead-end, as it is not integrated into the web of life and has no biophysical path to sustainability. It acts like a resource-consuming zombie, whose effects have now spread (metastasized) to afflict the entire community of life. The engorged tumor of modernity is displacing life wherever it spreads, and it is very difficult to stop. Importantly, humans are not the cancer, but the afflicted species. It is not part of our DNA, but something our DNA makes us especially susceptible to contracting.

15. What Now?

Learning that modernity is terminal is likely to lead people into various stages of grief: denial, anger, bargaining, depression, and acceptance. Having traversed this landscape, we might recognize that it’s time to call Hospice. We can allow modernity to slip away, in a dignified death. A recommendation is to begin severing your own dependencies, starting at the psychological and emotional levels, which can pave the way a calm and slow retreat. We can think of it as falling out of love with modernity: it hasn’t been honest with us, and is a bit of an abusive jerk, really. We can look for meaning elsewhere, in experiences that cost no money and require no non-renewable materials or industrial energy/processes.

Synthesis

Okay, so the goal is to try to hold all these things together. I don’t expect anyone to accomplish that right here and right now. But keep the various elements handy—on speed-dial—to help make sense of this world. In my view, failure to appreciate these pieces can lead to tragically erroneous conclusions about what future paths are feasible or even desirable.

For me, having absorbed this perspective, modernity comes off as unhinged and dangerous. It’s a really dumb idea: the product of deep ecological ignorance. Modernity is a sort of flight-of-fancy: a mode that our flexible brains allowed us to pursue, while lacking sufficient cognitive power to really understand what it means or think it all through.

Eventually, evolution will be the judge, in its slow and patient way. Evolution gives novelty a chance to prove itself: seldom issuing snap judgments. But in the end, it is unforgiving toward schemes that don’t work in an ecological context. Any innovations need to work in reciprocal relationship to the whole web of life. Modernity manages to exactly fail this condition.

The next two episodes will also aim to assist synthesis of these ideas and how we might respond.

Battling Mythologies

One thing I hope this series has done already—without being explicit about it—is challenge various assumptions and beliefs common to our culture. Things a culture firmly believes without clear proof (almost anything about the future) can be called mythologies, and we’re full of such faith-based foundations. Many of the following statements are held to be true or even self-evident to denizens of modernity. But through the lens of this series, they can also be assessed as being demonstrably wrong, if not delusional.

Modern humans have no mythologies. If we restrict our notion of mythology to Zeus on Olympus, maybe not. But the definition is broader than that, and you can bet we have them. See if you recognize the following statements as common tenets in our culture. Yet all are a matter of belief rather than fact. After each is a set of linked numbers in brackets pointing to relevant episodes that counter or address the myth.

Humans are the pinnacle of evolution. For some, humans are the very purpose, or goal of the world (universe). [2, 3, 4, 5, 6]

Earth belongs to humans. Moreover, it is commonly believed that we are meant (chosen) to rule it. [4, 5, 6, 13, etc.]

Humans are apart from nature. Many in our culture see humans as having transcended mere animal status. We rose above it, somehow, on a different plane. [5, 6, 14]

Humans have a destiny. For some, this translates to a divine destiny. For many, it is a destiny to master knowledge, or life, or the planet. Plenty of folks (adults, even) believe that our destiny is to colonize space! [2, 6]

Human lives are worth more than any other. Our culture elevates (self-fabricated) human rights above those of all others. [12, etc.]

Human technology knows no bounds. This is a deep tenet of faith in our culture. We think any problem can be solved by smart people using novel tools. In general, when someone uses words like “no limits,” it is usually safe to stop listening to them. [11, 13]

The human brain has unlimited potential. Related to the previous one, we practically worship human brains above all else. I wonder how many people bridle at the mere suggestion that this statement is not true (a useful warning sign). It’s fascinating to me that one of the most dangerous and fiercely defended myths is the most trivial to see as delusional. Maybe those two facts are related. But really, it’s a biological meat-organ, people—evolved to navigate life in a complex and variable world. It has limited cognitive capacity, limited memory, limited bandwidth, limited parallelism, limited contextual richness, limited emotional range, limited time on the planet to develop, and additional limits anywhere we care to look. So stop it, already. [9, 12, 13, 15]

This is not a complete list of mythologies, but note the common theme: all the entries above involve the word human. To me, this indicates that we have tremendous blind spots and capacity for delusion when it comes to self-perception of what it means to be human.

Closing

In the next episode, I’ll touch on a alternate—and I believe healthier—perspective for what it means to be human on this planet. Only two more to go!

Views: 1276

17 thoughts on “MM #16: Recap and Mythology

  1. Modernity is trivial compared to the unknowable about humanity. What is the ratio between the knowable and unknowable? Ego would say the ratio approaches one; Non-Egoic say the ratio is infinitesimal. Few are aware of our limits perceiving humanity.

    Human spiritual practitioners allows Ego and Self to contaminate its trivial experience of the unknowable; human practitioners of science are generally unaware of the parameters of Ego and Self at all, meaning they ignore, disdain, or are blind to half the data inherent in observations. This means modernity is a product of scientific blindness and spiritual solipsism. Blind solipsism is cancer.

    I've enormous respect for how Tom uses logic, although from where I sit there are a lot more pieces to the puzzle.

  2. And to add to our "modern mythologies" you could add that 'humans are actually rationalizing beings, not rational ones"! I do not recall who came up with this aphorism, but I certainly think it true!
    A recent book by Gwynne Dyer, "Intervention Earth", does not deal with the initial problem of what the planet can actually provide, while going on and on about what the "climate engineers" can accomplish on 'our' behalf. Rationalizing results before being a little rational about the pausity of means the real world has in store.

    • Right, and even rational is not enough for me. Logic, for instance, is a cog in "real" thinking, which is more circumspect, contextualized, humble. To imagine that a fully rational human being would have command over the world (not what you're saying, I know) is more of the same hubris. Brains will never outrank nature and evolution in terms of generating the real story/truth.

      • It's true that human "real" thinking is humble–a better word is "knowing." For humanity, "real" knowing exists in a cloud of unknowing.

        Feeling and thinking are rational in that each respond for reasons, but logic-itself is intrinsic to nature; what Taoists call Tao, Hindus call Atman, Buddhists call An-atman, or Heraclitus called Logos. When you speak of the genius of evolution and ecosystems, you're referring to "knowing" that is independent of Self. (Although it likes to believe otherwise), Self cannot conceive this "knowing;" yet it exists and appears as certainty independent of thought.

        What we call the products of our brains are slivers of knowing and the idea our brains' responses are our own "knowing" is hubris; a belief born of Ego and Self.

        With Ego (and Self), we piggy-back on knowing, assuming its logic is our own. Humanity's thoughts are far removed from this "knowing." We creatively contribute to logic, but its intrinsically not ours. Existence turns out to be all that's important.

        I imagine this sounds absurd, but I mention it because I like your logic.

        • Nice turn at the end. I don't think it's absurd, although I might have several years ago. As is evident from this series, lately I'm all about squelching self-worship of the human brain. It's clear that the community of life runs circles around us in so many ways, and that our brains give us a few nifty shortcut tricks that are useful, but also lead us to think we've climbed on top of it all. It's become a crutch to the point of liability.

  3. An excellent summary. I'll probably show it to my class. The human brain simply cannot keep up with the techno-industrial World it has created. Our hunter-gatherer brains have become obsolete, that’s why we are now turning to “artificial intelligence” to make decisions for us. We are optimising for narrow boundary thinking.
    The re-materialisation (mining) needed for the energy and AI transition is probably not possible due to geologic (ore grade) and energy (EROI) constraints. This is actually good, but it won’t stop a lot of ecological destruction as we try. Education about these issues is slow and presents mixed signals. For example, environmental movements embracing solar and wind energy without acknowledging they need a 30-60 % reduction in total energy use to work.
    Even universities are still teaching maladaptive stories about “Human progress”. However, we still need to send clear messages about reality. The concept of planetary limits is starting to be widely seen. But we need reality taught at all levels of school.

  4. I think one of the myths dealing with the future of modernity is the vast amount of science fiction we consume. Science fiction or what I would term “Star Trek vision”may not be realistic or actually based on science but it presents a story of modernity extending for centuries into the future. In a way we take those stories as evidence that a technological future is possible even if we know they are just made up.

  5. Great series Tom. I'm gonna nitpick two quotes from the video.
    "I want to be clear that humans are not the cancer. Humans are inflicted with this disease of modernity but are not the villains necessarily"

    I know you have to tread lightly here or else you'll have an angry mob with pitchforks coming after you😊. But humans are most definitely the villains. We didn't start out that way, but every species in the universe that conquers the 1st energy constraint of fire is instantly Public Enemy Number One to their planet.

    Modernity is not the cancer. It's just the guaranteed eventual stage that harnessing fire (the real cancer) will lead to.

    Many overshoot aware people think that using fire and some form of "lite" agriculture is completely sustainable and non-destructive. The MPP factor will not allow your species to maintain this "lite" ag. You'll end up getting too good at it… or the parable of the tribes will come into play and you'll be forced to keep up with the Joneses.

    Yes, the Native Americans were saints compared to the wetiko Europeans, but only because they were a few thousand years behind them on the energy constraints schedule. That's it.

    2nd quote. "Ironically it was in separating ourselves from animals that we became monsters"

    I agree, but what is the more logical starting point for this separation? When we busted through our 2nd energy constraint of agriculture (modernity)? Or at the 1st constraint?

    The evil apple that gets it all started is fire, not agriculture:
    https://un-denial.com/2024/07/30/by-paqnation-aka-chris-humans-are-not-a-species/

    • Tom's right, though it took me a while to understand why. Humans evolved, just like other species. Evolution gave it certain abilities and it is using those abilities. How could humans be any other species? They operate the way evolution intended (not that evolution is sentient, it's just a figure of speech). This is the same for every species. Although I think modernity was inevitable, given those evolved abilities, it's more reasonable to think of modernity as the cancer that inflicted a species.

    • You could be right that control of fire is a bridge too far in an evolution/ecological context. I hesitate to declare so because humans have been managing fire for nearly 2 million years, and that's long enough for some degree of evolutionary adaptation. It is not clear that the way humans lived 20,000 years ago would execute a sixth mass extinction, and could not be ecologically accommodated. Again, maybe. But not conclusively so.

      If you are correct, then there's really nothing for it: fire was well in hand before our particular species of humans came along, so this position declares us an ecological blunder that has no long-term business here. Maybe, but I'm not ready to sign up if I think there's a reasonable chance we *could* live in "right relationship" with the community of life, even with fire. A few million years of doing roughly that gives me enough to hang my hat on—at least offering a potential way forward without simply concluding there's no point trying. It's not a matter of knowing what's correct (we never will), but of asking what might be worth trying at this stage.

    • "The MPP factor will not allow your species to maintain this "lite" ag. You'll end up getting too good at it… or the parable of the tribes will come into play and you'll be forced to keep up with the Joneses."

      I don't know… it seems to work for the Amish, as well as numerous others who quietly lead sustainable farming lives, deep in the background.

      I think it is more likely that those who purposely practice "lite" ag are working hard to be a small target. At least that was my story during fifteen years of small, Permaculture-based farming.

      I don't think we need to throw the baby out with the bath water.

      It wasn't agriculture as much as it was *grain* agriculture that became our enemy. The latter allowed humans to hoard and withhold. Grain agriculture arguably enabled stratification and hierarchy. Grain storage receipts at the local granary were arguably the first form of money.

      We need to return to living in the seasons, using perennial polyculture. Then, we'll all have the same food, and there won't be anything to hoard and no power to hold over others.

      Regardless, I think the most revolutionary thing a modern, first-world human can do is to produce most of their own food. Try it, before blaming it!

      "[Ishmael] There's only one way you can force people to accept an intolerable lifestyle. [Julie] Yea. You have to lock up the food." — Daniel Quinn, The Teachings That Came Before & After Ishmael p181, excerpted from My Ishmael, A Sequel, date: 1997-01-01, link: https://archive.org/details/isbn_9781502356154/page/181

  6. Great work Tom. The whole series. I have read a lot over the last years on the topics you talk about, but your series is the best summary that I came across: Wide boundary lenses, dispassionately presented, scientifically sound, accessible for a wide audience. Thanks for your effort! Your voice is heard, even here in Germany, where I live.

  7. I imagine this was bound to happen to any species going through evolutionary dictates that end up in the slippery position of being able to transcend/ignore short-midterm ecosystem feedback – it just happened to be the human organism and modernity is simply one consequence? I guess one possibly contentious question I'd like to ask if you may, Tom, is whether your thoughts might have wandered around whether one might separate the human organism and the consciousness that inhabits it? A non-science question if you like 🙂

    • I'm not sure I fully understand the question, but my initial reaction is that "separation" is a large part of our mental disease already. We imagine ourselves as separate both as individuals and as species. But neither can exist without community and a web of life, so it makes little sense to imagine clean separation. Likewise, I see consciousness as a construct of our meat brains: a convenient handle by which to conceptualize ourselves as entities in the world. But, it IS part of the organism, and in no way can be pulled apart from it. It's like asking if we could separate vision from our ocular system (hardware). But our vision IS our ocular system, synthesized in our brains to make sense as a representation of the external world—all via neurons and their connections.

Comments are closed.