Since I posted my first musing-of-the-moment, off-the-cuff Frankly video over three years ago, 100,000+ people have started following the story of The Great Simplification. In the coming weeks, I plan to record a Frankly going over some of the frequently asked questions that listeners often have when digesting the content of our podcast.
If you’ve ever tried having a conversation about The Great Simplification with someone, I’m sure you’ve run into some of these, “Yeah, but what about…” questions. Feel free to share any common roadblocks that you’ve noticed when talking about these topics with others in the comments below.
I'll give a shot at offering some clear and concise answers to help folks better understand the systems science underpinning the Human Predicament.
Looking forward to hearing from you.
- Nate
In case you missed it…
In this week’s Frankly, I addressed how we, as humans, might adapt and take on characteristics that will allow us to face the coming challenges of our world head-on. Through a framework of “cultural mitochondria,” I explored 10 traits that will help to shape the way we move through and address the human predicament. These are not far off ideals to think about once, then forget about. These are behaviors that require deep and regular practice, perhaps one of the most important tasks of our time.
If you appreciate The Great Simplification podcast…
Be sure to leave a review on your preferred podcast platform! Leaving reviews helps the podcast grow, which helps spread awareness of our systemic situation from experts in ecology, energy, policy, economics, technology, and community building so that we can better understand - and respond to - the challenges of the coming decade.
The Great Simplification podcast is produced by The Institute for the Study of Energy and Our Future (ISEOF), a 501(c)(3) organization. We want to keep all content completely free to view globally and without ads. If you’d like to support ISEOF and its content via donation, please use the link below.
Thank you Nate for the really great content you share and your "Franklys". When trying to talk to different people about planetary limits, I am often told "yeah but we managed to solve the acid rain, the ozone layer, we will do the same with other sources of pollution". I try to indicate that for those 2 issues, it was relatively simple to change the cooling CFC and remove the sulfur, but that it is not the same with other limits. I really feel that the technosolutionism is the main issue of our time. Almost everyone is convinced that we will eventually be able to live on Mars, that it is juste a question of time.
I feel that although slowing down, reducing consumption and going back to real social interactions is very appealing to me, it is not a story that most people want to hear.
Hey Nate — your work has been a light for me in the long dark of collapse-awareness. It helped me move through epistemic panic into something closer to coherent stewardship. Thank you for the comfort and clarity “The Great Simplification” has brought me.
A few interwoven questions I’ve been holding lately, sparked again by your post:
• Is there a third stance beyond “there’s nothing we can do” and “we must stay hopeful”? A kind of grief-held clarity that can metabolize despair without collapsing into it?
• How do we tell the truth about energy descent and ecological overshoot without inducing psychological shutdown — especially in those just beginning to wake up?
• How do you hold the tension between articulating complex system breakdowns and not becoming yet another totalizing narrative in the process?
• And finally — as we watch institutions flail — do you see any remaining leverage in formal systems, or has the locus of transformation now fully shifted to the relational and emergent?
These are live questions for me as I write The Sovereign Self, a Substack exploring collapse-aware sovereignty, grief, and meaning-making. If it ever resonates to cross-pollinate, I’d be honored to connect.
Thanks again for all you offer.