Few among us question actions done “in the name of science” when said actions are carried out by credible groups or individuals. It goes without saying that the acquisition and expansion of knowledge is highly valued. As long as the pursuit is not directly harmful to people, it generally gets a pass. But one level deeper, what is science itself done in the name of?
Not surprisingly, much of science is in the service of modernity: producing remarkable short-term advantages for humans—generally at the expense of the rest of the Community of Life on both short- and long-term scales. A great deal of the scientific enterprise concentrates on technology. Market systems assure funding for efforts that will facilitate continued growth: accessing more energy, more materials (and novel ones, to boot), more indispensable gadgets, and longer lives for affluent humans whose ecological footprints are already monstrous (let’s keep those ones going the longest, yeah?).
But you know me, I can find fault even with “good” science whose focus is on the more-than-human world. I am reminded of a statement a grad student once started to make: “The problem with trees…” Another student, seizing on the humor of the moment, adopted an official tone as if a debate moderator: “The Problem with Trees: GO!” Yeah, so the problem with conservation biologists…
Let’s see how much I step in it, here.
A Recent Trigger
Let’s first ground this discussion in something I recently encountered. A friend loaned me a book, called Seabirds as Sentinels, by Eric Wagner. I enjoyed learning about rhinoceros auklets and tufted puffins, and connected to the many familiar places on the Olympic Peninsula referenced in the book. I’ve sailed quietly around and past Protection Island and Destruction Island, often watching from the bow of the boat as countless rhinoceros auklets dive to get out of the way—almost always in pairs. I try in vain to catch glimpses of them deep in the clear water as the boat passes over the spot where they disappeared, but all I ever manage to see is their bubble trails disappearing into the depths.
The characters described in the book—assisted by the author—perform science on the auklets to learn more of their secrets and challenges. It doesn’t always turn out so well for the auklets. A passage from the book captures some of the author’s conflict over this, in the context of intercepting adults returning at dusk with beaks full of small fish—confiscating the booty for bagging and data collection [square brackets are my additions]:
To know I have stolen food from a chick in the name of Science is not the best feeling, but I take comfort in the fact [hope?] that I am depriving it of only half a meal. It’s other parent will [presumably?] bring it something soon, and both of them will [presumably?] be back tomorrow. Having conveniently absolved myself, I stuff the baggie in my pocket and wait for the next auklet [victim].
At least he struggles with it, sensing deep down that what he’s doing to the auklets is wrong—before embracing his left-brain rationalization built on a number of comfortable presumptions. It’s in the name of science, after all. That’s gotta be holy work, right?
I could give the scientists the benefit of the doubt that they already tested to their satisfaction that such invasive actions do not cause the chicks to be abandoned, or that the other parent is basically guaranteed to provide at least half-a-meal. But as an ignorant reader, I could easily believe all sorts of ill fates stemming from this invasive but superficially innocuous activity. It’s an action out of context for the auklets, and that’s always a red flag. Not thinking it to be a problem is not at all the same as the universe agreeing that it’s not a problem. We miss a helluva lotta stuff in these brains of ours.
More Generally
But what I really want to explore is what benefit actually derives from many of our scientific pursuits in conservation biology. Who does it help? What’s the underlying assumption at play?
The standard argument is as predictable as it is comforting. By knowing more about a certain species and the challenges they face, we might improve their lives in the hope that we—meaning modernity, of course—may coexist. One of the relatively few success stories—like the banning of DDT saving the bald eagles—can’t be held back from the lips of proponents. Without scientific work, the link between DDT and rapid population decline might never have been identified.
Sometimes, when convenient substitutes are available, fixes are easy. Those are the ones we hear about, repeatedly. The ozone hole (which is still there and basically holding steady, by the way) prompted a shift from one nasty chemical cocktail to another, having all-new unknown side effects. Abandoning refrigeration was never on the table: a wholly preposterous proposal to the human-supremacist modernity-booster. Beware the non-negotiable! Likewise, DDT gave way to new pesticides that have no negative environmental side effects. Of course I’m being sarcastic. Again, the response was not to recognize pesticides as dangerous contributors to ecocide, and therefore to stop using them.
When the problems stem from non-negotiable practices of modernity, wildlife will lose every single time. Domestic cats and windows—neither of which are part of a longstanding ecological context—kill billions of birds per year. Humans of modernity have no interest in giving up pristine views from our shelters or going without cuddly feline monsters. Roadkill is eliminated in an instant by ceasing to drive cars and trucks. How is that absurd suggestion likely to fly?
The Goal?
Back to the main thread: what outcome of the scientific pursuit is considered to be the goal? If it’s just the well-being of the Community of Life, we don’t actually need to know the masses of fish in the beaks of auklets. Declining populations across the board are obviously caused by various aspects of modernity, dammit! If able to wave a magic wand that eliminated agriculture, deforestation, mining, manufacturing, pollution, shipping, overpopulation of humans, etc. is there any doubt that the boot would come off the throat, giving wildlife a chance to rebound? Even then, the damage may already be too large in some cases for a proper rebound. And we might expect millions of years for the myriad perturbations (e.g., invasive introductions) to mostly settle out.
So, without explicitly saying so, conservation science seeks ways that ecological health might obtain in the shadow of modernity, if we can tweak modernity’s practices. That’s a dangerous prior. It’s practical…I’ll give it that. Modernity isn’t going to respond to a sharply-worded journal article by saying “Well, you’ve got me there. Guess I’ll just fold up shop.” This is one wing of the prison I described in a recent post. The inmates (practicing conservation biologists) are likely themselves fond of the comforts of prison, and not ready themselves to call for its dissolution. It’s scary, for sure.
The dream is that by studying the deep mysteries—no matter how invasive—it will pay off in the end by allowing us to have our cake and eat it, too.
Why not face up to the monster and stop pretending that a modality initiating a sixth mass extinction can be reconciled with ecological health? Would the conclusion of any scientific paper be wrong to suggest that without modernity the ecological Community of Life (which includes humans, of course) would fare much better? Such statements are not tolerated. Of course, throughout natural history every species has faced stresses and challenges now and again. The question is whether modernity—and its countless tentacles—represents a primary, originating threat to virtually all endangered species. We don’t need sophisticated measurements to know the answer to that one.
The complicity of scientists in support of modernity likely stems from either lack of courage or lack of acceptance regarding the incompatibility. I’m betting it’s more the latter. Scientists are products of modernity, and tend to cheer for the home team. Inside our brains, it is easy enough to tell reassuring stories of separability and compatibility: that we can have computers and low infant mortality and somehow still manage to pull off a healthy ecology. Good science ought to be based on evidence, and there is exactly zero evidence for this common conviction. Meanwhile, evidence abounds for drastic signs of profound incompatibilities.
In the name of all that’s sacred—which need not include science or modernity—let’s stop protecting modernity by “sciencing the shit” out of the innocent victims. We actually know what we have to do, right? It’s not that hard a mental puzzle. It’s just that too few want to give up short-term comforts and baubles even if it means ecocide. As a form of placation, we can busy ourselves in measuring the many ill effects as we circle the drain.
Views: 1845
Science: fixing problems that humans have made, within the boundaries of the system that brought those problems.
The fridge is such a good example. There's not actually a solution to its waste product(s). Yet the goal isn't to consider viable alternatives, it's how to ensure that every human has access to home refrigeration.
I have a fridge, of course, it came with the house. I'm guessing that a low tech alternative is simply a hole? I've got the technology and skills to build one of those! Although perhaps the first stop would be to consider what I actually need to hold in my fridge (animal products mainly: milk, cheese etc), and whether I could be without them.
I would clarify that even for those of us who are both aware of the context and willing to give up our baubles, we don't because doing so means dying. There is no 'escape' from modernity, only a potential rebalancing on the other side of billions of premature human deaths. The mental puzzle is not hard, but also not solvable, save by a Gordian Knot-cutting of staggering proportions.
It's fair to judge those who still loudly champion modernity, but those who are doomed to live and die in it are like moths unable to correctly orient in the presence of artificial light. I am sympathetic, despite how catastrophically destructive we all are.
Excellent point. We're all in the prison, and dependent on its systems for feeding us. Immediate "solutions" are not at all realistic or even desirable. But what we *can* do is fall out of love with modernity and its baubles. We can accept winding down; fertility decline; economic decline; shuttering institutions—rather than fight in vain to preserve the unsustainable. It won't happen in one year, one decade, one generation, etc. But it can start.
"If I cannot finish this edifice in my lifetime, can I not at least add another row of bricks? Can I not ready its foundations? Can I not make preparations for others to do the work? If someone says that they cannot do anything at all, this is a lie."
– By the person whose funeral was attended by millions of people
We have actually "fixed" the ozone hole, it is now one of the two planetary boundaries that are withing the safe operating space, if only just. Now we have to fix the other seven.
https://www.stockholmresilience.org/research/planetary-boundaries.html
The upcoming population peak will certainly help but my hope is on a Zapatista-style revolution in the Global South which will stop the extraction and exploitation upon which industrial capitalist modernity has always been reliant. I've always been a dreamer…
Did you look at the plots of Annual Records on the left margin of the linked page (https://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/)? The phenomenon raged onto the scene in the 1980s and is now basically steady. The *rise* was stopped, but the (new) phenomenon is not gone. Forgive me for not trusting the incomplete cognitive model behind a notional planetary boundary. How could the full suite of implications of a novel phenomenon on the complex web of life possibly be all in hand? I would have less of a point if our actions had basically restored back to pre-1979 conditions. The narrative and the data are only aligned under a boatload of assumptions we simply aren't capable of fully justifying.
Sorry, the link is inaccessible from my end but thanks for the reply. You make some good points, as usual 🙂
Odd. I did a screenshot to put it on this site:
https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/ozone-records.png
"In the name of all that’s sacred—which need not include science or modernity—let’s stop protecting modernity by “sciencing the shit” out of the innocent victims."
I have been reading your posts for years. Thanks for one clear sentence, fueled by frustration, that screams for the voiceless.
I love your irreverence, Tom Murphy, which itself expresses reverence.
I'm coming to the recognition that modernity's scientism has two distinct aspects: either believing, from a materialistic framing/worldview, that rational analysis is what we can trust in life; or, lacking such capacities, that choosing a belief (or a system of such) is of highest priority, then carefully selecting supportive evidence (as in a court case) to defend that choice.
Science itself is, ideally, an independent enterprise. Once upon a time in the history of modernity, science was acknowledged to exist in its own "ivory tower," removed from any societal constraints. It was funded by government and managed by universities, with its findings published by the universities themselves or by respected publishers who actively managed peer reviews. Science was free to explore all parameters of the objective aspects of reality, without limitations imposed by human values or prejudices, morals or goals.
And yet, even then, science's pursuits have most often been anthropocentric: "How will this affect (or benefit?) humans?"
Then along came technology, engineering scientific discoveries to create practical applications — first exploited for military purposes, then marketed to the public. Capitalism finally had a path: Engineer innovative products, promote them, build factories and hire workers, and generate increasing profits for investors.
Modernity has become multi-faceted. It now funds technology (and whatever bits of science that enhance it), writes legislation and funds political campaigns to gain subsidies and other favors, and takes control of public information and entertainment media in order to hold public focus on consuming, competing, and politically defending "the system" itself.
Scientism, in whichever phase is currently ascendant, puts little energy into the open inquiry that would be genuine science, and easily dismisses the human values that would balance the rigorous objective analysis and quantification of science, such as caring and belonging, relating and reciprocity, gratitude and respect, and love.
You suddenly lost me in the last paragraph: "We actually know what we have to do, right?"
I don't get the sense that many people have any clear idea that there's a problem, let alone what to do about it.
As to whether it's simply that too few are willing to give up short-term comforts … if it means ecocide, I don't get the sense that very many realize that an ecocide is happening, nor how their actions are causing it. And probably quite a few simply don't care, for various reasons. But I suspect that even if they did know and did care, that it would be difficult to make significant sacrifices, especially when individual sacrifices make vanishing little difference.
I can't really disagree.
I should have added that, even though I've followed this blog since it's early years — many thanks, and please continue –, I can't say that even I have any clear understanding of what to do about the problem of modernity.
To give one trivial example, I was just reminded that I have dividend points with a major outdoors equipment retailer that I must use or lose. I'd wager that many of their customers consider them to be environmentally responsible. I cringe at the idea that I should be compelled to buy something that I really don't "need". I considered that maybe I should make the trivial sacrifice and just forfeit the dividend. But if I were to do that then the money would just become profits for the corporation to spend. So would my sacrifice achieve anything at all?
I started to think that perhaps the best option might be to minimize (if not eliminate, like Daniel Suelo in "The Man Who Quit Money") one's participation in the economy. This is what you did when you opted to retire early. But I cannot be confident that this action doesn't just open up an economic opportunity that someone else will step in to fill.
Alternatively, I have wondered if a counterintuitive approach might actually be more effective. Like with your analogy that humans are sawing away at the ecological branch that we are all standing on, maybe we should identify the weakest link in the chain of modernity and start taking a metaphorical angle grinder to it. If that weakest link is the dependence on petroleum "resources", then perhaps the best we can do is to consume them as quickly as possible in the hopes of minimizing the ultimate damage. But I'm not confident that my meat brain can identify the weakest link, nor that I can predict the ultimate outcome of this option versus all the alternatives.
Truly, it seems, we are all prisoners of modernity and serving a life sentence.
Much resonance, here. I especially appreciate the embrace of the meat-brain as being not "all-that." Be wary of its very partial constructs!
After re-reading this blog post, I think I now get what you were trying to say in the last paragraph.
"In the name of all that’s sacred—which need not include science or modernity—let’s stop protecting modernity by “sciencing the shit” out of the innocent victims. We actually know what we have to do, right? It’s not that hard a mental puzzle."
Yes, the scientists (ecologists, conservation biologists, etc.) could/should rightly reach the conclusion that we just need to stop it with the modernity stuff. But people won't accept that answer, and the scientists know this implicitly (it's engrained in our culture and in their training), so they don't give that answer. They look for an answer that requires the least possible sacrifice, no matter how ill conceived. And yet scientists don't seem to have a great track record of convincing people to accept the necessity of even these lesser sacrifices, so is there even a point of even doing that type of science?
Good assessment. Is there a point to it, indeed—other than a self-neutered squeak of complaint?
Though I also can't disagree with most of this, I'm going to push back on the last line a bit, just because I so frequently see "my actions don't matter so may as well jet set all over, crank the AC and eat steak for every meal" sort of rationalization even from those who do realize the problem, and who can also afford to indulge in such choices (which is a very small percent of people globally). Dependence is going to look not so pretty as the years go on, even for those currently insulated. Let's say tomorrow there's a big power outage for the day. Do you want to be the person who is flipping out because they are so used to looking at a screen a thousand times that they don't know what else to do with themselves, or can only tolerate a small temperature range, etc.. or the person who can shrug it off? Always choosing short term comforts will backfire, eventually – even if it isn't a catastrophe, there's other consequences i.e. someone mentioned in a comment a few months back squishy elaborate hi-tech sneakers causing an epidemic of foot troubles because they mess up natural walking/running posture. Like, Is it possible to reframe the idea of "sacrifice"? I realize this may be trying to swim when the water's just at one's knees, but perhaps that's the time to start practicing, at least?
I know from my personal life experience how devastating it can be to be caught completely off guard and have to learn to function without something I completely depended on and took for granted, so I suppose that's why I feel inclined to always offer this perspective (And also to say, once on the other side, I'm now glad to be free of it and have a lot more faith in myself.)
Can we test ourselves a little more? You might be pleasantly surprised – or maybe unpleasantly so, but then at least you'll know there's resilience to build.
By "the last line", I assume you were referring to the counterintuitive approach I postulated. I don't know that jet setting, cranking the AC, or eating steak for every meal would be the most effective way to accelerate the demise of this link (petroleum resources) in the chain of modernity. Even though those actions consume petroleum, they also involve a lot of the other links, with associated impacts to the community of life. Perhaps the most direct approach to what I was proposing would be to buy large quantities of crude oil and simply light it on fire. Once gone, it's no longer available for anyone else to use in ways that are even more damaging to the community of life. Sure, the one negative would be the resulting addition to climate change, but unless one of the other links in the chain of modernity breaks first, all of the technologically accessible petroleum is going to be combusted eventually, even if everyone were to make small sacrifices to reduce their rate of consumption. I sympathize with what you wrote. I just don't see that the intuitive responses to the meta-crisis of modernity produce any benefits (or reduction in harm) to the community of life in the final analysis, even if they may have some personal benefits. I wished someone could convince me otherwise.
It was actually in response to your original post – about the insignificance of individual actions – sorry for the confusion. You make an interesting point with the counterintuitive approach, though, and I suppose I don't have a response – based on what else youve written, I believe you are sincere in seeking what's best for the community of life, but I can't say that for some who have crossed my path wanting to justify their overconsumption, that's all (and still claiming they're out of love with modernity at the same time!). Naive though it may be, I guess I've hoped we could learn to control ourselves before the well runs completely dry, but maybe that's what it will take…
Chris,
My own falling out of love with modernity (and I'm still entirely entwined with it) was, in effect, a grieving process. It took a lot of time, going through phases of buying electric cars and getting worked up about politics, advocating socialism and so on. It was a case of stripping back each belief, extrapolating out each technology to its logical conclusion (as best I could) and letting each one go. The way I see it as that many people simply stop at a particular "belief ledge" and won't go further down without a gentle nudge! How else do we explain why people who understand the climate and ecological crisis, yet stop at electric cars? Or why people are vociferous about workers rights or environmental degradation, up until the point that rare earth mining is involved?
The grief process first involves admitting to the problem, and I think that most people know that there is a problem but are perhaps unwilling to face the depth of it. The good thing about opening up and admitting to the problems of modernity is that we get a good picture of what sustainability really is (through stripping out what it definitely isn't).
You mention using up all the oil as a solution, and I can see the logic in that (silly as it is!). I think it is, perhaps, these jolts song the way that will nudge our grieving process along a bit quicker (because obviously we won't need to use all the oil, just the stuff that uses less – or, say, a low ratio like 1:4 – energy to extract than what it extracts). I do think there is a huge problem building with the electric car pushers in this process, as denial of the scale of the problem is going to cause a huge backlash when people who aren't aware of the problems become aware that the issue is actually cars as a form of transport rather than their fuel!
Rico,
I sympathize with everything you wrote. You and I now know there is a problem (and thanks to Tom, have a better understanding of the problem), but I still don't get a sense that a very large fraction of people out of the 8+ billion in the world sense that there really is a problem.
I will be the first to admit that I don't have any solid idea of "what to do" about the problem. I've considered a number of ideas for actions that could be taken at the personal level but haven't found any that I have much confidence will have even a small benefit to the community of life — not even considering that my actions are just those of one individual. And I'm not trying to rationalize a do-nothing attitude.
Consider one personal response: living frugally. If you keep whatever money you've saved in the process in a bank (or invest it otherwise), the bank is going to lend that money out to someone else to immediately spend in what is probably a highly consumptive, non-frugal lifestyle.
One aspect underlying my postulated counterintuitive response to the problem involves a key understanding and that I don't recall if Tom previously addressed in his posts, or how many readers are aware of. It boils down to what is the "half-life" of CO2 in the atmosphere. Short answer: it's on the order of 1,000 years. And, as I understand, the climate impacts last on the order of 100,000 years, and the ecological impacts maybe orders of magnitude longer. Bottom line is, there's plenty of time for modernity to extract and combust all of the technologically/economically recoverable petroleum that exists in the world before nature can get it's shoes on to begin cleaning up our mess. The only thing to prevent this ultimate outcome is if one of the other links in the chain that holds modernity together fails first.
Following up on my post above I went back and rediscovered MM #18: What Can I Do? This is worth a re-read.
Under point #8 Tom wrote: "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."
Perhaps the best option would have been Option E: buy an old gas guzzler vehicle for which the material inputs are already in the past and which can be maintained/refurbished at little cost and requires the least quantity of exotic material inputs. Drive it as-needed knowing that in doing so you are accelerating, however minimally, the end of petroleum and hopefully the end of modernity's assault on the community of life.
This get's back to point #2 in the MM #18 post: "Let it Go". When the current political regime puts up barriers to EV adoption, take comfort in the (uncertain) knowledge that this may ultimately be the least destructive route.
Just a note that I own a 1998 Toyota Tacoma, which at 21 miles per gallon can be called a gas guzzler. The awesome irony is that my truck uses FAR less gas than a typical super-efficient hybrid. How? Because I drive it very little (bike often). I filled the tank once in 2024, three times in 2025, and twice so far in 2026 (likely to be a third). How many cars use so little gas as that?
Chris,
Thanks for your response. You're right. What I was clumsily trying to get at in my post is that I think there are a large number of people who have zero idea that there is a problem with modernity, but also a large number who knows that there is a problem but refuse to engage with the extent of the problem. They stop at electric cars or whatever other convenient point to avoid grieving and accepting the reality of the situation. I, perversely perhaps, believe that if that second group began to accept the totality of the problems we face then the solutions would be easier to explain and more in alignment with those in the oblivious group. I think the intransigence of those that deliberately stop investigating at the palatable point, who don't grieve, and refuse to hospice modernity (to steal a phrase from a well known book!) is the biggest sticking point.
I'm with you on the gas guzzler. I bought a Nissan leaf in 2011, when I still pretended that technology would save the day. It had to go to the scrap yard after fourteen years, because of a failed resistor (that's certainly the diagnosis I came up with, but could never test the hypothesis). Accessing that resistor was impossible for me as it involved removing the high voltage battery to get to it. The quotes for the work, from the one place I could find that would actually consider it, ran into the thousands. I bought a cheap petrol car that I use sparingly. Friends and neighbours tell me how ridiculous that is as they cheaply charge their EVs at night and drive silently to work in the morning. They don't know the true cost!
We are sciencing the shit out of reality and, guess what, it has made no difference to reality. It is what it is. The discipline of science may have made us more able to seem to think rationally, but you point out some of the many "downsides." Sadly, we're so far along with the modernity experiment that we now rely on science to survive, as @Michael pointed out. You're right, science, largely, is done in support of a ruinous way of life.
"Domestic cats and windows—neither of which are part of a longstanding ecological context—kill billions of birds per year." Glass windows have only been around for ~2,000 years, so are clearly not part of any longstanding ecological context, but terrestrial predators (such as cats) have been part of longstanding ecological contexts for millions of years. I suspect that domestic cats are so destructive for two main reasons:
1) They live at population densities much higher than similarly sized carnivorous mammals would in a normal ecological context.
2) They've been introduced to regions where they are not native. This is especially destructive in places where terrestrial predators are not part of the ecological context (e.g. islands like Hawaii and New Zealand)
"In the name of science…" What the F does that even mean? Sounds more like an excuse to me. Not unlike the phrase "What does it mean?" "It" doesn't mean anything. "It," whatever it might be, is not capable of forming any "meaning." People are the source of meaning, and "what does it mean" should be "what does it mean to you." Is "science" the entire body of knowledge that humans have accumulated through use of the "scientific method"? Or is it one of those "it" things that are supposed to "mean" something independent of the humans looking at it? "In the name of science…" should be "In the name of the entities (persons, whether corporeal or corporate) that use the body of knowledge accumulated by humanity through the use of the scientific method to add to their bottom line…"
Or, perhaps, to put it more simply: "In the name of the bottom line…"
Hi Tom,
Another thought-provoking essay; thanks for your continued contributions.
I have often wondered why it is that your observations are not “obvious” to other scientists. They are based on physics and math (“Do the Math”- the perfect blog title for it), so one would think that all of your colleagues would recognize the limits to growth, and the planetary limits we are encountering. You have mentioned this resistance before. I think it is that we are indeed trapped in modernity; our livelihoods depend on a system that depends on maintaining this fiction.
You were able to escape via early retirement, but I wonder, even if EVERY scientist did the math and saw the futility of continuing with business as usual, what would they do? They can’t just quit; it is their livelihood. They can’t redirect their scientific investigations toward planetary equilibrium or degrowth- there is no funding for that in an economy that depends on growth.
So we are stuck. We know what is coming, but in our small numbers cannot change the trajectory in any major way. I fear it will take massive pain and misery before we collectively realize something needs to change from the unlimited growth assumption. And I am skeptical that we can do it voluntarily.
Enjoy your time off; I look forward to your continued writings when you return.
The phenomenon of denial is both puzzling and obvious, for the reasons you state as well as deep emotional attachments (and pride in "accomplishment" and "progress").
But one saving grace: collective realization is not necessary. Besides being untenable, a successful ecological future is not a monolithic global endeavor, but small splinter groups going their own way. That's easier to imagine emerging than some grand awakening and redemption.
Agreed! Adding that every small splinter group CAN start with a community of ONE. Once someone DOES see the predicament (and not problem to be solved!) to be managed, showing an example may be an effective way. Granted, it is seldom guaranteed to be very easy or even straightforward. The way we may get through this is by the power of contagion being exponential in the direction of eventual survival.
I imagine this puzzle to be a maze for Sapiens made by the family of life, as if we were mere ants. At every turn in the right direction there may be a little treat, but this is not guaranteed. Nature is notorious to be forgetful to replenish that treat, adding a bit of hide and seek to the game.
But just by participating, aren't we already engaging in (hunter)-gathering?
Another great article, which I am in 100% agreement with.
I have long been bemused by scientists attaching radio tags to unfortunate wildlife. These tags are usually quite bulky and I suspect they cause the animal(s) some distress and difficulty. With whales, they are jammed into their flesh using long spears – surely they don't want that?
I remember seeing a documentary about pack of wild dogs in America. Scientists put a data recorder/radio transmitter/camera around the neck of one unlucky hound. The unit was not much smaller than a ghetto blaster, and when he returned to the pack they all shunned him, freaked out by his alien encumbrance.
All the 'progress' of mankind has led to the 6ME. That is not a price worth paying for the supposed benefits.
Like you, I feel especially sorry for the non-human lifeforms that are destroyed by modernity all day every day.
I get encouraged by the plants pushing through the quarried stone chips in the front 'garden' of my rented flat – only to see them perish, having being doused in weedkiller again by 'building management'.
At work, there's an announcement that "a family of rats has been seen in the car park" – god forbid those rats, daring to exist! Poison is left for them. But these chemicals – pesticides, weedkiller etc – don't magically target 'enemy' species – stuff that damages insects damages all living creatures… It's insanity.
Wind turbines, beloved of 'environmentalists', could be added to the list of animal-killing machines – they kill many birds and bats (and probably moths etc as well), in the name of 'renewable' energy (it isn't).
I get home after working with large, noisy machines all day, and drink to block out the horror (and the incessant traffic noise). As a kid, I used to love cars. Now I hate the metal bastards. They make walking anywhere in the city a nightmare.
The prevailing 'culture' promotes cars, overconsumption, human supremacy, the acquisition of money etc etc. But most people still believe in modernity, having been indoctrinated from birth. Once you see it for what it is though, you can't unsee it. As Derrick Jensen (and others) have said, the system can't be 'made better' – it must end, completely.
In his book, endgame, Jensen toys with the idea of blowing up dams but never goes through with it. He also mentions flux compression generators – devices that emit a powerful electromagnetic pulse, knocking out any electric circuits in the vicinity. They could disable vehicles, traffic lights, cameras, phones… Everything. However, he seems to be under the impression that building FCGs is easy. I looked into it, and procuring the necessary explosives is a major stumbling block. Once you have them, some physics knowledge would be an advantage…
Tom, there was a time when you wrote about contriving as soft a landing from modernity as possible. Without checking back, I think you were referring to humanity's fate, but the concept can be extended to all of life. Science and engineering still have their roles in attempting that.
Modernity has built a lot of disasters waiting to happen and in the process of unfolding. We have rapid global temperature rise to minimise, coastal chemical industries and nuclear power reactors to dismantle before sea level rise, thousands of tonnes of DUF6 to disperse, biolabs to detoxify etc. All of these will damage all life if modernity just continues hurtling into collapse.
I think you need to think about politics because there's plenty of human good will towards the family of life, and frankly it's neoliberal capitalism and its media network that are obstructing us.
I disagree with your last paragraph, the issues precede neoliberal capitalism by a long way, and the "eco-socialist", or whatever, alternatives of even the furthest left leaning politics deny the extent of the problem too.
You describe the dilemma well though. All of the disasters waiting to happen that you mention are easily solvable via dismantling and removing. The problem is that these aren't scientific and engineering problems, they are social problems. The one solution to these pending disasters is: the acceptance that modernity can no longer continue. That's not a problem that science and engineering can solve unfortunately. Both those areas are still focusing all their energy on workarounds, more technology and, frankly, excuses and denial.
The philosophical question is whether or not science and engineering, as subjects, can ever exist at a scale in which the implementation of their outputs doesn't destroy life itself. If we can only live in groups of 200 or so, what do those fields look like, and how are they kept from expanding? Can the theoretical knowledge gained be passed down for positive usage in future? Will any of it matter, or does it require modernity for it to matter?
I'm wondering how to make my point clear, here. I don't really disagree with the points you've made (I'll come back to my minor disagreements), but I've been an activist, and until the public had cheered and encouraged the groups I was in, and the propaganda system had targetted us, and the police had massed against us, and friends had been prosecuted and imprisoned, I didn't really understand what was preventing change. I still don't understand it but I'm definitely aware of it, and I'm conscious of trying to write something intelligible about it before Tom closes comments.
I wasn't and I'm not particularly a leftie. When I refer to politics, I suppose I'm trying to raise awareness of something I can best describe as a superorganism. Something is +wilfully+ pushing humanity in the bad direction. Mostly it just shepherds and motivates people in its preferred direction, gently enough that it seems that everyone is just making their own decisions. But that's not what's going on at all. Anyone can be excentric in many ways, it'll let them get on with it, +unless+ they start to become a danger to it, and then they'll feel its will in no uncertain terms. When I was an environmental activist it made things uncomfortable. As environmental activism stepped up, it pushed back harder. But when I started supporting the Palestinians there was a step change. Things got really scary, colleagues got accused of terrorism and raided before dawn. And it started reaching into my life through comments from personal friends who didn't seem to recognise that they were repeating things from the media.
Sorry, this is really frustrating, like being the person in the horror movie who knows there's something very dangerous in the basement but is unable to convince anyone else because its as indescribable as it is unbelievable.
Tom has been on the track of this theing for years, but it can't be human supremacy exactly because it dominates humans too. It isn't exactly modernity; it just uses the most powerful tools available, and as more powerful tools have developed it has assimilated them to its ends. Ishmael is close with leaver culture and taker culture but it isn't a culture – maybe it's takerist ideology, maybe it's dominance itself, but these don't seem to +personify+ it sufficiently. Maybe Gail Bradbrook is right to say it is Wetico and the Abrahamic believers to call it the devil. It is aware, intelligent and wilful. It pitches humans against nature, human against human, society against society, ethnicity against ethnicity; it relishes the suffering and the killing of everything organic. To use an unfashionable word, it is evil.
– – – – – – –
Then there's the converse. Most people don't like this thing and many are supportive when activists oppose it. They encourage, they cheer us on, but mostly they don't join in. But having taken action I know why not; it's to avoid the emotional discomfort that the thing induces. Its media system is full of suggestions that you'll make yourself unpopular if you oppose "normality" and, ironically, that the way to be a hero is to master some form of dominance or wielding of great power over "the bad".
So there +is+ a social problem but it's induced by the media, and by stories descended from less recent media, back and back, and if the media went away so would the problem. It doesn't arise from people's essence, people want to "get away from it all" and "get back to nature" in their leisure time. It has been easy enough for the thing's media to convince us that an existence in nature is terrifying and torturous because we're already alienated over generations, we lack experience and appropriate skills. But as our world falls further and faster into disaster, so those stories become more widely questioned and lose their power.
– – – – – – –
By naming the thing "neoliberal capitalism" I'm not implying that eco-socialism is the remedy, just that "neoliberal capitalism" is the current descriptor for this thing as it is now. That is not what it has always been, it has morphed between uncountable forms, but it has always imposed elements of colonialism, oppression, indenture, usury, slavery, induced dependency, occupation etc., because they're all manifestations of dominance.
But these are all +political+ terms, so we can't help the family of life without thinking and acting in ways that will be called political, whether we think of them that way or not.
– – – – – – –
So to return at last to my slight disagreements, dismantling modernity as safely as possible still poses scientific, engineering and technological challenges. Just stopping and letting it all decay is not the path of least harm; for instance, nuclear reactors shouldn't be decommissioned without expert planning. To borrow from Tolkien, the only way to be rid of the Ring is to return it to the fire in which it was forged. Tom, don't bin those gloves you hung up; your expertise is too valuable to abandon 🙂
Of course, the +political+ system as it stands wouldn't even permit us to start winding things down, but I'd definitely call that a political problem more than a social one. Politics is currently about domination. It needs to be about establishing and facing facts, finding maximal consensus about how to address them, and then leadership towards those objectives. Those three steps are similar to the Three Demands of Extinction Rebellion – Tell the Truth, Act Now, Decide Together – because they were my inspiration.
Excellent! That makes sense. I guess I was including politics as a social science, I think we're on the same lines here. The point I'm trying to make about engineering is that it's a circular problem. By the time you get to the point that enough people admit that modernity is the problem, you've already lost the ability to deal with its waste. Modernity requires scale, globalisation and supply chains, and so does its technology. I don't believe that there is a hybrid model – by design – where you and I live in food forests, and the nuclear physicists stay behind dismantling modernity. Sadly.
In terms of activism, the reason I've never joined in is because all the protests and things seemed to target specific things (climate, Palestine etc). They never seemed to describe the entire problem, and never seemed to promote the solution. Their goals of what not to do were often very clear, but what to do, less so. It seems to me that if these well funded organisations simply offered to buy land for its members so that they could set the example of living an ultra low energy existence outside of modernity (not completely, of course), then they could spread the message via lived example. Again, the philosophical argument would be whether activism that's spread across the globe in a series of individuals can ever dismantle modernity? I don't believe so, but I will congratulate those that do and are doing something. Our goals are aligned, I just don't really believe in that method of getting there if you see what I mean. Apologies if I'm rambling!
And Rico, we need more than the objective, we have to work out how to get to post-modernity from where we are now; it can't be done in one step. People's expectations can change, but only inasmuch as they see it is possible and acceptable. Already, as Tom has noted, humanity has passed peak births, and I attribute this largely to widespread awareness of the problem. That awareness came about through science and technology, as did means of contraception. We take a step in the right direction, it makes people feel a little better, giving them confidence to take the next step.
Of course we could go a lot quicker without the political-media system that's fearmongering and sowing confusion about every step on the path.
Very few people are aware of overshoot, and I don't believe that we've reached peak births because people saw overpopulation as an issue, and are targeting a lower population.
I actually do think we need to move away from modernity in one step. Taking a step in the right direction rarely happens, because the extent of the problem has never been defined. Taking a step in the right direction for most people is buying an electric car. There is no step from there to displacing modernity, is just a step in another random direction that ignores the problem. It is possible for me to picture, and design, a life today that cut out modernity, with a few interfaces in order to pay taxes, make a small income where required. However, it requires land, access to materials, water and probably a way to circumvent some building regulations. I can't get there by insulating my house, buying a heat pump or going vegan, because all those things are supplied by the system. Whilst you don't have to have the perfect non modernity working model from day one, you do need to be able to design a model that will work if modernity didn't exist and work towards that. That, for me, can't be done in a city or most towns – because they are all designed on the basis of an extractive model.
Anyway, it was good talking, you've managed to get me to articulate some thoughts a lot better than previously, even though I expect they come across as a splurge of nonsense! Thank you for this, it is very much appreciated. And, of course, Tom for supplying the forum!
Rico:
The three original demands of XR in 2018 were:
1 – The Government must tell the truth about the climate and wider ecological emergency, reverse inconsistent policies and work alongside the media to communicate with citizens.
2 – The Government must enact legally binding policy measures to reduce carbon emissions to net zero by 2025 and to reduce consumption levels.
3 – [We demand a] national Citizen’s Assembly to oversee the changes, as part of creating a democracy fit for purpose.
My first involvement was the first action at Parliament Square, Westminster, England in October 2018. Biodiversity loss and the assault upon nature was the main topic of the people who spoke. Despite press coverage, XR was never really about electrification of the energy supply, and many internal discussions and public statements were about degrowth.
It was a decentralised organisation with everyone encouraged to participate in decision making, and I argued against the 2025 'deadline', thinking it impractical and liable to hasten the decline of the organisation upon expiry – others put forward similar ideas, and the demands evolved over time. But XR was close enough, it was the best I'd seen by far, it avoided being a narrow campaign.
I don't think XR ever had enough money to buy much land. It has bought some rickshaws and materials to make displays and costumes; some sound systems, marquees and solar power rigs etc. have been lent or donated. It pays travel expenses from contributions to those who'd find it too expensive to attend court, and members offer each other somewhere to stay to attend actions and court hearings away from where they live, those sorts of things. But many members do help each other to live in less ecologically damaging ways. It's mainly a community, help each other out sort of thing.
– "Their goals of what not to do were often very clear, but what to do, less so."
That's why the demand is for Citizens' Assemblies. Finding or rather imposing alleged solutions is not the responsibility of the campaign or the activists that it's comprised of, and nor should it be. It has to come from everyone, from our collective wisdom in all our diversity, so the demand is for a democratic system that can actually reflect the will of the people – as opposed to the current ones that are all about one 'side' dominating the 'others', yet always subservient to "economic growth" and unconcerned about wellbeing.
To hope that Citizens' Assemblies might help does take a bit of faith in human nature, but maybe our modernity-knowledge is just obscuring our animal wisdom. That's likely, because modernity-anything tends to dominate everything. But we're still critters underneath, so…
– "Very few people are aware of overshoot, and I don't believe that we've reached peak births because people saw overpopulation as an issue, and are targeting a lower population."
I think that's true at an intellectual level. Nevertheless, people must be +just feeling+ that they want fewer kids. Maybe it's animal wisdom coming to the fore. Maybe it's a sense of foreboding about the teeming masses, the increasingly synthetic and unnatural living conditions, and the accelerating destruction of nature. Whatever. Somehow, something everyone thought was vanishingly unlikely is actually happening, and that's definitely good news.
– "Taking a step in the right direction rarely happens, […and] for most people is buying an electric car."
Those are down to the political-media superorganism thing. It obstructs understanding, and when it can't it subverts good motivations into promoting yet more synthetic stuff. Alienating us from mother nature by any means, to maximise its domination and control. It even destroys our hope. You can see a way to make a healthy life, but:
– "it requires land, access to materials, water and probably a way to circumvent some building regulations. I can't get there by insulating my house, buying a heat pump or going vegan, because all those things are supplied by the system."
That is why we have to act politically, as much as we'd rather stay out of that filth. We can't return to the Shire unless we go to Mordor and unmake the Ring, because Mordor dominates all it can and the Shire would be consumed by the time we got back.
We have to address the problem at its source. Only then will the nuclear physicists be +permitted+ to live in expanding food forests while periodically returning to progressively dismantle the dystopia that has been built. And the dystopian tools will be useful, indeed essential in that endeavour. Using what has already been made to gradually reduce its totality is very different from being forced by the superorganism to build ever more of it at an ever increasing rate. What's different is the +direction+.
Hang on to hope, Rico.
Or step back and accept Mordor's inevitable failure and trust that some humans somewhere(s) will live in right relationship, authentically embedded in ecology. Saving the monolithic enterprise makes for a good story, but doesn't seem likely. That's why just melting away has an appeal for me: falling out of love in numbers great enough to start depriving modernity of its necessary human sacrifice.
Tom, thanks for your reply, but I think you were mistaken when you wrote "saving the monolithic enterprise makes for a good story, but doesn't seem likely", because that's definitely not what I advocated above.
I'm saying that it's us humans' responsibility to stop making the mess and start clearing it up. Modernity's death throes will be hugely damaging to the family of Life, and it hasn't even finished growing yet; its worst is still to come. And I believe that our inner critters will be far happier undoing damage than they are now, forced by the malign superorganism into making things worse ever faster.
I've come to as simple realization and acceptance that the solution is collapse. The plan is not to do anything that slows that collapse. Let it go. Step aside. Save what whatever human wisdom you are able to save and pass on to future generations who may survive.
That's all. There's nothing to know and nothing to plan. People just need to be themselves and just get out the way and let it collapse. Collapse is the solution.
In the future those who come after us will work it out for themselves. What will be will be.
That's where I've ended up and many decades of worrying too much about it. Peace.
I divide my time between 'normal' things, trying to keep my hand-in with how human beings used to live, and studying insects.
Normal things are, well, normal. I take care of my mum, spend time with my partner, watch TV, eat, sleep, that sort of thing.
By 'how humans used to live' I mean that I practice, in an exceedingly modest way, bushcraft. That is, wilderness living skills. It has to be modest because I have no access to wilderness and my skills are poor.
I study insects, Diptera, in particular. They have survived mass extinctions before, they are not responsible for this one, and they will bounce back after, unlike us.
All the above is me being myself, as you put it. I totally agree with you, in that I do nothing, or as little as I can, to sustain modernity. In Tom's words I have 'fallen out of love' with it.
Recently I thought I could assist with making collapse graceful, but 1) people think I am mad just talking about it, and 2) it would require organisation, energy, complexity, money, communications, all modernity-type things; it would be self-defeating.
I think the collapse will be messy. It will be different in different places. Different character, different speed, different explanations given. I fear that ignorance will reign. That's probably the best thing about this blog: it is countering my ignorance. It is immunising me against all the false-ness to come. So I can at least maintain some grounding in reality, and that, surely, has to be an advantage, right? Maybe also, peace of mind?
In bushcraft circles there is a saying: knowledge weighs nothing at all. In my worst imaginings I can see myself being swept along by some social wave of some sort and I have no control over the situation at all. But in my head I will be carrying (some) knowledge of the bigger picture, that will weigh nothing at all, and which will help me to keep my integrity, practicality, (can't say 'humanity') and balance.
Best case scenario, though, is that I have more time to spend being myself, improving my bushcraft skills and learning to identify moss-specialising crane flies! Oh, and keeping in touch with like-minds, like, I think, you.
I'd like organisations like XR to articulate exactly what type of society they are aiming for or would like to see. What is the end goal? Then we can examine whether that end goal is even possible. For example, would people in that society be living in brick/wood/metal/concrete residences, using metal tools, have any appliances, be able to easily travel long distances, communicate without being face to face, and so on? There are certain aspects of sustainability that are non-negotiable (e.g. no use of non-renewable resources).
If it turns out the end goal is either not achievable or not desirable, then another approach is needed.
Mike, you could read XR's Ten Principles. They are our internal social and behavioural guide. But they're principles, not rules or laws, and sometimes there can be tensions between one principle and another. And that's how it should be, because that's how it is in the community of life. I / we in XR have no mandate to tell you how to live. Does a badger tell a fox how it should live? Does a badger tell another badger how to live? If we're going to escape modernity and live more naturally, we should accept each other's autonomy like non human organisms do, and get out of the mindset of "everyone must obey the laws", which always ends up getting gamed by the most powerful.
And Mike, how +could+ any of us know what the 'final' goal should be? Our minds are all warped by modernity. The best we can hope is that we iterate onto something good as we try to go the way that seems best. The journeying away from modernity should hopefully make us better suited for choosing our way.
Some objectives are pretty obvious and some things are more urgent than others. We have to reduce harm to nature as fast as we can, and every extinction is an irretrievable loss. There's plenty we have to get on with +right now+, without having to decide how everyone should end up.
Thanks for the pointer to the principles of XR. I will think about them in more detail and might even write a blog post about them. However, one first glance, it seems to me that XR must have a vision of goals. For example,
"2. We set our mission on what is necessary"
but one can only determine what is necessary in order to achieve something. The principles mention change many times, but this, again, means that the change must be in order to achieve a goal.
I do concur with most, if not all, of XR's principles, but that is simply my opinion. Others may have a different set of opinions and none is objectively better than mine.
– "2. We set our mission on what is necessary"
I think it relates to Principle 1:
– "1. We have a shared vision of change;
– to make a future fit for generations to come."
Suitably positive and vague, I think, seeing as we can't see the future and we're blinkered by modernity.
I will be away from the internet for most of the next three weeks (sporadic connections unpredictable). I will try a new experiment for this period, allowing posts from any who have had a post accepted before (will match previous name and e-mail combination). Please keep things polite and on topic. Forgive any spam or problematic content that makes it through. I may have some clean-up to do.
Oh, and while I hope nothing of the sort happens: if I get eaten by a wild animal, just know that I'm in awe of said animal, and hope modernity doesn't feel it has to retaliate in blood.
Dangerous, Tom. Haven't you read about the tragedy of the commons? This place will be in burning ruins on your return.
Enjoy; sounds good 🙂
Thanks for leaving comments open. I for one will try to behave as requested. As a former moderator elsewhere I think you've chosen the right setting for discussion to remain constructive, and for the future I recommend Akismet for spam.
There's a bit of hopium seeping into this thread, that I'd like to counter.
"it can't be human supremacy exactly because it dominates humans too."
It *is* human supremacy – it places human goals above all other life. Yes, it dominates other humans lower down the hierarchy, but that doesn't mean it isn't human supremacy.
"It isn't exactly modernity" Yes it is.
"Politics is currently about domination." Currently?? It has always been like that. Humans didn't evolve to live in civilizations. They evolved to live in small groups (Dunbar etc). That's why every single civilization, bar none, has ended in failure. Bill Reese gives a good account of the problem here: https://reeswilliame.substack.com/p/civilization-and-the-human-maladaptation
As for XR wanting "to reduce carbon emissions to net zero" – that only shows how deluded (if well-meaning) they are. The only way to achieve net zero *sustainably* is to abandon civilization altogether – but afaik XR are not advocating that. They believe in 'renewable' energy, which is not renewable. It's also worse than the FF it's contingent upon, in many ways, requiring huge quantities of concrete, metals etc – i.e. more *mining*, one of the most destructive of human activities.
I second Tom's feeling – "step back and accept Mordor's inevitable failure and trust that some humans somewhere(s) will live in right relationship, authentically embedded in ecology."