Resilience.org is running a series of posts capturing a conversation between myself and energy transition advocate Dave Murphy—moderated by Ben McCall. The entire conversation (from back in 2023–2024) involved eight exchanges. I echo the conversation on Do the Math, with additional commentary. The first five rounds were presented in Parts 1, 2, and 3, while this installment covers the sixth round (also appeared on Resilience on May 19).

The relevant portion of the original content is replicated below, followed by additional comments from me that are not addressed in the exchange itself. Within the text, links within [square brackets] point to content further down the page. At the end of each addition, another link returns to the paragraph of origin (or use browser “back” navigation). If preferring not to interrupt the flow, those additional comments are always waiting at the bottom to scoop up any time.

Sixth Exchange: Ethical Obligations

Ben: Dave, I might now challenge you to offer a concrete definition of “sustainable,” if you disagree with Tom’s definition.

Dave: If Tom’s definition of sustainability is “living in a way that does not lead to rapid declines in ecological health of non-renewable resource stocks,” and the assessment of such rapid declines is to be conducted on the scale of tens-to-hundreds of thousands of years, then how should we be thinking about modernity? Surely the past 250 years is a mere blip on these orders of magnitude, and, if we are able as a global society to gradually move to a sustainable planet, even if that move were to take the next 200 years, would that not be within the timeframe of sustainability as outlined herein by Tom? [Timescale asymmetry!]

Is, or is not, culture valued in Tom’s view of sustainability?

Tom wrote: “It seems the only way we can live sustainably is by putting ecological health first and—through this lens— either rethink or abandon every human (cultural) construct.”

To which I responded with this: “I disagree that we need to rethink or abandon all human cultural heritage. I think the solutions will come from building on that accumulated cultural knowledge, particularly from, for example, indigenous communities that lived in harmony with nature for millennia. What do we humans gain from abandoning human culture, which is perhaps the defining characteristic of our species?” [Wholesale abandonment?]

Then Tom commented: “Humans obviously have a place on the planet, as part of nature. Human societies and cultures have a place. Nothing excludes this, and indeed human cultures have coexisted in a more-or-less sustainable fashion for eons.”

It is possible we are talking past one another here, so please clarify if I missed anything, but the question I have is, which is it? Is human culture important to the future sustainability of planet Earth or do we need to abandon human cultural constructs?

Ben: Tom, we’ll come back to the question of human culture in a bit, but let’s first turn to Dave’s second “heart of the matter” question. Given the context of the (from at least your perspective) unsustainability of modernity, what ethical obligation do we have to the people currently living today? What does it mean to “love thy neighbor” if the future of modernity is bleak?

Tom: Inverting the order, the “love thy neighbor” part is simple for me. My neighbors include newts, eagles, squirrels, salmon, bees, and the plants, fungi, and microbes that make it all possible. I love them. We are nothing without them. The real world is one of innumerable relationships—humans being one of many millions of nodes, incapable of existing in isolation. We are not the masters, the owners, or the most deserving. Just as we reject the “master race” stance of Nazism, I hope we can reject human supremacism, and repudiate a dominant “Human Reich” regime on the planet. [Nazis, again?]

That said, I love humans too. Humans are incredible: adaptable, intelligent, funny, empathetic beings. I don’t much like how modern culture abuses these gifts at the devastating expense of non-human (and some human) lives. But that’s only the modern way, and not baked into human DNA—as evidenced by tens of thousands of years of living under very different cultural norms that are practically unfathomable/nonsensical [and considered primitive/dumb?] to denizens of modernity.

Our ethical responsibility, then, extends to the entire community of life. If we define “people” as all living beings, then the original question takes a different tone. If this seems absurd, I ask: how would the denial of “people” status to other life avoid strumming supremacist chords?

But, confronting the intent of the question: what ethical responsibility do we have to the humans alive today? I would say: we owe it to ourselves to be honest about planetary limits. To the extent that we can look to the long future and delineate the sustainable from the unsustainable, we ought to do our best. We honestly don’t know how to make modernity sustainable. Giving people the impression that we can continue business as usual but powered by different technology might be one of the most unethical things we could do—if it turns out to be missing the larger truth, perpetuating/exacerbating ecological damage and courting chaotic collapse.

People may wish to hear good news, acquire goods and comforts, and maintain the familiar. But if we suspect that modernity is unsustainable, then let’s say so. I have faith that many are prepared to accept a retreat from “the modernity dream” if they understand the associated nightmarish damage to life and non-viability for future generations. In my view, our current culture is not honest about these things, proclaiming that we (in the human-only club) can continue to have it all.

If a proposal cannot validate a robust pathway to sustainable operation for the long haul and convince us that it is unlikely to constitute a net harm to the community of life (even indirectly), then is it ethical to pursue it? Choices that self-terminate within centuries or millennia strike me as unethical and ignominious—depriving future humans and countless other species of their lives and livelihoods. Do we care more about prolonging a temporary fireworks show or about the enduring health of all life on Earth? [More on responsibility]

End of Part 4

This fourth post covers the sixth of eight exchanges. We’ll pick up the conversation in the next installment. The sections that follow offer additional commentary that was not part of the initial exchange. Turns out, I had more to say.

Asymmetric Timescales

Having introduced the long timescales over which sustainability is assessed (by interactive, integrated ecology; not by cognitive means), it seemed pretty clear that Dave had not previously encountered this perspective, because his first reaction was an assumed symmetry: that it buys us loads of time. Had he thought through it more carefully, he would have seen the obvious flaw (as he came around to in the eighth exchange) that irreversible damage can accrue in a relative flash. Anyway, this cued a delayed comment on nuclear annihilation in my round 7 response. (Return to conversation)

Abandon Culture, Again

We return to the sticking point that I suggest we consider (in part) abandoning elements of human culture that imperil us and other life. As mentioned before, I’m glad that Dave suggests the only explicitly non-modernity culture (Indigeneity) as one that might have value, but he tries to force commitment to one of two outcomes: either culture is important to sustainability, or we abandon human culture.

Part of this, I believe, comes down to an understandable fondness for the culture of one’s experience. Change is hard. An often-implicit assumption is that I’m advocating complete change within a human lifetime, rather than gradual generational change as members of outdated and maladaptive (supremacist) cultures die of natural causes. I do address the “abandonment” charge in the seventh round, finally. (Return to conversation)

Human Reich, Again

I alluded to this theme in the first round, but decided to be a little more explicit this time. I first encountered the term “Human Reich” from Eileen Crist, explored in a post on Our Ugly Magnificence. (Return to conversation)

Modern Superiority

Modern culture teaches us to look down on “primitive” cultures. While perhaps stopping short of calling them outright dumb (feigned politeness?), the implication is strongly present: hunter-gatherers are illiterate, uneducated, don’t use money and sometimes not even numbers, never “progress” beyond ancient tradition, tolerate abysmal infant survival numbers (only 70%!), and allow themselves to be vulnerable to death (which clearly we’ve put behind us!). The attitude of smug superiority practically drips from our lips: they’re hardly “better” than animals! To those at the receiving end, this not-particularly-well-concealed form of racist judgment must be intolerably offensive—especially coming from oblivious ecological flunkies. The attitude is certainly highly disrespectful, and a key driver of the rapacious colonial mindset.

Meanwhile, consider that to a person living an authentic ecological lifestyle, we moderns are total ignoramuses. While they know their crafts inside-out (where to get materials, how to prepare them, how to shape and combine them, how to use the finished product), most of us can’t explain the first useful thing about how the technologies—upon which we utterly rely—come to be. We are absolute imbeciles at the simplest tasks of living in the wild: can’t even poop and pee normally, without requiring highly-processed goods. It’s a miracle we even remember how to breathe! What, of enduring value, has our literacy and education bought us and the world? We’re trapped by our words, our money, our numbers, and recklessly abandon time-tested wisdom as if obsolete dreck. As a result, we “progress” toward obliteration of the ecological world via a sixth mass extinction that—as a glaring demonstration of ultimate stupidity—will take us with it! Authentic humans deeply feel the cost of infant mortality, while more gratefully cherishing the (majority of) children who make it. They also know in their bones that the Community of Life could not survive any plant or animal having perfect reproductive success—or immortality, for that matter. To moderns, identifying as an animal is an embarrassing weakness: we tell ourselves that we’ve transcended this ignominious biological past. To authentic humans, it is an enduring honor and strength to recognize oneself as an animal member of the esteemed Community of Life, as uniquely capable and important as any other—working within an ancient tapestry woven by a wisdom (evolved ecology) far greater than any we could ever deign to design or even hold in our meat-brains. The “stupid” label bounces off and sticks to us, hard. (Return to conversation)

Responsibility

Dave and I have different perspectives on ethical responsibility, in terms of who deserves consideration and over what timescale. My question is: “If a proposal cannot validate a robust and credible pathway to sustainable operation for the long haul and convince us that it is unlikely to constitute a net harm to the community of life (even indirectly), then is it ethical to pursue it?”

Energy transition people don’t strive to demonstrate what I ask: not even a gesture in that direction. They don’t have the sixth mass extinction in their models at all—or any ecology, really. I’m not saying they should: we are incapable of crafting models at that level of sophistication, and always will be. Then, lacking such a demonstration or capability, let’s be careful, yeah? Let’s exercise precaution. Let’s acknowledge that the practices of modernity—well beyond greenhouse gases—are demonstrably devastating, and that we need to scale them down, pronto. Doing otherwise is monstrously unethical. (Return to conversation)

Views: 197