As a young person in science, who feels that what I'm working towards a). won't survive collapse and b). won't help us live in the world on the other side of the Great Simplification, my question is pretty simple: how can I refocus my daily energy towards a career (career perhaps isn't the right word here) that is more compatible with a world on the other side of the great simplification?
Joshua, Hi, I'm a research natural systems scientist with some simpler but clear and accurate insights that might help you steer your choices. I have 40 years invested in exploring the crisis, unraveling a great deal of what's happening to us.
Our main problem is that world society did not learn the natural response of backing off when getting into trouble. That's what we all do in our work and personal lives.
However, as our multiplying number and scale of environmental crises developed our institutions redoubled their efforts to achieve the limitless growth that is causing them, repeatedly. Ooops!
What will help people the most is recognizing our world cultures made a grave, somewhat perverse, and maybe perverted, but unintentional error. Our care giving response could focus on relieving our societal blindness, particularly to what the boundless drivers of growth are doing (i.e. effects of limitless compound investing). Investors, in particular, need to start noticing the disasters the numbers have steered them to investing in, **and switch to** investing in system care rather than exponential exploitation. For any living system its greatest profit comes more slowly - as it matures.
With that started you'll be in a community looking for its real opportunities for finding systainable work for themselves that helps their world create more sustainable work for others. A great deal of work in this great war between our visions for the future, and we need "good lives" to win out over "more and more powerful lives."
So the main message should be along the lines that- on the road to prosperity - our world culture made a huge tactical wrong turn. It's a very simple steering error, one that seems to have come from science and business not studying how natural systems steer, another big tactical steering error! However lots of people know how to steer their own, their organization, and family lives... so there's a resource of knowledge of how to do that can be mined, added to, and shared.
Of most concern is what happens AFTER any new system's dramatic startup burst growth, that kind of growth, -- being a deadend, -- one that ALL emerging systems in nature experience. The often successful natural response to "noticing you've gone off track" is to "look around" to then reformulate your understaning of the situation you're in.
Happy to schedule a talk if this approach to *reframing our goals* as the workable path seems appealing. -- My research site is: Synapse9.com/signals
I think this is something we all need to consider carefully. In simple mode/ post complex mode, I think Nate has spoken of learning trades or services that people need no matter what, e.g. food, water, shetter, healthcare, and most importantly - love.
Nate, I am going to turn this back on you and ask How Can We Help You? By you I mean you and your comrades who are taking the relentless lead to get deep systems understanding out into the world. As students of your tireless work, we risk going down the path of despair and depression from what we learn. As you told me in an email, it is part of making the decision to swallow The Red Pill. And hopefully those go fall into despair have a network of people to help them through that. As a teacher and convener however, you must be feeling the same emotions over and over, and perhaps at a much larger degree based on the breathe and depth of your knowledge. Podcasters will ask for things like donations and 'likes' to build and maintain a following. But with the work you do, the last thing you would probably do is ask for, or admit you need a different kind of support from your listeners. So if we get to ask you anything, I would like to ask, "what can we do for you"; to keep you healthy, happy, and more importantly, to help you press on. You can tell us anything.
John Adams, Hi, I'm a research natural systems scientist with some simpler but clear and accurate insights that migh help the movement get out of its rut. I have 40 years invested in exploring the crisis, and have unraveled a great deal of what's happening to us, that's also not getting out, but should come quite naturally.
Our main problem is that world society did not learn the natural response of backing off when getting into trouble. That's what we all do in our work and personal lives.
However, as our multiplying number and scale of environmental crises developed our institutions redoubled their efforts to achieve the limitless growth that is causing them, repeatedly. Ooops!
What will help interested people the most is recognizing that it's a grave, somewhat perverse, and maybe perverted, but unintentional error. The response should focus on relieving our societal blindness, particularly to what the boundless drivers of growth are doing (i.e. effects of limitless compound investing). Investors, in particular, need to start noticing the disasters for the planed the investment numbers have steered them to investing in, **and switch to** investing in system care rather than exponential exploitation. For any living system its greatest profit comes more slowly - as it matures.
So the main message should be along the lines that- on the road to prosperity - our world culture made a huge tactical wrong turn. It's a very simple steering error, one that seems to have come from science and business not studying how natural systems steer, another big tactical steering error! However lots of people know how to steer their own and their organization and family lives... so there's a resource of knowledge of how to do that.
Of most concern is what happens AFTER any new system's dramatic startup burst growth, that kind of growth, -- being a deadend, -- one that ALL emerging systems in nature experience. The often successful natural response to "noticing you've gone off track" is to "look around" to then reformulate your understaning of the situation you're in.
So the question is, would this more people centered approach be useful to Nate. Happy to schedule a talk if this approach to *reframing our goals* as the workable path seems appealing. -- My research site is: Synapse9.com/signals and email: sy@synapse9.com
I would love to hear about the progress that citizens assemblies are making in the production of good policy. It seems that every time I hear of one, the results are creating positive change for the people involved.
They seem to answer both the need for education, but also for discussion and processing of that information in the service of change.
It has been 2.5+ years since you released the first episode of The Great Simplification. How has the way you make sense of today's converging crises changed since episode 1? If you could start the podcast over from scratch, would you do anything differently?
Have you considered hosting a guest who is less sympathetic to your views than the average The Great Simplification guest? I'm not suggesting a sensationalized "debate" but I think a dialogue with a more ecomodernist type could be helpful. Perhaps Hannah Ritchie, William Norhaus, or a similar figure. One of my main concerns with your content is that there can be a but of an intellectual bubble, usually your guests agree with your analysis more or less. For the record I agree with your analysis but I'd like to see what is created by adding some resistance to your thoughts. I also think it would broaden your audience and lend creedence to your ideas if they stand up to informed good faith criticism.
There's nothing better than a confrontation, opposition to put one's arguments through their paces. And why not somebody who has radically opposing views and can substantiate them in an informed way? One has to be able to defend one's position.
It would be great to hear your reflections about the details of an alternative economic system, how it might work, (e.g. banking, interest, inflation, debt, laws, national and global currency interconnectedness) what kind of roadmap would be helpful to implement it and how the new socio-economic paradigm might be promoted as being the most desired option so that most political actors really want to get their hands on it. Thanks heaps Nate.
Hi Nate, thanks for the opportunity to offer our thoughts for you to reflect upon.
I keep coming back to the idea that underpinning all our crises is our nature, as evolution has shaped us. I think our short time horizon, immediacy bias, and ingroup/outgroup orientation will always lead to the tragedy of the commons. I think that whenever we have the tools & energy to overuse our resources & pollute our environment, we will.
Yes, many non-technological societies have persisted for thousands of years in functional stasis with their environments. I would argue that all it takes is one group of humans to develop agriculture & extractive technology to wipe out all the others, as we have seen in the last couple thousand years.
I think the only thing that makes homo spaiens long-term sustainable is a fundamental change in our nature. Encouraging good behavior, even a massive religious upheaval... ain't going to cut it. We either become a more cooperative, outward-looking species, which requires a deep change in every individual, or we just keep trashing the planet.
I'm not giving up. I believe we can't gve up & we have to try to improve ourselves, but I have no realistic hope we can turn the tide. I guess that's not a question, but it's the central issue to which I return over & over. Perhaps you have some thoughts on this. Thanks.
I agree that the predicament is our evolved human nature. In fact, I think humans generally underappreciate the strength of the genetic substrate. This denial of our own nature manifests in religions as the quest for redemption from a fallen state. Its secular manifestation is the various top-down schemes to create an idealized society.
The interesting thing to me is that by evolutionary logic this ‘creationist’ instinct should itself be adaptive. Perhaps it creates the cultural variability then subject to selection on the cultural evolution landscape. So, I agree with you that we shouldn’t give up on striving for solutions, but we probably won't be able to transcend human nature.
Very interesting thoughts. I especially like this:
"This denial of our own nature manifests in religions as the quest for redemption from a fallen state. Its secular manifestation is the various top-down schemes to create an idealized society."
As the metacrisis accelerates more and more people are seeking community, be it in the form of climate change aware “life pods”, regenerative permaculture communities or other islands of experimentation and “coherence”. My question revolves around this, specifically how best to organize in preparation for the Great Simplification or whatever comes next? What infrastructure is needed in terms of land and materials, governance, finance, data/information/technology, creativity and spiritual/mental health support systems, etc.?
Ecopolitidae, Hi, I'm a research natural systems scientist with 40 years invested in exploring the crisis, who has unraveled a great deal of what's happening to us.
Our main problem is that world society did not learn the natural response of backing off when getting into trouble. That's what we all do in our work and personal lives. However as the multiplying environmental crises developed our institutions redoubled their efforts to achieve limitless growth, again and again. Ooops!
What will help interested people the most is recognizing that grave, a bit perverse and maybe perverted, but also clearly unintentional, error. The response should focus on relieving our societal blindness, particularly to what the boundless drivers of boundless growth are doing (i.e. effects of limitless compound investing). Investors, in particular, need to start seeing what growth overshoots have them investing in, and switch to investing in care not growth.
So the main message should be along the lines that our world culture made a huge tactical wrong turn on the road to prosperity. It's a very simple steering error, one that seems to have come from science and business not studying how natural system steer.
Of most concern is what happens AFTER any new system's burst of dramatic startup growth, that kind of growth being a deadend, one that ALL emerging systems in nature will experience.
How does one correct a mistyake like that? The general formula for responding to "noticing you've gone off track" is to "look around" to then reformulate your understaning of the situation you're in.
What veering off track does is give you an impression of being in a situation very different from the one you're really in. So -- look around -- and start registering how growth systems that survive their growth change purposes at the time they need to. The successful ones switch to perfecting rather than multiplying what one is doing, and **looking around for what new relationships** they need to build to survive and prosper. It's a matter of adjusting to the new environment their growth took them to.
Happy to schedule a talk if this approach to reframing our goals as the workable path seems appealing. -- My research site is: Synapse9.com/signals and email: sy@synapse9.com
I like your work and agree with most of your conclusions. However, your approach is highly scientific, philosophical, complicated, intellectually elitist, and incomprehensible to the vast majority of people. And it's the majority that counts. How do we simplify the simplification to make the majority embrace it? To advance it from an intellectual exercise to a tangible undertaking?
Hi, I'm a research natural systems scientist with some simpler but clear and accurate insights that migh help you. I have 40 years invested in exploring the crisis, and have unraveled a great deal of what's happening to us.
Our main problem is that world society did not learn the natural response of backing off when getting into trouble. That's what we all do in our work and personal lives. However as our multiplying number and scale of environmental crises developed our institutions redoubled their efforts to achieve the limitless growth causing them, again and again. Ooops!
What will help interested people the most is recognizing that it's a grave, a bit perverse, and maybe perverted, but unintentional error. The response should focus on relieving our societal blindness, particularly to what the boundless drivers of growth are doing (i.e. effects of limitless compound investing). Investors, in particular, need to start seeing what growth overshoot has steered them into investing in, and switch to investing in care not growth.
So the main message should be along the lines that on the road to prosperity, our world culture made a huge tactical wrong turn. It's a very simple steering error, one that seems to have come from science and business not studying how natural systems steer, another big tactical error!
Of most concern is what happens AFTER any new system's dramatic startup burst growth, that kind of growth, -- being a deadend, -- one that ALL emerging systems in nature experience. The often successful natural response to "noticing you've gone off track" is to "look around" to then reformulate your understaning of the situation you're in.
Happy to schedule a talk if this approach to reframing our goals as the workable path seems appealing. -- My research site is: Synapse9.com/signals and email: sy@synapse9.com
Identifying the problems is relatively easy, in an academic fashion. So is preaching to the choir.
My question was about the vast majority of people out there who don't give a flying monkey. Because they don't care, don't have the mental capacity to care, are too impoverished to care, couldn't care less, etcetera.
In other words, is there anything that can be done to make a critical mass of people change their behavior before they're forced to do so because the poop will really hit the fan or some dictator will impose draconian measures or some other nefarious event happens?
Yes, it's quite shocking to access the situation and find that. I think what we have at root is a failure of insight, leaving us caught in a rut. My view is that it has a long history, of bosses driving workers to perform beyond expectation to keep teir jobs, shaping our societies for perhaps literally 10,000 years or so. There was definitely a shift of that kind, from ancient societies that, as individuals do, sensed their limits and backed off when in danger. Then... with the advance of the more creative work, those societies became driven to create more and more, ever faster, to give us our boundless growth world today, unaware of any limit.
What does that researched long view suggest to you? I'm saying nearly all of humanity may have become culturally enslaved to pursue growth as a cost of individual survival, though not forced to pursue it at home.
For me that 'deal' both focuses and sharply limits the choices, calling for a cognitive revolution in most places, at least I hope do! A violent revolution would not convert those operating out systems, a community we really need to convert.
Indeed, the predicament humankind is facing dates back a long time. Millennia in the general sense and centuries as regards the carbon-driven exploitation of resources.
One major factor probably is the fact that until relatively recently, that is decades, data wasn't readily available on a global scale. The Internet has changed that, making it easier to see phenomena affecting the whole Earth.
At the core of everything is human behavior, its cultural underpinnings. Right now, humanity is on the course of consuming everything left and right, destroying everything in the process indiscriminately. It feels too good to resist, plus people have been encouraged to do that for generations and generations (consumerist capitalism). This culture gotta change somehow first. People will have to acquire a raison d'etre other than unbridled consumption. How, I know not. The force of inertia is huge, it won't happen overnight. Anyway, historically, it's always the artists who spearhead change, then come philosophers, scientists, and engineers. Hence, the path to change is through the arts not through the sciences.
I don't find it complicated and actually really like those aspects of the discussions you mentioned (each to their own I guess) and I am not in any way an intellectual elitist. The trouble is that the vast majority aren't really interested - they are mainly concerned with cost-of-living pressures, finding somewhere to live, earning a livable income etc etc. (in Australia at least.) Surveys here have found the concern of the general public about climate change has gone down in the last few years and our Government keeps telling us that all we need to do is add more and more renewable energy as if that is going to solve the climate change problem and people seem to be taken in by that (I suppose because we can't face the reality of our situation). In Australia we are destroying natural habitat, building roads, housing estates, driving our cars and flying overseas more than ever. We are all in major denial and it seems that most of us want to stay that way.
Try to discuss any of the issues analyzed in the simplification podcasts with the average Joe - the guy that in the end matters the most. They wouldn't have the first clue what you're talking about.
Up here in New England we are now in the neverending rainy seasons. Climate collapse has arrived as far as our prospects are concerned. Many of our towns and cities are in flood plains and won't have the money to keep repairing flooded infrastructure. So we have to make some hard choices and don't have any concrete models of how to adapt to this predicament.
We would love to help create some model communities that can adapt with grace and common purpose, but finding models of how to do it, within the limits of American culture, is really hard. You have talked in the past of the power of "islands of coherence" but what does that mean at the concrete level such as we are facing in Vermont?
Nate your TGS covers so many environmental and ecological areas impacted by human behaviour (human predicament): Climate change, Loss of biodiversity, Air pollution, Ocean health, Water pollution, Overpopulation, Energy use, Weather events, which you and many of expert/scientific guests have discussed. All of the above areas are converging forming the meta and polycrisis leading to humanity’s most dangerous predicament and the greatest threat to its survival.
I believe the first to trigger the greatest threat to humanity’s survival will be humanity’s access to energy specifically flammable fossils in particular Oil.
My Question: What do you believe is humanity’s nearest (in time) greatest threat, and what would you realistically propose to avoid its worst effects ?🤔
Would love to hear what you think of the idea of the Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC) that the U.S. and many other countries are considering and the impact it will/could have on our society. You could interview Nicholas Anthony, who recently published a book titled “Digital Currency or Digital Control”. Provocative title.
I’d like to amplify this suggestion if I May, by suggesting inviting MMT scholars on to your show, to give their insights into how the economy actually works, and how this lens can help in envisaging a more regenerative way of provisioning the economy and society.
In his latest youtube series entitled `Metastatic Modernity` Tom Murphy goes where you seem unwilling to. He flat out argues that we are going to lose modernity. Do you agree with him and how often do you find yourself filtering certain viewpoints because they're just too difficult to stomach?
I’m an electrical engineer, living in the Seattle area, USA. I became aware of the biodiversity and pollinator crisis almost a year ago. In response, I put all of my energy into converting every inch of my small property into a pollinator garden. This summer, I decided to quit my high paying job in tech to focus all of my time and energy towards “saving nature”. Then I watched “the great simplification” and my life shattered. I am really struggling with despair. The primary source of my despair is living alone with all this. I finally found a “climate aware” therapist and literally have to pay someone to talk to about this stuff. I am aware of the privilege I have to even have that as an option. My question for you is, how can I help? I have the skills and resources to start a non profit myself, etc… but the problems are too great for the few that are willing to take action in silos. Thanks for all you are doing.
My question is whether the humans can evolve in a direction other than the assumed convergence between Human and AI intelligence and if so, what might that look like? Might there be another kind of convergence of minds, with other (non-human) minds?
Hi Nate, I'm deeply grateful for your work, and through TGS, for sharing your journey towards a better understanding of our predicament. I feel that a change in consciousness is essential for a desirable, viable future to manifest. And yet the first obstacle is ' expanding the overton window' (to quote you). Which approaches can help us get through people's cognitive biases? BTW I hope you can find the time to finish reading The Matter With Things - I'm in the middle of it and savouring every page!
As a young person in science, who feels that what I'm working towards a). won't survive collapse and b). won't help us live in the world on the other side of the Great Simplification, my question is pretty simple: how can I refocus my daily energy towards a career (career perhaps isn't the right word here) that is more compatible with a world on the other side of the great simplification?
My suggestions:
1) Be adaptable. 2) Focus on skills that have to do with the real world, making things, growing stuff, building using basic tools and resources.
This is a fantastic question. I would love to see Nate address this!
Joshua, Hi, I'm a research natural systems scientist with some simpler but clear and accurate insights that might help you steer your choices. I have 40 years invested in exploring the crisis, unraveling a great deal of what's happening to us.
Our main problem is that world society did not learn the natural response of backing off when getting into trouble. That's what we all do in our work and personal lives.
However, as our multiplying number and scale of environmental crises developed our institutions redoubled their efforts to achieve the limitless growth that is causing them, repeatedly. Ooops!
What will help people the most is recognizing our world cultures made a grave, somewhat perverse, and maybe perverted, but unintentional error. Our care giving response could focus on relieving our societal blindness, particularly to what the boundless drivers of growth are doing (i.e. effects of limitless compound investing). Investors, in particular, need to start noticing the disasters the numbers have steered them to investing in, **and switch to** investing in system care rather than exponential exploitation. For any living system its greatest profit comes more slowly - as it matures.
With that started you'll be in a community looking for its real opportunities for finding systainable work for themselves that helps their world create more sustainable work for others. A great deal of work in this great war between our visions for the future, and we need "good lives" to win out over "more and more powerful lives."
So the main message should be along the lines that- on the road to prosperity - our world culture made a huge tactical wrong turn. It's a very simple steering error, one that seems to have come from science and business not studying how natural systems steer, another big tactical steering error! However lots of people know how to steer their own, their organization, and family lives... so there's a resource of knowledge of how to do that can be mined, added to, and shared.
Of most concern is what happens AFTER any new system's dramatic startup burst growth, that kind of growth, -- being a deadend, -- one that ALL emerging systems in nature experience. The often successful natural response to "noticing you've gone off track" is to "look around" to then reformulate your understaning of the situation you're in.
Happy to schedule a talk if this approach to *reframing our goals* as the workable path seems appealing. -- My research site is: Synapse9.com/signals
I think this is something we all need to consider carefully. In simple mode/ post complex mode, I think Nate has spoken of learning trades or services that people need no matter what, e.g. food, water, shetter, healthcare, and most importantly - love.
Nate, I am going to turn this back on you and ask How Can We Help You? By you I mean you and your comrades who are taking the relentless lead to get deep systems understanding out into the world. As students of your tireless work, we risk going down the path of despair and depression from what we learn. As you told me in an email, it is part of making the decision to swallow The Red Pill. And hopefully those go fall into despair have a network of people to help them through that. As a teacher and convener however, you must be feeling the same emotions over and over, and perhaps at a much larger degree based on the breathe and depth of your knowledge. Podcasters will ask for things like donations and 'likes' to build and maintain a following. But with the work you do, the last thing you would probably do is ask for, or admit you need a different kind of support from your listeners. So if we get to ask you anything, I would like to ask, "what can we do for you"; to keep you healthy, happy, and more importantly, to help you press on. You can tell us anything.
.
John Adams, Hi, I'm a research natural systems scientist with some simpler but clear and accurate insights that migh help the movement get out of its rut. I have 40 years invested in exploring the crisis, and have unraveled a great deal of what's happening to us, that's also not getting out, but should come quite naturally.
Our main problem is that world society did not learn the natural response of backing off when getting into trouble. That's what we all do in our work and personal lives.
However, as our multiplying number and scale of environmental crises developed our institutions redoubled their efforts to achieve the limitless growth that is causing them, repeatedly. Ooops!
What will help interested people the most is recognizing that it's a grave, somewhat perverse, and maybe perverted, but unintentional error. The response should focus on relieving our societal blindness, particularly to what the boundless drivers of growth are doing (i.e. effects of limitless compound investing). Investors, in particular, need to start noticing the disasters for the planed the investment numbers have steered them to investing in, **and switch to** investing in system care rather than exponential exploitation. For any living system its greatest profit comes more slowly - as it matures.
So the main message should be along the lines that- on the road to prosperity - our world culture made a huge tactical wrong turn. It's a very simple steering error, one that seems to have come from science and business not studying how natural systems steer, another big tactical steering error! However lots of people know how to steer their own and their organization and family lives... so there's a resource of knowledge of how to do that.
Of most concern is what happens AFTER any new system's dramatic startup burst growth, that kind of growth, -- being a deadend, -- one that ALL emerging systems in nature experience. The often successful natural response to "noticing you've gone off track" is to "look around" to then reformulate your understaning of the situation you're in.
So the question is, would this more people centered approach be useful to Nate. Happy to schedule a talk if this approach to *reframing our goals* as the workable path seems appealing. -- My research site is: Synapse9.com/signals and email: sy@synapse9.com
I would love to hear about the progress that citizens assemblies are making in the production of good policy. It seems that every time I hear of one, the results are creating positive change for the people involved.
They seem to answer both the need for education, but also for discussion and processing of that information in the service of change.
It has been 2.5+ years since you released the first episode of The Great Simplification. How has the way you make sense of today's converging crises changed since episode 1? If you could start the podcast over from scratch, would you do anything differently?
Have you considered hosting a guest who is less sympathetic to your views than the average The Great Simplification guest? I'm not suggesting a sensationalized "debate" but I think a dialogue with a more ecomodernist type could be helpful. Perhaps Hannah Ritchie, William Norhaus, or a similar figure. One of my main concerns with your content is that there can be a but of an intellectual bubble, usually your guests agree with your analysis more or less. For the record I agree with your analysis but I'd like to see what is created by adding some resistance to your thoughts. I also think it would broaden your audience and lend creedence to your ideas if they stand up to informed good faith criticism.
ABSOLUTELY!
There's nothing better than a confrontation, opposition to put one's arguments through their paces. And why not somebody who has radically opposing views and can substantiate them in an informed way? One has to be able to defend one's position.
It would be great to hear your reflections about the details of an alternative economic system, how it might work, (e.g. banking, interest, inflation, debt, laws, national and global currency interconnectedness) what kind of roadmap would be helpful to implement it and how the new socio-economic paradigm might be promoted as being the most desired option so that most political actors really want to get their hands on it. Thanks heaps Nate.
Hi Nate, thanks for the opportunity to offer our thoughts for you to reflect upon.
I keep coming back to the idea that underpinning all our crises is our nature, as evolution has shaped us. I think our short time horizon, immediacy bias, and ingroup/outgroup orientation will always lead to the tragedy of the commons. I think that whenever we have the tools & energy to overuse our resources & pollute our environment, we will.
Yes, many non-technological societies have persisted for thousands of years in functional stasis with their environments. I would argue that all it takes is one group of humans to develop agriculture & extractive technology to wipe out all the others, as we have seen in the last couple thousand years.
I think the only thing that makes homo spaiens long-term sustainable is a fundamental change in our nature. Encouraging good behavior, even a massive religious upheaval... ain't going to cut it. We either become a more cooperative, outward-looking species, which requires a deep change in every individual, or we just keep trashing the planet.
I'm not giving up. I believe we can't gve up & we have to try to improve ourselves, but I have no realistic hope we can turn the tide. I guess that's not a question, but it's the central issue to which I return over & over. Perhaps you have some thoughts on this. Thanks.
I agree that the predicament is our evolved human nature. In fact, I think humans generally underappreciate the strength of the genetic substrate. This denial of our own nature manifests in religions as the quest for redemption from a fallen state. Its secular manifestation is the various top-down schemes to create an idealized society.
The interesting thing to me is that by evolutionary logic this ‘creationist’ instinct should itself be adaptive. Perhaps it creates the cultural variability then subject to selection on the cultural evolution landscape. So, I agree with you that we shouldn’t give up on striving for solutions, but we probably won't be able to transcend human nature.
Very interesting thoughts. I especially like this:
"This denial of our own nature manifests in religions as the quest for redemption from a fallen state. Its secular manifestation is the various top-down schemes to create an idealized society."
As the metacrisis accelerates more and more people are seeking community, be it in the form of climate change aware “life pods”, regenerative permaculture communities or other islands of experimentation and “coherence”. My question revolves around this, specifically how best to organize in preparation for the Great Simplification or whatever comes next? What infrastructure is needed in terms of land and materials, governance, finance, data/information/technology, creativity and spiritual/mental health support systems, etc.?
Ecopolitidae, Hi, I'm a research natural systems scientist with 40 years invested in exploring the crisis, who has unraveled a great deal of what's happening to us.
Our main problem is that world society did not learn the natural response of backing off when getting into trouble. That's what we all do in our work and personal lives. However as the multiplying environmental crises developed our institutions redoubled their efforts to achieve limitless growth, again and again. Ooops!
What will help interested people the most is recognizing that grave, a bit perverse and maybe perverted, but also clearly unintentional, error. The response should focus on relieving our societal blindness, particularly to what the boundless drivers of boundless growth are doing (i.e. effects of limitless compound investing). Investors, in particular, need to start seeing what growth overshoots have them investing in, and switch to investing in care not growth.
So the main message should be along the lines that our world culture made a huge tactical wrong turn on the road to prosperity. It's a very simple steering error, one that seems to have come from science and business not studying how natural system steer.
Of most concern is what happens AFTER any new system's burst of dramatic startup growth, that kind of growth being a deadend, one that ALL emerging systems in nature will experience.
How does one correct a mistyake like that? The general formula for responding to "noticing you've gone off track" is to "look around" to then reformulate your understaning of the situation you're in.
What veering off track does is give you an impression of being in a situation very different from the one you're really in. So -- look around -- and start registering how growth systems that survive their growth change purposes at the time they need to. The successful ones switch to perfecting rather than multiplying what one is doing, and **looking around for what new relationships** they need to build to survive and prosper. It's a matter of adjusting to the new environment their growth took them to.
Happy to schedule a talk if this approach to reframing our goals as the workable path seems appealing. -- My research site is: Synapse9.com/signals and email: sy@synapse9.com
I like your work and agree with most of your conclusions. However, your approach is highly scientific, philosophical, complicated, intellectually elitist, and incomprehensible to the vast majority of people. And it's the majority that counts. How do we simplify the simplification to make the majority embrace it? To advance it from an intellectual exercise to a tangible undertaking?
Hi, I'm a research natural systems scientist with some simpler but clear and accurate insights that migh help you. I have 40 years invested in exploring the crisis, and have unraveled a great deal of what's happening to us.
Our main problem is that world society did not learn the natural response of backing off when getting into trouble. That's what we all do in our work and personal lives. However as our multiplying number and scale of environmental crises developed our institutions redoubled their efforts to achieve the limitless growth causing them, again and again. Ooops!
What will help interested people the most is recognizing that it's a grave, a bit perverse, and maybe perverted, but unintentional error. The response should focus on relieving our societal blindness, particularly to what the boundless drivers of growth are doing (i.e. effects of limitless compound investing). Investors, in particular, need to start seeing what growth overshoot has steered them into investing in, and switch to investing in care not growth.
So the main message should be along the lines that on the road to prosperity, our world culture made a huge tactical wrong turn. It's a very simple steering error, one that seems to have come from science and business not studying how natural systems steer, another big tactical error!
Of most concern is what happens AFTER any new system's dramatic startup burst growth, that kind of growth, -- being a deadend, -- one that ALL emerging systems in nature experience. The often successful natural response to "noticing you've gone off track" is to "look around" to then reformulate your understaning of the situation you're in.
Happy to schedule a talk if this approach to reframing our goals as the workable path seems appealing. -- My research site is: Synapse9.com/signals and email: sy@synapse9.com
Identifying the problems is relatively easy, in an academic fashion. So is preaching to the choir.
My question was about the vast majority of people out there who don't give a flying monkey. Because they don't care, don't have the mental capacity to care, are too impoverished to care, couldn't care less, etcetera.
In other words, is there anything that can be done to make a critical mass of people change their behavior before they're forced to do so because the poop will really hit the fan or some dictator will impose draconian measures or some other nefarious event happens?
Yes, it's quite shocking to access the situation and find that. I think what we have at root is a failure of insight, leaving us caught in a rut. My view is that it has a long history, of bosses driving workers to perform beyond expectation to keep teir jobs, shaping our societies for perhaps literally 10,000 years or so. There was definitely a shift of that kind, from ancient societies that, as individuals do, sensed their limits and backed off when in danger. Then... with the advance of the more creative work, those societies became driven to create more and more, ever faster, to give us our boundless growth world today, unaware of any limit.
What does that researched long view suggest to you? I'm saying nearly all of humanity may have become culturally enslaved to pursue growth as a cost of individual survival, though not forced to pursue it at home.
For me that 'deal' both focuses and sharply limits the choices, calling for a cognitive revolution in most places, at least I hope do! A violent revolution would not convert those operating out systems, a community we really need to convert.
Indeed, the predicament humankind is facing dates back a long time. Millennia in the general sense and centuries as regards the carbon-driven exploitation of resources.
One major factor probably is the fact that until relatively recently, that is decades, data wasn't readily available on a global scale. The Internet has changed that, making it easier to see phenomena affecting the whole Earth.
At the core of everything is human behavior, its cultural underpinnings. Right now, humanity is on the course of consuming everything left and right, destroying everything in the process indiscriminately. It feels too good to resist, plus people have been encouraged to do that for generations and generations (consumerist capitalism). This culture gotta change somehow first. People will have to acquire a raison d'etre other than unbridled consumption. How, I know not. The force of inertia is huge, it won't happen overnight. Anyway, historically, it's always the artists who spearhead change, then come philosophers, scientists, and engineers. Hence, the path to change is through the arts not through the sciences.
I don't find it complicated and actually really like those aspects of the discussions you mentioned (each to their own I guess) and I am not in any way an intellectual elitist. The trouble is that the vast majority aren't really interested - they are mainly concerned with cost-of-living pressures, finding somewhere to live, earning a livable income etc etc. (in Australia at least.) Surveys here have found the concern of the general public about climate change has gone down in the last few years and our Government keeps telling us that all we need to do is add more and more renewable energy as if that is going to solve the climate change problem and people seem to be taken in by that (I suppose because we can't face the reality of our situation). In Australia we are destroying natural habitat, building roads, housing estates, driving our cars and flying overseas more than ever. We are all in major denial and it seems that most of us want to stay that way.
Try to discuss any of the issues analyzed in the simplification podcasts with the average Joe - the guy that in the end matters the most. They wouldn't have the first clue what you're talking about.
Excellent question.
Up here in New England we are now in the neverending rainy seasons. Climate collapse has arrived as far as our prospects are concerned. Many of our towns and cities are in flood plains and won't have the money to keep repairing flooded infrastructure. So we have to make some hard choices and don't have any concrete models of how to adapt to this predicament.
We would love to help create some model communities that can adapt with grace and common purpose, but finding models of how to do it, within the limits of American culture, is really hard. You have talked in the past of the power of "islands of coherence" but what does that mean at the concrete level such as we are facing in Vermont?
Nate your TGS covers so many environmental and ecological areas impacted by human behaviour (human predicament): Climate change, Loss of biodiversity, Air pollution, Ocean health, Water pollution, Overpopulation, Energy use, Weather events, which you and many of expert/scientific guests have discussed. All of the above areas are converging forming the meta and polycrisis leading to humanity’s most dangerous predicament and the greatest threat to its survival.
I believe the first to trigger the greatest threat to humanity’s survival will be humanity’s access to energy specifically flammable fossils in particular Oil.
My Question: What do you believe is humanity’s nearest (in time) greatest threat, and what would you realistically propose to avoid its worst effects ?🤔
Would love to hear what you think of the idea of the Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC) that the U.S. and many other countries are considering and the impact it will/could have on our society. You could interview Nicholas Anthony, who recently published a book titled “Digital Currency or Digital Control”. Provocative title.
Hi Nate,
I’d like to amplify this suggestion if I May, by suggesting inviting MMT scholars on to your show, to give their insights into how the economy actually works, and how this lens can help in envisaging a more regenerative way of provisioning the economy and society.
Stephen Hale would be my suggestion,
or Steve Keen (though not strictly MMT)
In his latest youtube series entitled `Metastatic Modernity` Tom Murphy goes where you seem unwilling to. He flat out argues that we are going to lose modernity. Do you agree with him and how often do you find yourself filtering certain viewpoints because they're just too difficult to stomach?
I’m an electrical engineer, living in the Seattle area, USA. I became aware of the biodiversity and pollinator crisis almost a year ago. In response, I put all of my energy into converting every inch of my small property into a pollinator garden. This summer, I decided to quit my high paying job in tech to focus all of my time and energy towards “saving nature”. Then I watched “the great simplification” and my life shattered. I am really struggling with despair. The primary source of my despair is living alone with all this. I finally found a “climate aware” therapist and literally have to pay someone to talk to about this stuff. I am aware of the privilege I have to even have that as an option. My question for you is, how can I help? I have the skills and resources to start a non profit myself, etc… but the problems are too great for the few that are willing to take action in silos. Thanks for all you are doing.
My question is whether the humans can evolve in a direction other than the assumed convergence between Human and AI intelligence and if so, what might that look like? Might there be another kind of convergence of minds, with other (non-human) minds?
Hi Nate, I'm deeply grateful for your work, and through TGS, for sharing your journey towards a better understanding of our predicament. I feel that a change in consciousness is essential for a desirable, viable future to manifest. And yet the first obstacle is ' expanding the overton window' (to quote you). Which approaches can help us get through people's cognitive biases? BTW I hope you can find the time to finish reading The Matter With Things - I'm in the middle of it and savouring every page!