This is the final installment 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. We have arrived at the part where people say: “yeah, but what can I do?” I hope that I can offer solid suggestions that are more satisfying than frustrating. But I’m just winging it, here. Shutting down modernity is not something any of us have experience doing, so we’ll all have to wing it.
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
Faced with the towering set of concerns raised in this series, and the glaring unsustainability of modernity—which is not only familiar and comfortable, but seemingly essential for modern survival—it is natural that a top-of-mind question for many is: What Can I Do?
The suggestions that follow won’t be a list of things to buy, or tricks of habit—in the style of a TED talk—but more of a guide as to how to think, interpret, and make decisions in your life. A changed attitude and perspective will change your actions and degree of engagement in perpetuating modernity. In the unlikely event that these attitudes catch on, modernity will find itself with a waning customer base and have no choice but to wither.
Easy and Hard at Once
Unlike most calls to action, my recommendations don’t involve writing to representatives, donating to programs, or protesting in the streets. That’s because such activities engage “the machine” of modernity and attempt to influence its institutions and power structures. To me, that approach implicitly assumes that the machine is the correct apparatus, and that its institutions are our only avenue—for better or worse.
Because I consider modernity to be a cancerous aberration that is rapidly destroying the ecological foundation upon which all life depends—including ourselves as inseparable members—the endpoint I imagine looks different. That is to say, if humans are to have a long future on the planet—measuring tens or hundreds of thousands of years—then chances are it can only be in an ecologically-integrated manner very much unlike modernity: local, varied, and non-technological—in the modern sense of the word.
While an argument might be made to somehow utilize the institutions of modernity to shut off the machine and wind itself down, I am skeptical of that “inside” approach and prefer instead a simple turning-away from the institutions and cultural expectations. In that sense, my recommendations are easy: just say no to modernity. What’s hard about it is that we hubans don’t know how to live without the institutions upon which we have come to depend. We’re pampered poodles—in large numbers—being asked to live more like coyotes.
But, it’s important to realize that the change won’t be sudden anyway. It may take centuries, in fact, to fully play out. I say: let’s get started. Step one is to lose faith in modernity, which will naturally stimulate folks to seek other ways to do things. For me, changes in attitude and intent come first, which is what the following suggestions aim to facilitate. I offer below ten suggestions, each accompanied by examples of how this manifests in my own life, in practice.
First, here are the ten suggestions in list form, to get a quick sense of the content to follow.
- Go Easy on Yourself
- Let it Go
- Walk Away
- Embrace Disillusionment
- Accept Some Losses
- It Gets Easier
- Double-Edged Brains
- Lesser Evil
- Pick a Team
- Regain the Lost
1. Go Easy on Yourself
You or I will likely never get it “right.” It’s not a matter of “nailing it,” or achieving some elusive perfection. This is a major predicament, meaning that there are no tidy solutions. Appropriate responses are far from simple or clear, and will take both time and adjustment.
Also appreciate that appropriate responses will evolve. It’s a moving target: the view changes at each step. Unseen options emerge. Routes that looked promising before may turn out to be impractical or impossible. So don’t get locked in. Be dynamic, adaptable, and situationally aware.
Don’t burden yourself with finding final answers or solutions—like we’re even capable! Just head in a direction that makes sense given the immediate situation. Work out next steps as you go. It is important not to be paralyzed, waiting on some full map of the route that we’ll never have in our lifetimes (or ever, really). Just concentrate on moving away from the fire!
In Practice
I keep the “flood” quote in mind, here, as featured in Episode 15: we can’t swim in water that’s ankle-deep. We’re deeply enmeshed in a culture and system that won’t let us adopt the ways of the future just yet. I would be jailed for violating property rights (among other things) if I tried to live in ecological balance with a band of “wild” humans. So, I still live in a house, sometimes drive a car, and use electricity. I know this isn’t the “right” way, ultimately, but I also recognize that I am a product of modernity and will be slow to change—especially given the inertia of the social context in which I am embedded. As “products of modernity” like myself naturally die off, the replacement humans will grow up in a different context and simply adapt to new realities. We don’t have to complete the transition ourselves, but just try to get it started in order to help future generations carry the baton farther, as gracefully as might be done.
Basically, I don’t flog myself for not being perfect. Hypocrisy is a hobgoblin of rigid minds. I can’t avoid enacting a glaring disconnect between long-term ideals and short-term realities. But I work at it and move the needle.
2. Let it Go
Don’t cling to transitory baubles. Modernity is full of useless distraction. Spend some time considering what you will value when looking back from your life’s end.
Adopt a “hospice” mindset toward modernity. Emotionally let go. Modernity was an impossible and naive dream: out of ecological context and ridiculously damaging. It might be viewed as a lesson in brains gone amok.
In Practice
I frequently look around me and identify elements “not of this world,” meaning things that have no ecological context and are therefore temporary constructs. From cities to hay bales, many things our eyes land on are ecological novelties that are not integrated into a web of life in reciprocal relationship—standing the test of time via the judgment of evolution. The fraction of untested arrangements meeting our eyes changes when we venture into undeveloped areas.
This exercise begins the process of detaching from modernity: seeing its products as untested intrusions, likely to eventually fail on timescales that are short compared to evolution. The resulting awareness helps me to shed modernity-perpetuating attachments.
3. Walk Away
Many of our practices and institutions only make sense in the context of modernity, and therefore don’t make sense in the larger sense. That’s my ten cents. My two cents is free. How do you spend your time? How much of that is in service to modernity or its expectations? Granted, jobs tend to serve modernity, but for many are presently a necessary means for getting fed. Some jobs are more modernity-boosting than others, so it might be worth exploring options that might be less friendly to modernity and more friendly to life in its many forms.
Similarly, what activities, hobbies, charities, causes, and social groups do you devote some part of yourself to? Which of those are a net benefit vs. net harm to biodiversity and ecological health (vs. human-only causes)? It’s okay to ask yourself: why am I really doing this? Habit? Unexamined beliefs? Simple pleasures? I’m not saying that’s not real/valid, that I’m free of all such things myself, or that hair-shirts are in order. I’m just encouraging greater self-awareness around things that keep modernity going.
In Practice
Well, I walked away from an academic career at age 53, which some would call financially unwise. But I didn’t believe in the job anymore, and was primarily employed to churn out productive elements to feed modernity. I should acknowledge that my decision to retire early involved an unusual combination of lucky circumstance and privilege. In any case, my interests seldom involve purchases, which happens to pair well with early retirement. I say “no” to many invitations or requests that I think serve modernity over the community of life. Yes, I still do things that make no sense (see Item 1 above), but surely will take on bolder change over time.
4. Embrace Disillusionment
It’s okay to lose hope in empty fantasies, like modernity. It might seem like the sort of thing we should fend off, but it’s healthy and generative to lose faith in modernity, which must fail anyway. Losing enthusiasm for modernity helps us make those choices that let modernity (and its adherents) down.
Don’t be cowed by modernity boosters (human-supremacist; huban meings) who may be disappointed in your choices. Modernity won’t end without lots of boo-hoo-ing by those who can’t let go, emotionally. If you’ve made peace with its passing, you won’t be as rattled, and can keep your wits about you.
When others express their sense that it seems like things are going downhill, support them in the assessment, and maybe shift the focus to the upside of losing some of the damaging trappings.
In Practice
An earlier post of mine called Confessions of a Disillusioned Scientist is one personal expression of my disillusionment. I also paid zero attention to the James Webb Space Telescope results and images. Friends who count on me to provide astrophysical insights at a lay level have been at least disappointed, and in some cases surprised or stunned. It’s not that I find no value in cosmological perspectives or discovery. I’m just saturated, I suppose, and possess a different set of drivers these days. Politically, I still vote for people who I think will be more sane—especially in crisis—but have no great hope that even successful pursuit of their fantasies will put us in a better place. I no longer lose a moment’s thought to how our country or state or whatever will get out of its pickle via policy: because it won’t. Disillusionment has its advantages: I’m less wound up about insoluble problems that will die with modernity.
I don’t know how important it is, but accepting the death of modernity is—to me—not that different from accepting my own death—and without the emotional loophole of believing I’ll continue in some eternal state of being. It helps to think of modernity as a cancer, and humans as the temporary victims (along with a multitude of other suffering species).
5. Accept Some Losses
Don’t fight necessary reversals, as many will try to do. For instance, population decline will come sooner or later. In the best case, it deflates on its own accord. The young may be telling us something in their reproductive choices as global fertility plummets. Many will shrilly declare population decline to be a disaster in need of immediate remedy. They are correct in recognizing that institutions will struggle and fade in the wake of population decline, but that’s actually okay. It might cause some sadness, as when a loved one enters Hospice care. But it has to happen so that the world can move on and recover from modernity’s ills.
If humans are to have a long and happy tenure on Earth, it will be in much smaller numbers, living far more modestly, and in a more ecologically-integrated way. Eight billion people using modern conveniences does not appear to be part of any viable plan. We probably need to simply accept that fact. It is not misanthropic to wish for a long, satisfied human population, even if that means far fewer people on the planet at any given time. In accepting a smaller future, we wish no one ill. The best case scenario involves self-correcting demography. But whatever the case, we presently have the wolf by the ear, metaphorically, and won’t magically keep the current situation going. Something big must give, and we can do our small part to support a graceful transition—by not clinging to the ear.
In Practice
I don’t fret over lost capabilities, like supersonic passenger service, or the Space Shuttle retirement, or the shuttering of a business chain. We’re going to see much more of that as modernity winds down, and a steady stream is less chaotic than a sudden cascade. Even if I lose something I enjoyed, well, on balance it’s almost certainly for the better.
Acceptance is also easier on the blood pressure: I don’t get worked up over losses, when those losses are part of the slow and inevitable winding-down.
Part of the practice is one of humility. I’m just lucky to be part of life. I claim no “rights” and don’t pretend to “deserve” anything. I accept that I am not entitled to anything I might want: I’m not somehow more important than the community of life.
6. It Gets Easier
Appreciate that it gets easier to be a modernity-leaver over time. It is similar to getting over a failed relationship or adjusting to the loss of a loved one. The scars may never completely heal, but it gets easier—especially if a new source of meaning or joy emerges. Given that we are social beings, it also gets easier as more people around us follow similar paths. As we adjust to the path, the scene is set for the next steps that take us progressively farther from modernity.
In Practice
I’m not really “there” yet, as we’re still in early days. It’s definitely getting easier to let go of elements of modernity the longer I occupy that space. But I seldom encounter others on the same page, and look forward to having more company as the future unfolds.
7. Double-Edged Brains
Our imaginations are a double-edged sword. We’ve seen what they can do when unmoored from ecological context. But they might still be our greatest asset if applied within “right relationship” to the community of life.
One might say that rapid cultural evolution—enabled by our brains—is our superpower. We have, unfortunately, deployed this power in the worst, most adolescent way—seeking short-term gains for humans alone. But in principle, we could use the same tool for wisdom, restraint, gratitude, and humility—rather than being clever, limits-averse, entitled, and hubristic as the hubans of modernity have tended to be.
Part of the journey will be exciting and adventurous. Lean into that: what discoveries await about who we are and how we can tuck into ecological relationships?
In Practice
This particular thrust is newer to me, so I am still finding my footing. One prong has been calling plants and animals “geniuses” whenever I observe any behavior that I (honestly) would not confidently know how to do myself—which turns out to be most things I observe other beings doing. Another prong is trying to be more circumspect; being aware of our tendency toward brain-worship, and skeptical of any claimed “solutions.” The real world is not stripped of context the way our mental models necessarily are. Brains are not all-powerful, but just handy tools for fashioning shortcuts.
On the “lean in” front, I spend more time observing and learning from nature, which is both rewarding and an adventure. I have learned from wasps, squirrels, newts, birds, and more. I also enjoy the challenge of thinking outside modernity: uncharted territory for me that carries reward.
8. Lesser Evil
When faced with a tough decision—say between Option A and Option B—which path feeds modernity? Which is closer to hospice? If both support modernity in roughly equal measure, is there an option C? Freed from a sense of duty to modernity or its advocates, some out-of-the-box thinking might be relevant.
In Practice
Sometimes I ask a question like: “What would the squirrels have me do?” What decision would they cheer? The answer might not determine the outcome, but it can exert a substantial influence.
A very “modernity” example: My 11-year-old PHEV battery is down to 50–60% of its original capacity. Should we get a new PHEV that has greater electric range, a full EV, replace the battery in our present PHEV, or live with what we have? None of these are modernity-free, but the first two are far more taxing on the community of life. Two years into confronting this question, we’re still on the last option (least harmful). We also exercise “Option C” in the sense that we deliberately drive less frequently and bike more often. It’s not a sudden, perfect “fix,” but important steps along the path toward perhaps eventually phasing out. Remember that it doesn’t have to happen suddenly, and that we are still only ankle-deep in the rising flood (our way of living is still set up around cars).
9. Pick a Team
Team Modernity—a.k.a. The Human Reich—is founded on human supremacism, is ecologically ignorant, has initiated the sixth mass extinction, is a terminal condition, and believes itself and its members to be transcendent (beyond biology)—standing apart/alone as masters of creation.
Team Life is about community, respect, and humility. It considers all lives to be in this together, and knows that we humans are nothing without the whole: not separable from the community of life, and completely dependent on the health of the whole.
A person might charge that I am presenting a false choice: imagining (proclaiming?) that we can have our cake (modernity) and eat—I mean support—the community of life, too; that there is no fundamental incompatibility. After all, it works in their head, right? Well, I can make it work in my head, too (by setting aside loads of context), but so what? I can do lots of things in my head that are not biophysically possible. Options appear easier the more ecologically ignorant one is—and we will never be free of ignorance on this front. What matters is the real world, and modernity has shown its woeful incompatibility in practice by initiating a sixth mass extinction.
In Practice
When listening to a political speech, reading an article, watching a show, or listening to others, I ask myself: which team is this coming from? Is this an expression of human supremacism? Would this idea be be a net benefit or a net harm to the community of life? Would the squirrels cheer? Do they even know about Team Life? Not surprisingly, most of our culture is firmly in the Team Modernity camp—which boasts an impressive winning streak over Team Life: really crushing it! Except winning in this context translates to catastrophic loss in the end.
As a wannabe member of Team Life, I spend more time absorbing the natural world: listening and learning. I talk to animals (and plants sometimes, too). The point isn’t whether they understand my syntax, but to establish a relationship of some sort—even if just in my head—and express admiration. I tell peeping chicks in nests that they’re going to be amazing and do just great and enjoy the hell out of flying in a few days’ time. I discuss weather with the fawns. I ask the newts where they go when it’s dry out. I compliment the Douglas squirrel on its genius.
Also coming to mind is a phrase I often return to in one form or another: Treat nature at least as well as we treat ourselves, to the enduring benefit of all life. I’m lucky to be a part of nature, after all.
10. Regain What We’ve Lost
It is no coincidence that we squabble and become polarized over how we ought to live. It’s because we’re making it all up, out of context, and as such no arbitrary scheme is fully defensible. We make up “rights” to please ourselves and then argue about them. In the process, we have created ways of living that displace most of the older sources of meaning.
Life before modernity offered deep relationships with the surrounding community of life and with those in our supporting group. The degree of support we’ve given up has been a huge loss that I think we grieve over without realizing it. When everyone in your group was working for the collective good, everyone had value and had each others’ backs. The support was darned-near unconditional. Now we isolate ourselves into unnaturally small households and no longer even require a great degree of support from those units, as modernity provides emotionally empty substitutes to satisfy material needs. For me, the fascinating documentary film “Behind the Curve” about flat-earth believers really opened my eyes to the importance that community and unconditional support have to us, and that we might seek replacements in peculiar places as a substitute for what we lost.
On the ecological front, by disconnecting ourselves we lose a daily sense of awe and deep meaning to life. It may be why many folks are attracted to natural settings on vacations. We can try to build more time for existing in relationship to nature back into our lives as we proceed along this path.
In Practice
I’m not very far along in this journey. But I pay more deliberate attention to building local relationships and community than I used to. I’m making more progress on the ecological integration front by spending more time outside looking, listening, and learning. I value people more for what they might offer in a non-modernity context. Our culture values highly-skilled professionals trained to “modern” exceedingly well. I now value the versatile, friendly, calmly appreciative individual more than I would have before. But I’m just starting out.
Closing
Well, that’s it! I don’t feel that this last installment is particularly strong: not my forte. But I hope it is helpful to some, all the same. I don’t possess any magic when it comes to letting modernity pass. But since I think it must happen, and since humanity need not tie itself to modernity, I hope we can learn to let go and rediscover our strengths.
Views: 2754
so, basically anarcho-primitivism? Anarcho because it seems w/o conscious effort we just end in lo-tech opressive and man-made exploitative environment …..
I personally prefer world where some technology known and used – even if it normally looks more like gliders, hot air baloons and crystal radios (with projection tv here and there) – but I do not have influence to swing it either way, so … I think I'll live my life as it is – aging will suck but such is life's end. I have little usable-theory and even less possible practice in this community building quest. May be something will force me to change abruptly my path … but who gives a frank about that.
What is the value in labeling and then rejecting? It's not a menu full of free choices, because we don't get to dictate reality to the universe. Preferences have little to do with it. But such are the products of modernity: hyper-individualists who have been temporarily supported by an unsustainable system. The real change will be more generational than transformed individuals who are conditioned to not give a frank about anything but themselves. Yet, some few of the living will see the value in transforming, being community-(of life)-minded, and helping the following generations along the path.
This episode reminds me of my meditations on the inevitability of death. What remains after our individual Self is annihilated? (Self is a technical term referring to all we know and experience of existence.)
Your comment that believing in an eternal state of being is an emotional loophole is true. It's Self's loophole that some form of personal knowing or experience remains somewhere. I can confidently say that there comes a point after death when we are permanently gone.
Does anything remain of humanity after Self is gone? It's my belief that energy cannot be created or destroyed, but it can be transformed from one form to another–a transformation scientists refer to as entropy. Is there a transformation impossible to know after the death of Self?
It takes faith to say something remains after Self is gone, but what can we say about a Selfless something without faith? Nothing.
What would the squirrels have me do? What would the biosphere have me do? While my physical death feeds the biosphere, is something else happening?
I can claim no “rights” and I can't pretend to “deserve” anything; nor am I entitled to anything, yet I can wonder whether there is meaning in our individual existence. It's easy to say there isn't, but I still find meaning in caring for my wife as she lives and my parents as they pass. As it turns out, there's a part of me that cares.
When I was 12 I watched my 19 year-old brother become chronically schizophrenic and struggle with the question that if he couldn't trust his brain, was there anything he could trust?
Many people might wonder, given the ephemerality and meaninglessness of modernity, why not commit suicide? My faith is caring matters. It doesn't require modernity to care. My faith is that after death caring that was never my own remains.
In my experience, the only place to find meaning is in the minds of human beings.
I would dial down the anthropocentrism, here. Surely other forms of life build meaning in their brains as well. But yes: it is a construct of the brain and has a context for the associated species. Results may vary.
Tom, this was a fantastic closing. I expected this type of advice as opposed to you should move here, build this type of house, grow this kind of food, stock up on these items, invest in this, etc.
For years I've been trying to find the latter types of answers and I'm just spinning my wheels. One day I'll think this is the best path for me to go down, and the next day I'll think I need to go a different direction. All the while my anxiety builds as I realize the future is unpredictable and I'll never know exactly what to do.
I'm finding the relief to that anxiety is following the type of advice you've laid out here. My biggest challenge is how alone I feel on this journey. I've tried talking about this with some close friends and family and it has not worked too well. I've decided people have to figure it out on their own and for some people they're gonna have to see it happening with their own eyes. Do you have any advice on bringing others into the fold?
It means a lot to me just knowing that someone like you is out there dealing with the same challenges. Thank you for this series and all your work!
Do something that points to the Team of Life. Anything.
Then stop. Re-evaluate. Make minor course changes. Then do something else.
"My biggest challenge is how alone I feel on this journey… Do you have any advice on bringing others into the fold?"
Perhaps you're going about it backwards. Perhaps you should find a "fold" to join, instead of being disappointed in not gaining followers. It doesn't have to be perfect; you'll have at least *some* influence. http://ic.org is a good place to start looking.
I started one from scratch. (https://tinyurl.com/EcoReality) Way more work than I wanted to do. Way too many problems that have already been figured out by others. Don't go there, at least not until you have a team and finances assembled!
Tom, why does it matter whether there are humans on earth in 1000+ years?
Logically, nothing matters. Nuclear annihilation tomorrow? The universe essentially doesn't notice. Setting pure logic aside (only part of thinking), and engaging the parts of my brain capable of awe, inspiration, love, compassion I can appreciate humans as a very cool contribution to biodiversity, and I don't find myself rooting for the elimination of any species—let alone my own. If, however, humans turn out to be an evolutionary blunder incapable (due to over-developed cranial capacities) of living in ecological reciprocity, then there's nothing for it but for humans to disappear, and so be it. I would hope for better.
It might be relevant that when I think of humans on Earth 1000+ years from now, I think of a species purged of the modernity disease. So, I suppose I am rooting for the extinction of modernity—just not humanity.
To be clear, I am not rooting for any species elimination either but I keep coming back to two quotes… "Que cera cera" and from Hamlet "There is nothing either good or bad but thinking makes it so".
If ultimately it doesn't matter whether humans or any other species are on earth then what does that mean for how we should act now?
"…then what does that mean…"
The only place anything "means" anything is in the mind of a human. The question is not "what does IT mean," but "what do YOU mean."
I would dial down the anthropocentrism, here. Surely other forms of life build meaning in their brains as well. But yes: it is a construct of the brain and has a context for the associated species. Results may vary.
"There is nothing either good or bad"
"If ultimately it doesn't matter whether humans or any other species are on earth then what does that mean for how we should act now?"
It's a matter of perspective.
If you were to rescue a drowning child from a lake, I would perceive that act as 'good'. Or you could decide to step on their head to ensure they drowned, which I would perceive as 'bad'. YMMV (hope not, though).
My *perception* is that destroying the foundation of life on this planet is 'not good'.
What happens in any given situation might not matter *to the universe*, but it matters to the immediate participants (plants and animals (including humans)), who have to bear the consequences.
How to act, how to discern right from wrong, or good from bad – ultimately, that's your responsibility.
Exactly. But those judgements are usually very short sighted (e.g. if that kid had gone on to become a future Hitler your judgement of whether it was right or wrong to drown him might be different) and anthropocentric which is what Tom has been trying to get us away from. I get my students to decide how far in to the future we should consider environmental costs of an issue (a billion/million/thousand/hundred years?) and it normally ends up at 100 years. When I ask why it basically boils down to if affecting their immediate descendants. But what may benefit them might disadvantage humans/species in the future in ways that we can't predict.
(By the way, just in case my posts read negatively, I think this series by Tom is excellent and thought provoking)
The philosopher Samuel Scheffler wrote this essay about why it matters…strangely, it's not logical, it's personal, and it's personal for (almost) everyone:
https://archive.nytimes.com/opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/09/21/the-importance-of-the-afterlife-seriously/
That article was a load of nothing.
Leaving aside questions of good and bad, there's no need to dwell on death.
Just enjoy life, and each other.
*Life* matters, to the living.
Well done, Tom! Across this series (and your blog) you have made a strong case for the wholesale abandonment of all the ideals and practices that sustain Modernity. You (rightly) propose that we not go the route of traditional activism, i.e., engaging with political institutions, protesting, etc., but instead change our individual mindsets and daily actions. Many — all of those who hold that Modernity can reform itself from within — will call you out as a radical. But I think it’s clear that those who hold that the system can reinvent itself are indulging in delusional thinking. You are right to be skeptical of engaging with modern institutions, hoping that they will cleverly ‘solve’ the predicaments that they have created. Such engagement presupposes and upholds the legitimacy of those institutions, when in fact, as manifestations and extensions of Modernity itself, they are the problem. Incremental change and personal responsibility are the way to go, since, as you point out, a complete and sudden abandonment of modern life is not possible for the vast majority. Do what we can within our means, acknowledge the disconnects between how we must live in a dying system and how we should live, and reject the perfectionism of striving for an unattainable ideal. We should keep trying to turn in the proper direction, even though the road temporarily takes us out of sight of our goal. Your approach is a refreshingly pragmatic step away from a discourse that is frequently dominated by calls for radical purity. What you say is not doomerism; in a way, you’re being optimistic by pointing out that our predicament is also an opportunity to reframe and reboot humanity as a transformed, ecologically integrated New People. I guess you are a ‘radical,’ since you ask us to consider a future beyond the consumerist comforts and conveniences of today. Can enough of us disengage from modernity and point the way toward a new (in fact, old) human paradigm? The Great Unknown awaits.
If I gave awards for comments, this would be a strong contender—not because it starts out praising my efforts, but because it is a very well articulated, concise capture of the state of affairs, and aligns well with how I am coming to see things.
And you are correct that I identify as a wild-eyed optimist, when it comes to possibilities for humanity. I have given up on modernity having any chance, but those who think/insist it does, in my view, are guilty of sadly misplaced optimism. I prefer optimism for things that are actually possible.
"reboot humanity as a transformed, ecologically integrated New People "
An example from Australia :
The Aboriginal Australians pre-1788 were an ecologically integrated people. The blundering, ecologically ignorant colonial invaders were from an agricultural civilisation which regarded hunter-gatherer culture as vastly inferior, and the Aborigines as inferior and sub-human at that time. The ecosystem which those people were integrated into has now been largely destroyed. Ecological wonderlands are now heat and wind-blasted barren landscapes, completely dependent on industrial inputs to coax a crop from the soil
It's the end of winter now in Australia. Birdsvillle recorded today a maximum of 39.7 C., Queensland's highest winter temperature on record.
The ecologically integrated people have been removed from their ecosystem, which has now been destroyed, and a new,ever-worsening climate is now the reality.
The reality is that for a lot of the planet, becoming an ecologically integrated New People will be a very difficult task, becoming more difficult while this civilisation continues.
Maybe there will be some regions where it is still possible later this century, but they will become increasingly scattered as the climate becomes less hospitable.
Excellent series and I will be recommending it.
I agree with your final episode comments. However, I think we need to be more active about the way forward, beyond disengaging with Modernity. If we support Modernity then we will consume the ecosphere is an orderly matter and then collapse. If significant numbers of people disengage with Modernity, but not everyone, we will collapse the six-continent, just-in-time supply chain. Then people will chaotically consume their local ecosystems (animals for food, plants for energy). So, we need some intervention.
I think the education system in rich countries needs to embrace a ecological-based system. There are some good ideas out there like the Planetary Boundaries work.
But it comes down to economic growth. We teach everyone that growth is good and the GDP of our countries have become our religion. That is the narrative that needs to end. But how do we do it?
"But it comes down to economic growth. We teach everyone that growth is good and the GDP of our countries have become our religion. That is the narrative that needs to end. But how do we do it?"
Start by not participating. Grow your own food. Buy nothing new. Downsize your housing. Downsize your *income!* (Now, *there's* a holy cow to kill!)
Find a community that is at least open to these ideas. No one is going to get through this alone. The "rugged individualist" is an artifact of the modernity that needs to go away.
Yes, an excellent series of essays. I think we've avoided an understanding of the interconnected flaws of this ephemeral civilisation for too long, though. We'll be overtaken by tumult as the convergence of the results of a huge population bubble existing within this system become obvious. This will be the century of consequences, and we won't be driving the bus. We've had plenty of warnings along the way . We can speculate endlessly about what the world will be like at this century's end. The natural world won't be faring well.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/namibia-drought-elephants-hippos-meat-1.7307523
Given that there is no "solution" to our multi-faceted predicament, this is a good set of principles to work by. Indeed, I recognise a lot the same thinking in my life though I'm not hoping for some better ecologically integrated future for humankind. I've come to realise that humans cannot act in any other way that the way that all other species do. Collectively, we will never be thinking of the good of the community of life (except in a very limited way where we interact with other species to actually live) because it's not of any use evolutionarily. Evolution just selects for traits that assist the individual in being successful within the environment in which it lives. Even that is done in a cold unthinking way. We may be the only species which can think "gosh, I'd really like to keep all life going everywhere forever" but it will still have virtually no impact on how our species lives from day to day, or on what species evolve from us.
Having become aware of our impact, I can't unknow that, so do try to do many of the things you suggest and have almost no aspirations about standard of living and no interest in doing things that might make my impact worse but I'm no longer intending to go as far as is humanly possible on impact reduction. I'm a product of modernity and want as satisfying and contented a life as I can, whilst minimising my impact. So there are compromises. For example, I probably will replace my 21 year old car, before too long (it's starting to creak at the seams), but am unlikely to go for en EV or PHEV because I don't see those as being particularly better for the environment (and they may even encourage more modernity). I could just keep the old motor for another decade, fixing as needed, but I would like a slightly quieter vehicle that may be a slightly more reliable. That's just one example; I used to eschew modern devices as much as I could but, living in modernity, it became extremely inconvienient at times, so I don't worry about it as much even if I do try to minimise my impact within that compromise.
So be kind to yourself but realise that you are a member of a species which will always act like a species until it is no more (possibly because it tried to not act like a species).
This social-Darwinist view is quite common, despite being wrong. Its superficial appeal lies in its faux-scientific reasoning. For example, the belief that evolution "just selects for traits that assist the individual".
As many (including Tom) have pointed out, evolution selects for what works – that's the sole criterion.
Symbiosis assists the individual*s* involved – call it cold and unthinking, if you want to.
A culture that destroys the environment on which it ultimately depends may boost its numbers, in the short term. In the long term though, a culture that co-exists in relative harmony with Nature will be selected for. So human greed, when it becomes the dominant value, is an evolutionary dead end.
Maybe it's time to ditch a culture that was destined to fail?
Of course evolution selects for what works. But experiments in what might work are carried out in the individual through mutations in the genes. If they help the individual survive and ultimately reproduce, then that mutation will be propagated. If it's more successful than competing mutations, it will be spread throughout the population. So there is no contradiction between what I've written and what Tom espoused.
I'm not sure what you mean by "relative harmony" but the species only has to be successful at surviving. There is no gene that will tell the individual to be considerate of other species or to lend a hand if another organism could do with a bit of help. What works, stays, for as long as it works until some other mutated feature supersedes it. Even then, the prior mutation might have still "worked" but just not as well as the latter.
Alright, genes, mutations… whatever.
Your perspective just seems narrow:
"Collectively, we will never be thinking of the good of the community of life [because] it's not of any use evolutionarily."
But it *is* useful, evolutionarily, to consider the good of the community of life.
Isn't one the main points of this series that humans are *dependent* on the wider community of life, and not separate from it?
It might feel as though we're separate from it, due to the artificial nature of modernity – which removes us from the reality of Nature.
To co-exist with other species, in relative harmony, is to (e.g.) not to go around concreting over everything etc.
"There is no gene that will tell the individual to be considerate of other species"
People get too hung up on genes for this, genes for that… There's no gene for writing comments on the internet, but we still do it, don't we?
Maybe I'm not being clear. For an individual (any species) in an ecosystem, that individual interacts directly, and knows of, a limited number of other species. It knows nothing of other ecosytems and the vast majority of life (humans are a definited exception here but only due to modernity). Of course, that individual's species is almost certainly dependent on a wider array of other species, it just doesn't know it. It doesn't care about, nor can it, about the species it knows nothing about. So it can't care about the community of life, but it may also benefit, and be supported by, other species although it will not realise it. What works, works, but don't expect any species to care (in the sense of changing behaviour to benefit other species).
This is a hard realisation to make.
You're quite clear, Mike – you're just ignoring (except for the extreme, negative case of modernity) the role of cultural knowledge, passed down through generations of indigenous human societies (as David H put it).
In terms of evolution, "changing behaviour to benefit other species" has been proven to work. Whether or not this is labelled as 'care', does not matter.
Mike, You have to get past this idea that genetics is the sole guide for the the survival of an organism or group within an ecosystem. Trying to keep this comment brief, but think about the role of cultural knowledge, passed down through generations of indigenous human societies within their environment. That cultural knowledge of lets say an Inuit tribe is vastly different to the cultural knowledge of an Aboriginal tribe living in Central Australia. Also worth noting the role of totem areas , for that Central Australian tribe. Hunting was forbidden within those totem areas, and that totem custom did indeed ensure the survival of other species, which in severe droughts were able to survive, when their survival would have been more precarious if those totem areas did not exist.
I was referring to what drives evolution, David H. I agree that knowledge of what is beneficial or detrimental does get passed down. That will have varying effects, depending on how the culture evolves in different areas but I don't see how it negates what I've written.
Well, You've stated above that evolution precludes the possibility of any species caring about the community of life. The totem areas that I mention are an example of human societies which were integrated within their environment implementing cultural practices which did ensure the continuing existence of the community of life. I posted a long comment a while back on another essay, giving examples from New Guinea as well, but it was not posted as it was too long. See Tim Flannery's book on New Guinea. There were taboo valleys where hunting was forbidden. Of course, those practices did benefit the humans as well, as those non-hunting areas meant that there was a n enduring population of animals to repopulate the areas which had depleted populations.
Mike, that was well put. It is a hard realisation for me to make indeed (to your most recent comment).
A little depressing that it seems no organism cares until there's explicit feedback that threatens its survival. And then, maybe it evolves some cooperating mechanisms to perpetuate.
Blaming modernity it seems might be a distraction because, really, haven't we humans been modern since we evolved this self-awareness that enabled us to develop and use tools that inadvertently overcame the need to listen to explicit short-term feedback??
Although one might infer that some cultures found a way to use this self-awareness to understand our interconnectedness and short/long feedback more explicitly … which seemed to have then advised limits on their level of tool usage.
Quite right, Darma, what modernity is depends on the baseline. I think I've mentioned this in other comments to other posts. One might imagine that the digging stick could be viewed as modernity for those who remember the difficult days before that was invented. But what we call modernity certainly seemed to accelerate the destruction of the biosphere.
I'm not sure we can infer anything about what some groups might have done with self awareness. It's a shame that archaeology can't really help with what different group's culture might have been before it started to be written down, though some are trying to get a handle on it with what physical evidence there is.
No tidy answers, as you say, but at least I can now see the emperor's wearing no clothes.
Really great finale to this excellent series.
A key point, that many will find difficult, is that writing to representatives, campaigning etc. (and, I would add, voting) only legitimises and maintains the system (modernity).
It doesn't matter who's in charge – the outcome is always bad for Nature. Tinkering with bits of the system (aka politics) is futile, at best.
What can I do? 'Less' is probably a good answer, in most cases.
Consume less, work less, drive less, believe in the ubiquitous human-supremacist propaganda (aka advertising) less…
When you realise you really don't need all that stuff, it becomes easier.
While the upcoming choice in the US election may seem clear, it's just picking one pro-growth, pro-corporate, pro-modernist party or the other, no?
In fact, the less-competent-appearing party may well hasten the end of modernity faster than the other, more-rational-appearing party! Now *that's* a hard thing to accept!
Voting in a safely-Blue state, I'll continue to "waste" my vote on the Green Party, while enduring sharp insults from the Blues that I'm really just helping the Reds.
But how do we define "bad for nature"?
Nature is just fine doing it's thing: evolving things to fit in the current environment. When we're gone there will probably be a huge explosion of speciation to fit whatever environment exists
"But how do we define "bad for nature"?"
Ok, "harmful to other lifeforms". Is that clear enough?
Sure, when we're gone, life will continue and recover – but does that make it ok to freely destroy and pollute everywhere, now?
It does not, in my opinion.
It's a very important video. The rest of the series was an excellent presentation of facts in a logical sequence; this was a personal view of where you are on this journey and how you are adapting now you can see the destination more clearly. There may be little we can do to change things, but we can prepare ourselves mentally for what lies ahead – and this video will help many people who will understandably be overwhelmed.
I do think there is some things you might consider doing though. I agree that taking to the streets is a waste of time and will only lead to more unpleasantness and misery, but you can still make an impact in heralding an early demise for modernity. The longer it persists, the more damage is inflicted. So when 'walking away and letting go' – take it to the logical conclusion.
Stop paying your tax for one – whilst it's purely symbolic (government doesn't use your tax for spending) it will undermine the markets should enough partake. Don't feed the monster anymore. Money has been used to control humanity – but it works both ways. I was introduced recently to the writing of Edward Bellamy – in particular, 'Looking Backwards' published in 1880 – that envisioned a rather different society than what we have now. https://newtonfinn.com
I also find the writing of Iain McGilchrist helpful in coming to terms with reality – and this video/essay in encroaching a little into that territory. I'm sure he will be encouraged.
Many thanks for your sagacity and kindness for sharing your thoughts.
"Stop paying your tax for one…"
This requires some careful thought and planning. Stop paying property tax on your doomstead, for example, may result in it being taken away from you. Stop paying income tax may result in unwanted attention from the Eye Of Sauron, diverting your attention to more important things.
I stopped paying taxes decades ago by not making enough money to pay taxes. That's a tough road for many who have swallowed Team Modernity, but it really simplifies what you do for Team Life. And it makes you relatively invisible to the Eye Of Sauron.
I stopped paying tax two decades ago over my government's involvement in Iraq and their false claims of WMD. Yes it requires careful thought and planning – I never had more than $1500 in my bank account; don't own my own home or any assets worth more than I have in the bank. I have earned a taxable income and I've filed my income tax statements each year with the amount I should remit – but I donate this sum to charity, usually my local hospice.
I notified the tax office and inspector in 2004 of my intent and have had several meetings over the years. My position is that the UK acted illegally as no UN mandates were granted for military action, therefore it would be improper and unlawful if I were to support any organisation responsible for the deaths of innocent people in the prosecution of an illegal war. I've had nothing but respect from those in the revenue that I have dealt with.
I could have set up an offshore bank account and achieved the same aim without any hardship – as many self-employed people do – but the principle isn't stated on that route.
Global finance is an extremely fragile and vulnerable Ponzi scheme which will collapse when confidence is sufficiently damaged – like when the constant of a revenue stream is disrupted.
I should be clear that I am not trying to inculcate anyone into doing the same – that was my choice and I don't regret it, but as Jan noted, think carefully. It may be the logical conclusion to Tom's advice – but don't embark on this journey unless you are determined and resilient – and you have enough kindred spirits to walk with you.
I agree about McGilchrist. Well worth the read. Also, a while back I wrote my take on Bellamy's essay that you might enjoy. https://medium.com/illumination/looking-backward-b685cea1e034?sk=c504615828bdf16c714a4d6bfe584b1b
Thanks Frank – I read it a couple of years ago when it was published on Medium. Didn’t realise it was based on Bellamy’s text, and it’s certainly easier to read. I was particularly interested in his proposition of a society without money. Like Nikola Tesla, his ideas have been suppressed and largely forgotten – but it is interesting how many notable figures were influenced by Looking Backward and Equality.
>>Life before modernity offered deep relationships with the surrounding community of life and with those in our supporting group.
Yes, but what if you did not share the beliefs of the group, of the tribe? If even in this age, with so many cultural tools at our disposal, we have not freed ourselves from the burden of 'holy books', of self righteousness, I fear that it would be very easy to fall back into a kind of theocratic dictatorship.
But I hope I am overly pessimistic.
Tom, it has been a great series of thoughts to follow – thank you for that. Curious about a couple of things though.
1/ Saying no to modernity – for 99% of the world, it might be like being in prison and rejecting the food that is served … instinctively unlikely to be an option even if it's horrible? If this is the case, isn't the machine, correct or not, our ONLY apparatus?
2/ If we take nature's lead, then I imagine that what will end up happening is the machine adapts/mutates/breaks-down (who knows how that might look) as we get serious feedback from those externalities we've ignored all these decades and centuries. Might we ask the question of whether we could adapt/breakdown the machine a little faster by somehow co-opting it subversively using its own tools and institutions?
I guess I'm simply finding it incredibly difficult to call up the mental fortitude I'm needing to internalise your suggestions because I can't seem to imagine a binary distinction between modernity and non-modernity. Anyway, my thoughts only and again thank you for you for a very clearly articulated series and I truly appreciate the energy to put this out so consistently.
The prison comparison is more dire than the real situation. A prisoner refusing to eat any prison food is dead in weeks. In reality, we have time and can go in steps—sloughing off bits of modernity one at a time, over perhaps centuries. A binary distinction is not necessary. I suspect that even 1,000 years from now, some elements of modernity will hold on, so it's always going to be a swirling set of practices that defy clean labels. I recommend not letting the left brain call the shots and demand stark delineations.
The left brain calling the shots being the basis of all of the extraordinary work of Iain McGilchrist and his take on what's behind the metacrisis (although he doesn't mean that to be a simplistic answer to a complex situation). I highly recommend watching some of his You Tube interviews, though many watching may not resonate with his emphasis on the significance of the sacred, which he finds to be a deep clue to the meaninglessness many feel around the world, especially in the West, and perhaps one of the reasons the "emissary" has been in charge for so long.
I've only gotten as far as 17 so far but I came here since I figured that you are probably reading these comments. I saw a paper of yours recently where you calculated the possible lifetime of several historical cultures/civilizations. I believe you went back in time from current day and even the last culture/civilization you discussed – I think it seemed pretty close to hunter-gatherer – would only be sustainable over a period of 8000 years. I remember being shocked and I wanted to go back and read more carefully – I was largely skimming – but I haven't been able to find it, even here. Maybe it was in the free textbook I just discovered and put on my reading list?
While I'm here, I wanted to say that I've enjoyed your videos and writing immensely. Thank you! I've also put your post about The Dawn of Everything on my reading list. I've been reading it myself, about halfway through, and finding it fascinating. It confirms what I've read many other times, that Europeans who ended up living with the east coast natives usually ended up wanting to stay while natives who ended up living with the European immigrants usually wanted to leave. Apparently even 18th and 19th century Europeans found much to love about the hunter gatherer lifestyle!
That 8,000 year number came from the post called Was Modernity Inevitable: https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2023/09/was-modernity-inevitable/
Glad you're enjoying the content/perspective I'm putting out. Be aware that while I learned a lot from the "Dawn" book, in the end I was very critical of its narrow focus that largely ignored interaction and dynamics between cultural approaches.
One important step for softening the landing will be population reduction. Countries with declining populations such as Japan, China and many European countries should take full advantage of their situation and to become less dependent on industrial agriculture and other aspects of modernity.
Thank you Tom for this fantastic series, I appreciated every post, and am grateful for the effort you put into making it.
Personally I do a combination of downsizing my life as I can, becoming more self-sufficient for the bumpy years ahead, and fighting against development projects that I think will be particularly harmful. Even if my resistance is futile, which it usually is, at least I can say I stood up for nature whenever I could. And if I get even just one person to question modernity in the slightest way, I count that as a win.
I held up a sign recently at an "EV Jamboree" in the village where I live, saying "EVs are Bright Green Lies." It led to 20 excellent conversations where I discussed with community members how EVs are no better than gas cars. It's likely I didn't convince anyone to change their mind on a purchase or consider buying a bike instead of a car, but at least I got them questioning the business-as-usual narrative a little.
I agree completely, Elisabeth, when you say that even though your resistance might be futile, being able to say that you "stood up" for something is extremely important. So often now we don't think we can actually "do" anything about such an overwhelming predicament (and I agree with the others that focusing on mass protests/letter writing/looking to so-called leaders for action, etc. is pointless), but part of the destructive story of modernity is that if we "do" those things expecting positive results or seeing changes right away, then don't see them, that we've failed. We have no idea who might have been listening to something we've suggested, or what they might do with it. It's also significant that you're doing what you feel is important on a LOCAL basis, which I believe is where we all need to start now, to build resilience through communal relationships. The 50-or-so-year-old, bumper-stickerish "Think globally, act locally" might sound like a simplistic TED-talk solution, but I don't think it is. We're all suffering–or soon will be–as a global whole, and we're all in this together (ecologically speaking). But the only place we actually CAN act is where we live. So I applaud you for your willingness to speak up, even if it seems to go unnoticed, and I remember the indigenous story about the guy who wandered around town shouting about the destructive tendencies he saw around him. When he was asked why he was shouting about changing the world when no one was listening, he replied that he wasn't shouting to change the world; he was shouting so the world didn't change him. There is something to be said, in the end, for personal integrity.
Also, many thanks to Tom for this wonderful series. Your list of "To Dos" in the last episode is much more relevant to "looking in the mirror," i.e., taking personal responsibility for stepping away from each of our parts in having contributed to modernity, than anything else I've yet seen. I think the more general nature of them (and most of them clearly have a psychological basis, which obviously can't be removed from any approaches to living differently–though most responders in forums about our predicament don't seem to want to discuss anything that smells of human psychology), allows for more room to tailor individual changes to each person's situation, remembering our need for humility and fellow-feeling within our ecological context. You've done a unique and remarkable service in the ever-expanding online talk about the "reality" of where we are.
You need a publicist. Great content and so few have seen it.
I don’t know how you can get more attention, but there must be folks who can help you with this.
Thanks for all you’ve put into the blog and these videso
This has been a great series. Once again, please consider publishing the collection as a pamphlet, similar to Thomas Paine’s “Common Sense”. It will be a small seed but one that could possibly grow in influence and act as a catalyst to shrink industrial civilization.
Legislatively we need to ramp up to a two-for-one nature use exchange, as a form of voluntary retreat from modernity:
For every new hectare of exploited land or water body two hectares of previously exploited land or water body needs to be returned, restored, reconnected, rehabilitated, and reclaimed. This will need to include strong provisions for reversing ecosystem fragmentation. It will not be sufficient to patchwork fragmented areas.
Other than that, there is not much to do other than bracing for impact and trying to mitigate what little we can.
I am a specialist of your last 3 points! From an animal behaviourist – including ourselves – I followed with plant behaviour.
How to change ?
Only awareness is individual, and enough people who can be aware (without avoidance coming from fear) will allow organic change. Somatic presence and resilience is what we need to strengthen.
I also suggest to protect the last wild people as much as we try to protect the rest of nature in parks (instead of ditching natives from wildlife parks as said by Survival International). As you said, we are no more able to live out of what we've learned since childhood.
Hello Tom, I've been following you for several years, and I've really learned a lot thanks to your blog (my favorite article is the one about The Real Population Problem). Here's how I've tried to say no to modernity so far
Since 2007, the year I discovered the peak-oil phenomenon, I've gone through a quantum leap every 5 years. First 5 years of anguish and anxiety (even depression) because I couldn't find an oil-free solution (which I believe led to my cancer in 2010).
Then I came across JMG's article “Collapse Today, and Avoid the Rush” in 2012, which literally saved me. The idea is, if there is a collapse, to voluntarily collapse right away, thus acquiring the essential skills and tools while they are still available.
In 2017, this enabled me to imagine the concept of “Permavillage”, i.e. a sustainable village that meets five conditions: 100% Local, No Tech, Stable Population, Sustainable Energy (the Sun [without the Tech]), Vital Needs (air, safety, water, food, heat, hygiene and health).
And in 2022 I built and tested in Belgium what I modestly call the first experimental mini Permavillage. I established a list of 26 Essential Skills.
Of course, I'm far from thinking that the Permavillage concept is the perfect solution, but it has at least had the merit of calming me down and forcing me to get closer to Nature and appreciate its generosity.
Thanks Tom, compelling stuff and well presented – thanks for putting this online.
I came to you via your appearance on The Great Simplification. TGS is great, but I suspect it would be a bit 'too much', too 'high-powered' for many people to be a good gateway to beginning to understand how things really are and where we're headed. I'd been wishing there was someone who could put the essence of things in a more accessible way. I think you've achieved that, and very effectively. I've recommended the MM series to a very climate aware/active high school physics teacher friend, suggesting it could work for some of his students. On the other hand, I'd probably only suggest TGS to those with higher education qualifications. I hope that makes sense.
An issue for me, that I almost never see addressed, is how to sit with this knowledge and world view, whilst living in a family, especially with young teenagers. The truth about the human predicament, and the mass delusion that modernity is somehow sustainable is, I think, something so potentially shattering to one's worldview (and something that you can't 'unsee') that I don't (yet) want to be the prophet of doom (if one wishes to call it that) to those nearest and dearest. I try and gently move my family towards living a better life, but I fear for the impact on them, and my relationship with them, of opening their eyes to the whole reality. Particularly for my children, at what point do I judge them to be mature enough for me to be fully honest with them and – if I they agree – trust them to be capable of dealing with it in a healthy way?
Forgive the question (ignore it if you prefer), but do you have family? (You mention 'we' when talking about your PHEV above). If so, how has it worked with them? Are you all on the same page?
You mentioned 'hospicing modernity', but I'm not sure if you mentioned the book of the same name. I guess you know it; do you recommend it? I want also to find time to follow up on the many glowing references I hear from others to the work of Iain McGilchrist (The Master and his Emissary, etc).
As mentioned above, I'd say you deserve a wider audience. I hope it comes.
Quick stuff first: I am more explicit in my recommendation of Hospicing Modernity in Episode 15. Yes: it is a challenging but worthy book (don't read it to feel better about yourself, but if you're ready to accept a role in this mess). I got a lot out of the Master and His Emissary, by McGilchrist: really helped me understand modes of thinking better, contextualizing partial (and often vacuous) modes like logic.
I am married with no children. My wife is a good sport about living more simply—believes in the reasons, even if discussing the issue is not as important to her as it is to me. So I am lucky, there. I would go further if not married, but that's okay (need not be perfect).
Your own kids are likely to face a tougher road than we've had—at least that's what I'd predict. So, to me, the question is whether you would be fine with their realizing in 40 years or whatever: "Wait, Dad knew about all this and didn't share his concerns with us?" In other words, is it better to prepare them to gracefully deal with an uncertain future at the expense of heightened concern in advance, or shelter them from something that they may well encounter with no preparation? Age is an issue, though. I would say: don't confront head-on too early, but don't lie either about the future—be non-committal. When ready (in high school?) start ramping up hints and statements that either trigger conversations or are absorbed as confusing tidbits that can maybe be resolved after sitting with it for a while. Before they leave the nest, share something closer to the full concern. It's early enough to make a difference in their life choices; late enough that they can better handle it; you aren't negligent as a parent in sheltering them from a potential emerging reality, etc. Couch everything in uncertainty: you worry about this path, but are not insisting you know how the future unfolds. Encourage them to explore the topic on their own, and maybe come to you with questions, pushback, etc. But, I don't have kids, so feel free to ignore my novice advice.
First of all to Tom; thank you for this excellent series. Don't worry about the final episode… it was great!
Secondly to Mick; if it helps I showed my ten-year-old the animated series on The Great Simplification website (link: https://www.thegreatsimplification.com/animations) and we had a really good chat about it. He's science mad and loves reading about nuclear fusion etc.
I refuse to crush his or his 13 year old brother's optimism about the future, but I always make clear to them that their future will be a period of great change as fossil fuels deplete.
I've also been listening to the audiobook of Ishmael by Daniel Quinn with the oldest one.
Maybe give them the information and let them slowly figure it out for themselves.
The hardest part is explaining why I don't want us to fly away for family holidays abroad when many of their friends do, some multiple times a year.
I see the most difficult problem arising from the fact that we humans are animals, inheriting the animal's basic instinct for personal survival. When directly threatened, any animal will defend itself by fighting or fleeing…without thinking! As Frank Herbert so succinctly put it, "fear is the mind killer."
Ernest Becker argues that humans invest their survival in their culture (their immortality project)…"if my culture dies, I die." When their culture is threatened, most members will fight or flee (and where can one flee to?)…but they will not think. There will be a few who think "maybe it is my culture that is the problem," and will seek an alternative…such as hospice. But most will cling to the sinking ship, climbing over their fellow clingers, until they and the ship disappear below the waves. Anyone who presents an alternative culture will be seen as the enemy, just another body to step on as they attempt to keep their heads above water.