Monthly Archives: January 2026

The Flat Mars Society

Posted on by
2

A while back I compared enthusiasts for space colonization with Flat Earth believers, in that they both believe strongly in something that isn’t real, and in the fullness of time may look rather embarrassing. I thought it could be fruitful to contact Daniel Clark, producer of the excellent documentary Behind the Curve about Flat Earth believers, who was on board with a bit of space-bashing. When I mentioned this to Alex Leff, the idea for a podcast conversation was born.

You can listen to the hour-long conversation here. In it, we discuss some of the drivers behind odd beliefs, noting the similarities and differences between Flat Earth and space colonization beliefs (hint: one of these crazy ideas is prevalent in our society to the highest levels of wealth and power). I, of course, offer a number of perspectives on the absurdity of the colonization dream. Daniel and Alex work a bit to temper my “you just can’t do it no matter how hard you might want it” with a bit of catering (coddling?) to the unrealistic dreamers, trying to distract them with alternative attractive options, as one might a child. Nothing will stop them from continuing to pine—and failing in the end. Future generations won’t share the misplaced zeal and that will be that. I guess my target audience at this stage isn’t the true believers as much as it is those who might get swept along in their enthusiasm without having ever been exposed to the overwhelming hardships.

I also had a conversation with Derrick Jensen on why we’re not going to space, which he will soon post in a re-launch of his Resistance Radio YouTube channel. For now, this is just a placeholder: I will add a link to the conversation once it’s out. I’ll also put a note in the newsletter to subscribers when that happens.

Finally, I am scheduled to talk about the space fantasy topic with Nate Hagens and DJ White in late February, which I’ll also eventually add here (and notify subscribers).

Views: 780

Ditching Dualism #10: Determinism

Posted on by
24
This driver is free to do anything with the steering wheel and gas pedal, at any time…or is he, really? (Photo by Szymon Kochański.)

One major hangup in subscribing to a physics-based universe of material monism is that it appears to remove human agency as typically conceived in our culture. If atoms and their interactions are making everything happen, abiding by rules they (or we) cannot violate, is there any room left for human intervention or free will? As obvious as it is to us that we can weigh decisions and do things when/as we want, this disconnect alone is often enough to cause categorical rejection of materialism—retreating instead to the more comforting and self-promoting metaphysics of dualism. This is quite understandable: the notion that physics, not “soul” is the master of all “our” actions is an exceedingly challenging prospect for meat-brains to square—especially when modern language is constructed around first-person ownership of “ourselves” as subjects. Even if able to make intellectual sense of the matter, it’s still a tough pill for anyone to swallow. It sure doesn’t feel right, for what very little that’s actually worth.

Determinism also rubs people wrong in the context of history: suggesting that only one path was available to the present, precluding any potential counterfactual fantasies that are all-too-easy and entertaining to imagine (by leaving out almost the entire, actual universe in meat-brain models). It also might imply to some (erroneously) that humans played no role in shaping events, if there’s only one way said events could have played out.

Many react to determinism with a “then what’s the point, if everything is pre-determined” sort of response (another fallacious framing). Determinism seems to lay out railroad tracks to the future, leaving nothing for us to do. Why even get out of bed, then?

I’ll try to address these issues here. Perhaps I’ve said it all scattered across other posts and comments, but here it is all in one place, with a few new twists and perspectives. Bear in mind that I am presenting (advocating) the case against dualism and for materialist monism. Please forgive the fact that I do not couch every statement with “In the materialist monist view…,” the repeated absence of which may come across as laying claim to ultimate truth, which of course I cannot do.

Continue reading →

Views: 1248

Ditching Dualism #9: Reductionism

Posted on by
12
Atoms get up to phenomenal self-organized arrangements (adapted from a photo by warrenski on Wikimedia Commons).

Two posts back, we discussed common objections to the materialist (monist) perspective, before visiting the idea of material sentience. Another form of objection is to label such views as “reductionist.” The thinking is that claiming Life to be “nothing but” matter is not only a staggering simplification, but also reduces the amazingness of life to mere “dead” physics.

But see, not only is the “dead” part dead wrong (animated interactions never rest!), the objection itself requires a fundamentally dualist perspective: asserting/fabricating a hierarchy and division between Life and matter as a non-negotiable starting point. If the concern is that Life is devalued by comparing it to (or even further, saying it fundamentally is) “just” matter, the problem is in concocting a dual valuation in the first place. Why not say the entire singular phenomenon is amazing? Maybe the problem is in denigrating matter. What’s the equivalent of “racist” when it comes to matter? I guess “dualist” will do.

Thus, we may appreciate how “sticky” dualist beliefs are. Without truly inhabiting a non-dualist viewpoint, any materialist approach seems reprehensible from within that biased framework. Lots of belief systems feature similar mechanisms to quell questioning or discourage straying far enough from the path that the path begins to seem janky.

Continue reading →

Views: 1393

Ditching Dualism #8: Sentience

Posted on by
These animated little guys know what they’re about: sensing and responding (sentient). Adapted from Wikimedia Commons.

Now we turn to one of the more perplexing aspects of materialism: one that prevents many from abandoning dualist beliefs. How can sentient living beings possibly arise from matter alone? Dualism asserts a sharp ontological divide between animate and inanimate (mind and matter as a parallel aspect), categorically prohibiting animate beings from being wholly composed of inanimate matter. The last post addressed the flaw in characterizing matter as being “inert” in the first place.

But even once past this barrier, our inability to connect all the dots from atoms to conscious experience (which no one has managed to do, and likely never will), strongly tempts us to declare—assuming phantasmic authority—that no such route even could exist, or that failure to map it means it may as well be declared non-existent (a reaction worthy of the Ravenous Bugblatter Beast). Where’s the adventure in that?

As an aside, allusion to “phantasmic authority” above may elicit the reflexive charge that advocating materialist monism is an equivalent assertion devoid of authority. Not so fast. Materialist monism amounts to being satisfied that matter/interactions can plausibly form the entire basis of reality even if we don’t understand how. It is in claiming materialism to be insufficient—without evidence—that meat-brains seize more authority than they are due. Materialist monism cedes authority to the universe as we find it, rather than presuming to fabricate comforting alternatives.

Anyway, lacking a complete map, how does materialism deal with our experience as sentient beings, or other sentient life? We find a significant clue in the etymology of sentient. The root word is “sense.”

Continue reading →

Views: 2082

Ditching Dualism #7: Objections

Posted on by
By mhx (Wikimedia Commons)

Why is strict materialism a hard sell for many in our dualist-dominated culture? Okay, so some are understandably pulled by the attractive idea of an immortal soul. Others just feel that there has to be more to all this than the interplay of matter and energy in a vast, unblinking universe. But attractions aside, what are typical objections to a material-only existence?

It may be instructive to ask why people objected to the idea of a round Earth, to the prospect that Earth orbits the sun, or to the concept of evolution (see Daniel Quinn’s “three dirty tricks“).

Part of it, we must recognize, is good-old-fashioned ignorance. If unaware of the observations in conflict with the stale stance, or insufficiently observant, there would seem to be no need to switch trains. The old view serves quite well enough, and even engenders a certain fondness or comfort. Also contributing is that incomplete grasp of the new idea (perhaps poorly delivered or too unfamiliar) favors its premature rejection—after which entrenchment more likely obtains. But then again, most changes in worldview at the cultural scale happen via generational replacement rather than by changed individuals.

Continue reading →

Views: 2613