Good Conversations

Posted on 2024-12-24 by tmurphy

It’s Tuesday morning and I didn’t prepare a new post, having been busy helping birds and bats. Maybe, though, the holidays have given you more free time than usual, so that you can afford to take in a podcast episode or two. If so, this post introduces two conversations I’ve had that do a decent job of capturing my recent perspectives. Below, I provide links and overviews of the content of each, in the form of the questions I was asked. Do you already know how I’ll answer each one?

Human Nature Odyssey: Astrophysics for a New Stone Age

About a year ago, I recommended a fantastic podcast called Human Nature Odyssey, by Alex Leff. If you haven’t listened to it, the previous link allows you to get up to speed on past episodes. Alex reluctantly read an assigned book at age 14 that changed his life, as the book has a tendency to do. That book is Ishmael, by Daniel Quinn, which I have touted in a number of posts. It was a key part of the Reading Journey I laid out a while back, further expounded in a dedicated post, and formed a large part of the inspiration behind my proposed Religion of Life.

Alex and I have had a few exchanges over the last year, and he honored me with a spot in his season 2 lineup of Human Nature Odyssey, titled Astrophysics for a New Stone Age. Alex edited the conversation into a tight dialog, adding his customary soundscapes to create a podcast having a higher-than-normal production quality. Paraphrasing Alex’s questions, here is how the flow went:

What initially drew you to astrophysics?
Why do you call yourself a “recovering” astrophysicist?
How do you view science, now from the outside?
What inspired you to start Do the Math?
Wait: we’re not going to colonize space?
How can you say that your “space laser” is far less impressive than a simple amoeba?
How were you influenced by Daniel Quinn’s writings?
Could you describe your cancer diagnosis for modernity?
Why use the vague term “modernity?”
The modernity cancer has perks: can’t we keep those?
Are you suggesting that we go back to the Stone Age?
Do you still lament losing astrophysics if modernity collapses?
Are you using a map and compass on your journey?
What aspects of science are valuable in a post-modernity world?

I like the conversation that emerged, and hope you do as well. It should be available through most podcast apps, including this Apple link, and also via YouTube (audio only).

Marriage Proposal (Teaser)

The second conversation was with Josh Kearns on Doomer Optimism (episode 246). And, yes, a marriage proposal pops up. This is a longer conversation than the previous one, happening to cover some similar ground (astrophysics, lunar ranging). But it also delves into religion, which I’m not sure I’ve discussed in other podcasts. It then touches on the fertility decline story and demographic modeling. Near the end, I think Josh implies that I’m fat, or will soon become so. Here is a paraphrased list of questions Josh put to me:

What does it mean to be a recovering astrophysicist?
How could you do lunar ranging if the landings were faked?
What’s at stake in the potential collapse of modernity?
What’s it like to shed the mythology of progress, and does that make you an outsider now?
You define modernity as starting with agriculture: is that going too far?
Could you summarize the Metastatic Modernity arc and messages?
What’s your plan? Can this be a curriculum? Who’s your audience? Youth salvation?
Are we preparing today’s students for yesterday’s world?
What are your triage priorities: institutional or individual?
Can you explain what human supremacy is and why you focus on it?
What is your religious background and journey?
You seem to have arrived at a new religion of sorts: can you describe this?
Are there inroads to transform religions by carrying forward their best parts?
Big shift: why is fertility rate falling rapidly and globally?
How many completely wrong predictions can experts make before they give up?
How can global energy use peak before global population peaks?
What is the economic impact of declining energy use?
If facing near-term demand-driven decline, should we start prepping now?
Is there anything people fret over that they really don’t need to worry about?

As it happens, I speak slowly enough that playback at 1.5x speed is well-tolerated.

Tangelic Talks

About a month after this post went live, Episode 3 of a new series came out, so I’m appending it here. Here is the page for the episode. Note that a short article accompanies the piece, and additional questions and responses that didn’t make the edited conversation appear in textual form lower on the page. It was AI-generated, so might have some errors. The hosts were somewhat new to my line of thinking, so that this episode might be appropriate for others who haven’t been exposed to such reflections before. For regular consumers of my content, it’s going to be pretty familiar material. The direct YouTube link is embedded below.

Resistance Radio

Also out after this initial posting (February 16, 2025) is a second conversation between myself and Derrick Jensen (the first is linked from this earlier post, which covered modernity and the demographic fertility decline). You can find the conversation at Resistance Radio, or using this link to the episode. The conversation explores growth and its limits, as well as the impossibility of even holding steady at current levels. We also talk about why the obvious is obscure to mainstream culture, and what I would do if I were an energy czar. Derrick asks his guests to suggest sounds from nature for the intro and outro. For the first, I picked a chestnut-backed chickadee (whose chipper sounds make me want to laugh with them). For this, it’s a Douglas squirrel. I wish newts made noises I could use.

Crazy Town

[Added 2025.03.27] My friends from the Post Carbon Institute, Asher Miller, Rob Dietz, and Jason Bradford had me on their Crazy Town podcast recently. I enjoy each individually, and as a group: our conversations are always productive (and laced with humor). In this episode, after offering some laments over lost fragments of modernity, the guys have me define modernity, sketch my path from a technologist/scientist to a modernity critic, touch on why it can’t go on, and offer suggestions for falling out of love with it—while finding supportive community. It almost seems like cheating to do a podcast with such friends.

Egregious Inequality

Posted on 2024-12-17 by tmurphy

We’ve all heard the outrageously skewed statistics. The top 1%, or 0.1%, or even 0.01% of humans control an outsized fraction of total wealth (something like 30%, 15%, and over 5%, respectively). Because our culture values the fictional construct of money far more than is warranted, and the ultra-rich have a hell of a lot of it, they acquire status and access to power unavailable to almost everyone else. How can such a small fraction of the population possess such a disproportionate share of this resource—one that we’ve decided bestows influence and power? It doesn’t seem at all fair.

But, money isn’t the only disproportionate power-conferring asset on this planet. What else does our culture value above almost all else? Brains. What—are we zombies?! Large brains are what (we tell ourselves) set us apart from mere animals—taken to justify a sense superiority. Earth belongs to us. We can do whatever we want, because we’re the ones with the big brains: the self-declared winner of evolution—as if it’s even possible to have a winner in an interdependent community. Through innovation and technology development, we now wield god-like power over the rest of life on Earth—for a short time, anyway, until it becomes obvious that “winning” translates to “everybody loses.”

Given our similar tendencies to overvalue money and brains, I was motivated to compare inequality in brain mass within the community of life to the gross inequality we abhor in financial terms. Is it as bad? Worse? Humans constitute 2.5% of animal biomass, and 0.01% of all biomass on the planet. We are also one of perhaps 10 million species, which in those terms means we represent only 0.00001% of biodiversity. Any way you slice it, we are a small sliver of Life on Earth—while managing to dominate virtually every ecological domain. As our culture tells it, humans are the deserving elites.

What fraction of the planet’s brain wealth do we possess? To be clear, in performing this analysis, I am not making the case that brains are what matters—far from it. But in our culture, our brains are cherished and essentially worshiped for their unique capacity in terms of ingenuity, allowing us to defy the limits that all other species “suffer.” What is our disproportionate share of brain mass? Is it as bad as 15% or 30%, like our egregiously-lopsided wealth inequality?

Continue reading →

Shortcut Brains

Posted on 2024-12-10 by tmurphy

Image by OpenClipart-Vectors from Pixabay

Brains. What are they good for? Why do we—and loads of other animals—have them? What is the point of evolving increased neural complexity? Brains obviously confer advantages, or they would not survive the gauntlet of evolution. They must also exact a cost, or every creature would boast a headpiece of enormous potential. If every living being had a giant brain—or even a modest one—the ecological web of life would surely fail, so that brains are a niche evolutionary strategy possessed by a small minority of species, enabled only by the presence and support of the whole.

Early brains—and I’m thinking worms, here—facilitated regulation of bodily functions, and humans preserve those essential features in the brain stem. Reptiles developed the capability for more complex calculations, assessing a number of simultaneous inputs to guide decisions of fight or flight, for instance. Selection (evolution) saw to it that these calculations were, on average, functionally “correct,” becoming more nuanced over time. We, too, preserve these well-honed instincts deep in our brain structure. As animals evolved (e.g., mammals, but not exclusively so), they developed a cerebral cortex and limbic system to navigate social arrangements and better adapt to varying conditions. This is where emotions originate. Some mammals then doubled-down on this nifty cerebrum thingy to develop a neo-cortex with all sorts of cool lobes (like the frontal one) capable of forming ever-more sophisticated mental models of the wider world—allowing flexible adaptation informed by years of development and model-building during a long process of individual maturation. Among other things, culture arises from this cerebral capability (culture being socially-learned behaviors that are not stamped in genetically, as practiced by many social animal species).

In short, brains serve to form mental models of the world that help us flexibly adapt and survive. Our models are not constrained to be correct, as long as they are useful in some functional, adaptive, average sense. I’ve taken to using the term “meat-brains” to help drive the point that brains are just organs—however sophisticated—and to poke at our cultural worship of brains, to the point of being dismissive of any life not boasting comparable cognitive capacity. But having a large brain is not everything, and in fact has demonstrated itself to be one of our greatest liabilities—by conceiving and enacting modes of living not ecologically contextualized and vetted to, you know, actually work in the long term—to the tune of initiating a sixth mass extinction. Like any evolutionary adaptation, it can be taken too far.

Incidentally, I wrote this and last week’s post roughly in parallel a few weeks back, and did not carefully coordinate their order of appearance: they might have been arranged either way. Some themes are common to both, but they might be thought of as siblings that belong together.

Continue reading →

A Mind-Blowing Leap

Posted on 2024-12-03 by tmurphy

As I settle into and continue to explore the perspective that modernity is destined to fail, was never a long-term-viable idea, and therefore represents a giant blunder, I keep running into thoughtful writings about what exactly went wrong, at its foundations.

A recurrent culprit—and I tend to agree—involves human supremacism (anthropocentrism), connected to a perceived separateness from nature. This separateness relates to a dualism that began with agriculture, eventually finding full expression during the Enlightenment. Its Enlightenment framing, chiefly associated with Descartes, drives a wedge between mind and matter—as different “substances,” for instance. Thus, while not my main interest, I keep getting routed back to the question of “mind,” as it continues to be a sticking point in dismantling the dualism that is generally agreed to get in the way of appropriate ways of living on this planet.

So, this post is about mind and consciousness, offering my reactions. Now, I should be clear that it doesn’t really matter if we arrive at the Correct Truth on this issue, to the extent that the recommendations emerging from whatever framework result in better alignment to the living world. Any prescription that advocates humility, right-relationship, reciprocity, being part of a whole—fantastic! I may have suspicions and disagreements about the underlying metaphysics, but who cares, in the end? Surely multiple paths can lead to similar ends. Thus, I don’t want to die on that hill, or subvert migration to a better way of living in a crossed-arm philosophical sulk. Nor do I wish to see efforts that claim theirs is the only way, rooted in Truth. Who are we to demand knowing the ultimate truth, anyway? Why should we—or any creature of evolution—expect to? Humility, remember?

Indigenous cultures adopted a diverse universe of stories upon which their well-integrated practices rested, and that’s all for the good—even if the stories are not True in a modern sense. What matters is the practices and attitudes the stories motivate. I suspect that we can likewise tolerate a diversity of metaphysical underpinnings, to the extent that they allow compatibility with the community of life.

That said, I will now address what I see as an unfortunate tendency in the drive to abolish dualism. Maybe it can lead to similar, good outcomes, but I worry that it preserves a tinge of supremacy, while failing to destroy the chief horcrux of dualism. Be prepared to lose your mind, as I have done.

Continue reading →

Political Perfection

Posted on 2024-11-26 by tmurphy

No matter which candidate won the U.S. Presidential election, about half the citizens were set to fear the end of the country. Rather than argue about whether each side’s concern is similarly credible, I’ll address a broader question. What, exactly, does a voter/citizen imagine the goal to be, and—given modernity’s transient status—is the goal anything more than unfounded fantasy?

I have difficulty listening to political rhetoric of any stripe, carrying as I do the conviction that the entire modernity project is an incoherent amalgam of stunts that is inherently incompatible with ecological health, and thus fated to self-terminate. Besides offering promises of more houses, more jobs, more money, more material comfort—which only moves us closer toward ecological collapse—the dream being sold is such a self-deluded fantasy as to sound like Santa Claus and Easter Bunnies to my ear. It has a similarly infantilizing effect on the population.

Continue reading →

Interlude Entertainment

Posted on 2024-11-19 by tmurphy

My apologies for abandoning a regular posting cadence. I helped my mother move across the country and have been distracted by a number of other worthy activities, like building all manner of nest boxes from on-site materials. Several ideas for posts are brewing, so I am unlikely to remain silent for much longer.

In the meantime, some may be interested in checking out a few of my latest media appearances. The most recent is an interview by Derrick Jensen for Resistance Radio.

The second plug is an appearance on Nate Hagens’ The Great Simplification, in a joint discussion with DJ White—whose heterodox insights I have long appreciated.

I am doing another podcast interview later today, and will post it here (rather than making a new dedicated post) when it’s out. [Update: ended up making a dedicated post after all.] I’ll test the new subscribe feature to alert folks when it’s available. So, consider subscribing to get e-mail alerts about new Do the Math content (information absolutely not shared):

I would appreciate some feedback as to whether e-mails from the subscription service are working from this site (i.e., not blocked). Please use the comments to let me know if you did or did not receive an e-mail (by mid-day Tuesday). I will delete these housekeeping comments, once they serve their purpose. Thanks!

Life Expectations

Posted on 2024-10-15 by tmurphy

A while back, I came across a fascinating paper from 2007 by Gurven and Kaplan on longevity among hunter-gatherers that helped me understand aspects of what life was (and is) like outside of modernity. My interest is both a matter of pure curiosity, and to gain perspective on how desperate life feels—or doesn’t—to members of pre-agricultural (ecological) cultures.

I wrote last year about the perceived perils of early human life in Desperate Odds, in the context that to us members of modernity, having never been weened from the teat of agricultural output, it seems like life without agriculture (and supermarkets) would be a virtual death sentence. Add to this a perceived vulnerability to predation from lions and tigers and bears (oh my!), and the mental image that emerges—as depicted by Daniel Quinn in Ishmael—is of a stressed and starving hunter following the tracks of elusive prey as twilight darkens, while a predator is close on his trail, audibly breathing. It feels like a knife edge of survival: everything has to go just right, but teeters on all going horribly wrong.

The core argument from the Desperate Odds post was that surviving to reproductive age was obviously common, or our species would wink out. This simple fact makes daily survival a near-guarantee—enough so that fear of death is not top-of-mind most of the time, allowing most brain cycles to go toward less-troubled, routine activities.

It was either in preparing that post or in connection with A Lifetime Ago that I ran across the aforementioned paper. In this post, I dig in to see what insights can be gained from survival models for various human cultures.

The Attention-Grabber

Let’s start with the plot that caught my eye and drew me in, which is Figure 3 in the paper.

Let’s see if it draws you in as well.

Continue reading →

Your Order, Please?

Posted on 2024-10-08 by tmurphy

This may come as a surprise, but people are capable of holding unsupported notions…unexamined beliefs and expectations. A common default assumption—often quite reasonable—is that conditions will continue in a fashion that is recognizably similar to the way they have been during one’s lifetime. Suggestions to the contrary tend to be met with suspicion—or even hostility in the case that the suggested outcome is less than rosy.

What if we presented possible options for future human developments—let’s say human population as a solid example—and pretend it’s a menu from which we get to choose. What outcome would most people see as the desired goal? What would make them happy, or satisfied? Which population curve below do you think most would select?

Continue reading →

Evidence, Please?

Posted on 2024-10-01 by tmurphy

I spend a fair bit of time asking myself the question: Am I crazy?

I mean, without really wanting to do so, I seem to have landed on a fringe view within our culture, which is not a comfortable place for me in a social sense. I don’t love it. The easiest—seemingly most likely—explanation for the glaring mismatch is that I’m the one off kilter.

My statement: Modernity (even if defining starting 10,000 years ago) is a short-lived phase that will self-terminate—likely starting this century.

Common response: That’s crazy. Just look around you! We’ve created a new normal. Humans have transcended the bounds of nature—no longer mere animals. Ingenuity has unlimited potential, and we’re really on our way now. This changes everything, and we will never lose our technological mastery, now that we have found it. Modernity is our destiny—and kind-of the whole point of it all. It’s what makes us truly human.

But let’s look at evidence: like evidence that modernity is a new normal that can go on at least as long as our species is around (relevant timescales are 10^6±1 years, or a million years plus-or-minus an order of magnitude).

What’s that? Zero evidence? Of course we can’t know. The future is not kind enough to present evidence to the present. Hmmm—maybe that’s because we’re so mean to the future, frantically robbing its lives of Earth’s bounty and biodiversity.

The basic observation that we can receive no evidence from the future cuts both ways, of course. I have no future evidence that modernity will begin shutting down within a century.

However, we are not completely in the dark, here. We know some things (see my previous post on things about which I can be relatively certain). As obvious illustrations, we can be super-confident that day will follow night in a consistent cycle throughout our lives, that we will each die someday, and that the sun will render Earth uninhabitable on its way to spending its fuel. In a similar fashion, we can lay claim to a host of other near-certainties even without evidence from the future.

Continue reading →

Certainty

Posted on 2024-09-24 by tmurphy

Image by Victoria from Pixabay

I struggle to strike a balance between certainty and circumspection. Our culture has a tendency to favor certainty, while one of my favorite and frequent fall-backs—seldom wrong—is: “we don’t know.” Certainty is often the hobgoblin of decontextualized, rigid, (only) logical thinking: an artificial by-product of incomplete mental models. That said, I feel that I can do more than throw up my hands on every issue. I can be fairly certain that I will never perform a standing jump to the moon or breathe underwater (without apparatus) like I often do in dreams.

Thus, I write this post in full appreciation of the red flag around certainty. Yet, in full consideration, I can indeed identify some elements of reality about which I can be fairly certain—to a reasonable degree. At the very least, these things would appear to be consistent with a robust account of how the world appears to work.

I’ll skip an exhaustive list of certainties, and stick with points that have some bearing on the meta-crisis of modernity. But for illustration that certainty is not misplaced, I think most would agree that we can function under certainty that in the next billion years, say, gravity won’t turn off; the sun will continue to shine; Earth will keep rotating to produce the familiar day/night pattern; if I pound my fist on the table my hand won’t sail through it, etc. We are justified in “taking these to the bank.” The items below are not all as completely iron-clad, but are helpful in forming a basis. I have asked myself for each one: “could I be convinced otherwise?” Generally the answer is “yes, I suppose,” to varying degrees, but some would be a tough pull, requiring solid evidence. Most of the content is a repackaging of points I have expressed before, but I hope in a useful, consolidated form.

So let’s get to it: here are things I am reasonably (functionally) certain about:

Continue reading →