The Moon At The Top Of The List

I am a big fan of The Gurometer. I actually appreciate some of the people on the list above—Nassim Taleb, and of course, Carl Sagan.

In the below we discuss a few themes and characteristics that we have identified as being common among the secular guru set. We distinguish secular gurus from gurus that promote ideologies or worldviews that are primarily spiritual or religious in nature. By guru we refer to the standard definition of “an influential teacher or popular expert” but our specific focus tends to be the subset of gurus who make liberal use of ‘pseudo profound bullshit’ referring to speech that is persuasive and creates the appearance of profundity with little regard for truth or reference to relevant expertise. The recurring characteristics identified collectively trend towards negative traits, so a high score on the gurometer could be regarded as identifying ‘bad’, potentially exploitative gurus who produce ersatz wisdom: a corrupt epistemics that creates the appearance of useful knowledge, but has none of the substance. The characteristics identified have not been empirically validated but are based on our personal assessments. Taken together, they help us in the task of spotting gurus in the wild. 

---

I have nothing against people of faith, but I am not a Reverend Moon fan—such vanity gives me the creeps. At any rate, even if you disagree with Reverend Moon’s placement on that list, The Gurometer is still an excellent addition to your Baloney Detection Kit. It might help you navigate the idiotic lies and shallow ideas that greedy, narcissistic goofballs force-feed us daily.

“Ah, man, the bull shit piled up so fast in Vietnam you needed wings to stay above it.” — Captain Willard

(Publicity, Public Relations, Advertising, Punditry, Preaching, Propaganda)

The only way to get away with not continually developing decent critical thinking skills is to be an ascetic and renounce the world as far as possible or surrender to whatever floats your boat. Let’s hope the “company store” will hold for a while longer; eventually, we will all have to face the circumstances of our addictions (broadly speaking.)

Some of us have had a good run and can be thankful for having experienced the best possible worlds.

Utopia will never come into the possession of Homo Sapiens. Utopianism is a fashion and dream deployed by despots and con artists. Whether "protopianism" can become a fashion needs defining. The age-old philosophies and arguments will remain—people will continue to fight over what, why, and how questions. The tools for "mind control" are more sophisticated and powerful than ever, and we are still the same people we always were, so old wine in new wineskins or visa-versa, whatever is new is old again, or whatever is old is new again.

Qui Bono?

Who will be the next King? What new church will arise from the ashes of stochastic circumstances? Our illusion of agency will be as strong as ever as we stumble into the future with our beliefs propping us up. There will always be those who profess to know the absolute truth, and still, people crush children with bombs with reasons and justifications for all.

Aftermath Studies

America and its allies have to go to war with China because China is getting too powerful despite having a different political system from the hegemon, the United States. NATO has to go to war with Russia because Russia is worried about its border security, invaded Ukraine, and you can't trust Russians. Israel wants the USA to go to war with Iran so it can complete its Greater Israel Project and ensure security for the Middle East because there are too many Muslims there and too much oil. Iran is weak because it's a theocratic State, but it's also perilous and is terrible for the world because its theocracy is Islamic. America is at war with itself because its political system is inherently divisive, as in, us versus them, as opposed to finding ways for a plurality of groups with differing opinions to come together for common causes.

The world, it seems, can't do business without traditional enemies.

It's a nanosecond to midnight on the Doomsday Clock. States with nuclear weapons are frantically updating their warheads and weapons delivery systems to gain offensive advantages because the truth is that the only defense for nuclear strikes is an undetectable first strike.

So, you "win" a nuclear war, what's next? I never hear people talk about the geopolitics of the aftermath of nuclear war. People never talk about living on a much hotter planet where the ecosystems we depend on have radically changed.

Should they occur, billions of people will die due to these calamities. Our world will be unrecognizable.

What's next?

Will we reboot and start all over, making the same mistakes? What makes us think the world will be better off after such destruction? What in our nature will have changed? Will Ukraine be a much better country 20 years after its destruction? Who will run Ukraine when too many Ukrainians are gone? Will climate refugees go to Ukraine to grow wheat? Once NATO defeats Russia and Western corporations control Russia, will Russian IT talent create tech startups for Western corporations in Kyiv? Will the Middle East be peaceful and have more oil after Israel has annexed Jordan, parts of Lebanon and Syria and expelled Palestinians from Greater Israel? Will God then be happy with his chosen people? After "The Administrative State" in America is destroyed, will the United States finally be great again because it’s a White, Christian ethnostate full of dutiful handmaids and manly men, isolated behind walls and oceans? Will Chinese prosperity be tolerated when China is owned by America-led Western corporations? What happened to the concept of sovereign nations? Will Western corporations make more money after a nuclear war?

After WWI, we stumbled into WWII. Over the past 80 years, we've had many undeclared wars and proxy wars. Global warming is accelerating, unleashing catastrophic cascading feedbacks worldwide, affecting our climate and the habitats we depend on.

We are not planning for the consequences of our way of life. Is it because most of us believe we can do nothing about these issues and the ideas, structures, and systems driving them? Is it cognitive dissonance, ignorance, laziness, or are we too spoiled to care?

Doomerism is the apathy one feels with a terminal diagnosis; it's the helplessness, hopelessness, and powerlessness one feels when one believes they have no agency; it's the lack of imagination inherent in willfully ignorant people manipulated by anachronistic ideologies.

Sometimes, it seems like too many people have given up, and yet so many good people are working hard to find solutions and create new ways of life rooted in peacemaking and more equitable and sustainable ways of stewarding ecosystems and managing precious resources. People are starting to understand material constraints and the energy systems we depend on for prosperity.

The status quo ends in disaster. People who love life will work together to invent a new way of life and prevent these disasters from happening. We confront and manage risk all the time.

We don't have to destroy our planet and the good things we have created. Communities working together to invent what's next is purposeful, meaningful, positive, and healthy. Let's empower people to innovate. There are many ways we can do this. Think of some and get busy with your neighbors. Today, tomorrow, and the far-flung future could be beautiful.

Frankly, The Gurometer and The End Times

"Greed is an addiction. It's a machine that must constantly be fed." — DJ MacHale

We laid the tracks for the machine, superorganism, modern civilization, call it what you will, a bullet train with its super energy system that has evolved with technology for thousands of years. The tracks lead to a Himalayan-sized granite wall, and the train's speed increases at a higher rate year on year. The kinetic energy released when the train hits the wall will produce an unprecedented extinction event. Maybe via nuclear war, pandemics, or rapid climate change, or perhaps, the elites will find it necessary to "mow the grass" using the tools of science, engineering, and technology.

So They’re Experimenting With Military Robots In Gaza Now

Global neoliberal fossil capitalism is busy testing autonomous robot weapons systems on battlefields. It neglects careful diplomacy and has a morbid penchant for game-theoretic rivalries dependent on financialized transactions that primarily benefit large investors. 

The propaganda machine tells us who to fear when we really should fear the owners of the propaganda machine. 

Frankly, I don't see any way we will avoid a rapid reduction in Homo Sapiens population as this century continues. Nate Hagens has some ideas about how we might mitigate the severity of the anthropogenic population crash and the sixth extinction.

Nate Hagens produces "The Great Simplification" podcast. Here is a description of his work from his website.

The Great Simplification with Nate Hagens is a podcast that explores the systems science underpinning the human predicament. Conversation topics will span human behavior, monetary/economic systems, energy, ecology, geopolitics, and the environment. The show aims to inform more humans about the path ahead and inspire people to play a role in our collective future. Guests will be from a wide range of scientists, leaders, activists, thinkers, and doers.

We have spent the last century harnessing enormous amounts of fossil energy to build a world of complexity like nothing seen before. In the coming century, humanity will experience A Great Simplification, beginning with the onset of financial and economic turbulence, followed by contraction. The ensuing simplification will be among the most significant events ever experienced by our species. 

Those who look through a systems lens can serve as early visionaries of a simpler life with new ways of relating to technology, consumption, each other, and Earth's ecosystems. 

Our system and its components, processes, and interactions are incredibly complex. On this podcast, we will try to 'simplify' the 'great' issues of our time to expand the number of people making sense of our reality.

Nate is honest, gentle, earnest, and straightforward. I appreciate his work and am learning a lot from his thoughtful guest experts.

He has a series he calls "Frankly," where he shares his ideas, thoughts, and feelings regarding his work. On Frankly #55, he talks about seven critical interventions for the future. They are all solid tasks that would help us improve our situation immensely if implemented by enough people worldwide. Please take a moment and listen to his thoughts.

If only enough people would implement these approaches. 

In my opinion, Nate is one of the good guys. He's not so full of himself; he's an educator.

Currently, there are plenty of intellectual influencers with great ideas on the internet. Some are annoying, egotistical narcissists with savior complexes. Decoding The Gurus podcast takes these types to task in an entertaining, if not, at times, somewhat obnoxious way.

Below is a description of The Gurometer from the Decoding The Gurus website:

The Gurometer comprises ten key characteristics of "guruosity," which the decoders will use to score the Gurus in future episodes.]

1. Galaxy-brainness

2. Cultishness

3. Anti-establishment(arianism)

4. Grievance-mongering

5. Self-aggrandisement and narcissism

6. Cassandra complex

7. Revolutionary theories

8. Pseudo-profound bullshit

9. Conspiracy mongering

10. Profiteering

If you are familiar with Bret and Jordon, what do you think about their "Gurometer" rating after viewing that episode?

In my ever so humble opinion, Christopher and Matthew are at their best when discussing Bret Weinstein and Jordon Peterson. Few online WEIRD geniuses have escaped their witty and sharp-witted criticisms.

I'm a bog-standard citizen interested in learning how things work—nowhere near Guru status, and as I said, Nate is an educator. He studies across domains so he can educate, hoping to empower us so that we can be part of solutions and not problems.

I hope you follow The Great Simplification podcast.

As you know, I'm a reader and have a book recommendations page on my website. I read these books over the last ten years, many during the pandemic. I also read a lot of articles and papers. I'm insatiably curious and obsessed with what makes people the way they are and civilizational collapse. These obsessions drew me to the online collective known as Sense Makers. Sensemakers include people like Jim Rutt, Daniel Schmachtenberger, Jamie wheel, Eric Weinstein, David Fuller, Alexander Beiner, Nora Bateson, among many others. Over the years, various cliques of intellectual influencers have had many monikers. "The Four Horsemen” and “intellectual dark web” are some other examples.

The Perils of Audience Capture

Audience capture is the bane of any decent intellectual influencer or online expert. Many decent minds have acquired Gurometer traits as their fame and fortune grew. It's a hazard of the trade.

Audience capture is a self-reinforcing feedback loop that involves telling one's audience what they want to hear and getting rewarded for it.

I sincerely hope that Nate and his friends can stay focused on the many good reasons they do their work and not get distracted by the attention they are getting. Their project is a very complex and difficult one. Sadly, I don't think it will meet with much success. The bullet train has a mind of its own that emerged from our nature and seems destined to self-destruct.

Here's why:

Homo sapiens living in large communities are venal, status-seeking animals concerned with social dominance hierarchies. 

Much has been written over the millennia; open any Holy book or a good book and think about all those authors and storytellers. Try to imagine the times they live in and the challenges they have faced. Think of all the violence, pain, suffering, and death they've described. Think of all the species and ecosystems that homo sapiens have impacted throughout our existence. Think of the impact we have on each other. Think of the seven deadly sins we can't seem to overcome despite sages, prophets, priests, priestesses, teachers, wise men and women, shamans, poets, playwrights, etc. 

And what about leadership? Our leaders are motivated by greed, status, and pecking orders. 

Of course, it's not all bad; one can feel love and perceive beauty, joy, flow, connection, harmony, peace, and wisdom from these stories and within communities and relationships. We know beauty when we see it and need it as much as we need to breathe. 

"I think of beauty as an absolute necessity. I don't think it's a privilege or an indulgence, it's not even a quest. I think it's almost like knowledge, which is to say, it's what we were born for. I think finding, incorporating and then representing beauty is what humans do. With or without authorities telling us what it is, I think it would exist in any case.

The startle and the wonder of being in this place. This overwhelming beauty—some of it is natural, some of it is man-made, some of it is casual, some of it is a mere glance—is an absolute necessity. I don't think we can do without it any more than we can do without dreams or oxygen." — Toni Morrison

We must have been doing some things right over the past four hundred years, or we wouldn't live in a world with eight billion people. Read Steven Pinker to gain perspectives on why things aren't so bad.

On academic freedom and civil discourse.

However, as I have said many times, we are all "accelerationists" now. 

Accelerationism is a range of revolutionary and reactionary ideas in left-wing and right-wing ideologies that call for the drastic intensification of capitalist growth, technological change, infrastructure sabotage, and other processes of social change to destabilize existing systems and create radical social transformations, otherwise referred to as "acceleration."

We can't control the genies we've liberated or understand the techno black boxes we've invented, and we sure don't know how these things will change our environment and impact our psychology, health, and ecosystems. We are running dozens of uncontrolled experiments affecting life with little concern for future generations.

Nate mentioned "The Fifteen Hundred," an allusion to the elite that "run" the world and how we must help them understand where we are headed. 

Inequality is the difference in social status, wealth, or opportunity between people or groups. People are concerned about corruption and social inequality. 

We hope that if the rich and powerful embrace a more sustainable and gentler culture, invest in it, and provide leadership, it will help us solve some of the problems Nate and his guests are concerned with. But what do you give a man who has everything? More control, and they'll never have enough. They are not wise men; they are rich men, and their wealth is all about having more control over more resources that will make them more money. Status, power, and the pecking order are what concern them. It's a feedback loop, an ouroboros. 

To the degree that peasants are necessary to sustain the Empire, they will be afforded certain protections. However, this isn't out of altruism; it's to maintain the elite's power and control.

All the data and information training AIs and LLMs is an ouroboros feeding on itself—what comes of it is more of it. Investing in these things exists to get a return on investment and create more control mechanisms.

The Ouroboros Of Machine Learning

Missed Out on Nvidia? 2 Soaring Artificial Intelligence (AI) Stocks to Buy Instead

Our culture creates people with addictions, and the powerful feed our addictions to maintain control. 

Powerful technology emerged from fossil capitalism, and ordinary people do not control it; we have the illusion of control. We feed the beast.

People in less wealthy communities are helpful and compassionate because they experience the difficulty, pain, love, and beauty of abject survival. They need each other because they are in a more precarious position than wealthier people. Their community has value. None of this is to say that poverty doesn't lead to stressful circumstances that can cause many pathological behaviors, violence, crime, and disease—poverty is a terrible thing, and we must eliminate it.

Wealthy people can buy or rent whatever they want or need and just as quickly dispose of them. Think of private equity, flash trading, and colonial exploitation of other people's resources. The pinnacle of control is to be a rentier. Own everything and rent things to the plebs and proles, so they are absolutely dependent on you. Code capital so you can do this legally and convince everyone it's in their best interest. Create scarcity and war to increase capital on capital returns while exploiting people's fears. 

Think about what your leaders do. Who do they work for? What do they want?

As people get wealthier in a material sense, the deadly sins become more pernicious. Call it "The Lucifer Principle," if you will. 

Unfortunately, even as I listen to good people working hard on solutions, I don't see a way out of our predicament. Every year, we invent more ways to accelerate the bullet train—the inner self-destructive urge.

Knowing this doesn't depress me. I see people doing their work and living their lives. Whatever circumstances one finds oneself in, it's a miracle we are here, and we are only here for a short while. Life will continue on Earth until it ends.

Nate experienced a profound sense of community in India. I lived in Colaba near the military security gate in Mumbai for a year. I have lived and worked in seven countries and grew up in two. I have never been banged up abroad. Am I simply lucky? I love and respect all cultures. I can't help it. Call it a weakness or label me a cosmopolitan. I love world history and the varieties of social and cultural expression. Anthropology, psychology, and sociology are all interests of mine.

Some people believe their sect has all the correct, God-given answers. I think we come up with answers that make sense and fit our circumstances.

All Holy books are eschatological and apocalyptic, except belief systems in cultures that didn't have to be too concerned with scarcity. Myths postulate what might exist in a higher realm where the challenges of physical existence are transcended. You have Samsara or an apocalypse, the judgment day, or you finally transcend the cycle of birth and death. Or, maybe you are the son of Zeus, one of many Gods, or The Son of the One God. Or, if you live in places like the Amazon, where scarcity and the need to defend precious resources are less intensely felt, you feel part and parcel of all life and a kinship with Mother Earth. You have an animistic sense that the world has a soul.

Our civilization commodifies everything; it's relatively soulless. Many people hunger for a deeper connection with things in the world, life, and each other. People think of creating new religions, but we already have many religious traditions. We need new structures, new philosophies of economics, greater respect for our limitations, and patience—we need time for inner growth. 

What experiences will transform us when we all aspire to have more, consume more, and covet a mastery of the tools that feed our will to power and longing to win battles within The Great Game to gain great fame?

When this civilization ends, and the scale of our communities is greatly diminished, we may return to a gentler, pantheistic time where all is sacred. We may once again live in harmony with nature and our nature. We may become the protectors and not the destroyers of life.

We may have never lived in peace; perhaps our destiny is the violent end of our species—no more birth and death. 

Some say the Universe is conscious. Some think we live in a computer simulation. Many believe all would be well if we had the same religion or ideology.

Let it be.

If you take it all in, you must take in the good and the bad. Is that being realistic or pessimistic? Think about all we have produced since fossil capitalism fully blossomed in the mid-nineteenth century and became unregulated under neoliberalism in the late twentieth century. Are these ideologies and things good for us, life on Earth, and the general health of our planet's ecosystems? 

For many of us, a good and healthy life would be much simpler, with better relationships and less stuff. If the train wreck doesn't kill us, it may make us wiser. One thing is certain: some of us will find out soon enough. 

Jamie Wheal of the Infinite Game Upside Down

Amerika in the Upside Down

Hamilton, Jefferson, NATO and the Border

True Karma

Comment:

"Think Globally Act Hillbilly" depends on how one thinks and acts, which affects both spheres. Oh, "The Varieties of Thinking and Acting Experience." Fossil Capitalism has made memetic warfare all the more destructive while creating wealth, lots of people, and cool stuff. Humpty Dumpty (the teetering idea man, always on the cusp of disaster) is constantly evolving, never broken, and can't be put back together because of the push-pull of creative/destructive aspects of the interplay between the laws of the Universe, consciousness, culture, and mind. (And we hardly know what we are talking about.) As we think of America's mythological/historical narratives in the context of a global scale on a longer timeline, I hear echoes of "The Lucifer Principle." Circumstances will dictate the manner of seemingly controlled panic we get on with day after day while we all play our parts in various superorganisms we know as culture. There never was an ideal to rebuild or revisit, only a particular set of ideas we've been pondering reasonably mindlessly for thousands of years with their slightly evolving narratives that shed light on the positive and negative attributes of our experience. A tiny fraction of people ride the infinite game train of thought. We transcend nothing. The Universe holds fast. Our species was always falling—fallen—and it all feels quite profound while we live. 

"Not forever does the bulbul sing

In balmy shades of bowers,

Not forever lasts the spring

Nor ever blossom the flowers.

Not forever reigneth joy,

Sets the sun on days of bliss,

Friendships not forever last,

They know not life, who know not this."

― Khushwant Singh, Train to Pakistan

The Putin Lecture

I saw the Tucker Carlson Vladimir Putin interview yesterday. I hope people watch it, not that they'll learn anything, but at least they will have taken the opportunity to do so.

Professor President Vladimir Putin Pontificates

It wasn't much of an interview; Tucker may have asked six questions in over two hours and responded to Putin for ten minutes. Tucker didn't ask any hardball questions (do entertainers ever ask hardball questions?), and it was clear he was out of his depth during Putin's history lecture that took up over a quarter of the conversation. Had he done broader and in-depth research into the geopolitics of the region and President Putin, he could have abandoned his painful, concentrated gaze, punctuated giggles, and pretentious smirks and gotten into the weeds with his interlocutor.

What Putin had to say did not disappoint. His lecture allows the world to understand that however evil one may think their adversary is, it doesn't mean they are insane or that their behavior is irrational.

It was clear that Tucker was a bit lost during the history lesson—understanding deep context is hard work, takes time, and requires a rare nuanced understanding of human nature. Towards the end, we seemed to get to the few questions Tucker prepared for.

Unfortunately, few people in the West have bothered to follow the mountains of data, articles, documents, lines of evidence, etc., surrounding problems the West, America in particular, has had with Russia over the past thirty years. People, in general, are not interested. They learn what they know about color revolutions, coups, regime change efforts, and "revolutions" from mainstream media, and MSM is discouraged from sharing most information about events. Those who control propaganda in the West, particularly in America, are masters of the subtle, fine art of deception and manipulation. Anyone who reads books and papers from various organizations worldwide knows this.

Americans primarily want to feel good, even if it's feeling good about being outraged or feeling bad, even if feeling good with recreational substances ultimately kills them. As the saying goes, "Don't look up." The critical mood to maintain is superiority, exceptionalism, and righteousness. Most people are unconcerned about other cultures and foreign ways of thinking about and doing things. To say they are narrow-minded is an understatement; most folks only want to know what they have been trained to want to know. Friends I spoke with at the outbreak of war in Ukraine had not read about events leading up to the war and had no knowledge of the region's history. What motivated their reaction to Putin's "special military action" was the feeling that Putin is bad and the West is good.

What will the reaction of the average American viewer be to President Putin's history lecture? I think I already know. "How dare Putler lecture us! That was his way of distracting us from the truth. (CNN, MSNBC, BBC, FOX) Tucker gave Putler a propaganda platform—the traitor. Make Tucker Julian's cellmate. Historical and situational awareness doesn't matter. Putler invaded for no reason other than to concure Europe. It's his fault. Putler is an existential threat to freedom and democracy and all the Western values we hold dear and The Greatest Generation fought for when they defeated the Nazis single-handedly in World War Two. The West must utterly destroy Russia."

Never mind that America has always wanted to destroy any country that didn't like to play ball. War is their racket.

I'm not saying that legitimate threats aren't there or that the West should be weak; I'm saying the West is weak in more ways than a few.

It's a truism by now that the US government believes that using force and sanctions are their only forms of diplomacy. I suspect this has something to do with big business, campaign finance, and culture. It doesn't have anything to do with American security. There are more effective ways to compete geopolitically in the twenty-first century. Mentioning the military-industrial complex is a tired old trope dating back to before the Second World War. If ordinary folks worry about overspending on military contracts, they don't care about doing anything about it. Americans love having a "strong," high-tech military even if they lose wars and accomplish nothing by having them. We like to think of ourselves as the toughest badasses on the planet, so we would rather let our nation's infrastructure grow ragged, our healthcare and education costs skyrocket, and pay higher and higher rents than give up that facade.

Our politicians are careerists, shallow thinkers, more interested in the revolving door with the private sector and financing their campaigns than a geopolitical strategy that has a long-term view with a desired outcome. The only aim for the DNC, the RNC, and politicians is to stay in "power." They don't have any ideas anymore.

Western media's response to this will be painful to audit. I will read a book instead.

It's mind-boggling to me that our leaders don't want to understand the thought processes of their opponents. Contrast Putin's language, logic, and thought processes with the leaders the RNC and DNC are putting up for the presidency: a narcissistic conman (love him or hate him) versus a worn-out, venal politician suffering from cognitive decline, possibly dementia and looking rather frail who will be 83 years old in 2025. You may hate Russia and Putin, but you can't say that Vladimir isn't an intelligent statesman who understands power, history, and geopolitics. He's not shallow, and his mind is as sharp as a steel trap.

What do American leaders want to achieve by wrecking Russia? There are always many actions leading up to the initiation of hostilities between countries. Wars begin before they become kinetic. All Nations have interests. I am still waiting for a clear statement of the US strategy in the region and what they are trying to achieve. We have yet to see an overarching objective because there is none. The whole chaotic business is simply about specific industries that benefit from chaos.

Is American leadership competitive now? Our competitors run circles around Uncle Sam, his Western allies, and the global north. Does Ukraine have enough soldiers to continue fighting for five more years? Is NATO willing to send troops to fight Russian soldiers in Ukraine? Why would they risk a world war? What will that accomplish?

Call me whatever you like, but I am as confused as Putin. Like the President of Russia, I want to see some Western leadership. Wealthy Western states throw money and bombs at conflicts and accomplish nothing but bloodshed. We are facing a global civilization-ending poly crisis that will take herculean coordination efforts around the globe to solve. We need to get our priorities straight.

Tucker Carlson's interview with President Putin was a huge and historic event that many bright and well-meaning people will analyze. I hope world leaders will learn something, and I hope something positive comes of it. I have my doubts.

Have Faith In Replicators

When I read an article, I think of all kinds of interconnections. This morning, I read an article about China’s current economic predicament and immediately thought of a Star Trek Replicator.

Galaxy Class Replicator

China's domestic economic troubles shined through as businesses across parts of Asia began shutting down on Friday for the week-long Lunar New Year holiday. Typically, during one of the quietest periods in the region, Chinese government officials announced they would take steps to ensure factories continued "maintaining stable production" amid the celebrations. Consumers are also spending less on pork and expensive foods associated with the Lunar New Year, while barbers are charging less than usual for the haircuts people get during the run-up. (Many people in China believe it's bad luck to get a haircut during the first month of the lunar calendar.)

The Universe is a mess of interacting matter that occupies space and has mass. Matter comprises elements that can't be broken down chemically into other substances. Atoms, the smallest component of an element, consisting of subatomic particles, protons, photons, quarks, neutrinos, gluons, and such, are attracted by forces and energy into various molecules (two or more atoms held together by chemical bonds.)

But look here, I'm not a chemist or a physicist, so let me continue my spiel by quoting a short piece describing how the Sun works.

Meet the Sun

The Sun is a yellow dwarf star at the center of our solar system. Earth and all other objects in our solar system orbit around the Sun due to gravity – the Sun contains over 98% of all mass in the solar system, and so exerts a strong gravitational pull. Like other stars, the Sun is a dense ball of gas that creates energy through nuclear fusion reactions in the core, producing helium atoms from hydrogen atoms. The Sun radiates different forms of energy, including ultraviolet, infrared, and light energy, out into space. Light and heat energy from the Sun warm our planet and make life possible.

God's most extraordinary creature is the Sun.

It is responsible for photosynthesis in plants, vision in animals, and many other natural processes, such as the movements of air and water that create weather. Most plants need at least some sunlight to grow, so without light, there would be no plants, and without plants, there would not be oxygen for us to breathe.

Egyptian, Indo-European, and Meso-American cultures had religions that worshipped the Sun. Almost all mythologies have Sun motifs.

The Sun and how it works, folks, is vital whether or not you know the scientific reasons why.

If I may be so bold, life emerged from the energy of the Sun. Like Carl Sagan said, "We are all made of star stuff."

3.7 to 4.0 billion years ago, the Earth was in a hypothetical condition known as the primordial soup consisting primarily of an oxygen-free gaseous mixture containing chiefly water, hydrogen, methane, ammonia, and carbon dioxide.

From this primordial goo emerged Organic Compounds:

The organic compound consists of any of a large class of chemical compounds in which one or more atoms of carbon are covalently linked to atoms of other elements, most commonly hydrogen, oxygen, or nitrogen. The few carbon-containing compounds not classified as organic include carbides, carbonates, and cyanides.

In general, organic compounds are substances that contain carbon (C), and carbon atoms provide the key structural framework that generates the vast diversity of organic compounds. All things on Earth (and most likely elsewhere in the Universe) that can be described as living have a crucial dependence on organic compounds. Foodstuffs—namely, fats, proteins, and carboh drates—are organic compounds, as are such vital substances as hemoglobin, chlorophyll, enzymes, hormones, and vitamins. Other materials that add to the comfort, health, or convenience of humans are composed of organic compounds, including clothing made of cotton, wool, silk, and synthetic fibres; common fuels, such as wood, coal, petroleum, and natural gas; components of protective coatings, such as varnishes, paints, lacquers, and enamels; antibiotics and synthetic drugs; natural and synthetic rubber; dyes; plastics; and pesticides.

From these organic compounds, life emerged.

Oh, the mystery of life. We could avoid all of this science stuff, all these things our God-given brains have figured out through various contemplative, intellectual, and technical tools we've discovered and invented over the centuries, and quote an ancient text and be done with our labored inquiries.

THE BOOK OF GENISIS

Or we could continue learning about our scientific theories and how we arrived at them and wade into the still controversial (in some circles) theory of evolution as a way to explain all the many forms of life that have graced our Earth over hundreds of millions of years. Multiple lines of evidence suggest that shrew-like mammals first appeared about 225 million years ago and were only a few centimeters long.

It's hard to believe that in 2024, science illiteracy is still so prevalent or that some people think science is just another religion. I believe one can talk to God and still be a rigorous scientist uncovering the secrets of the Universe. I can hold a conversation with Jesus, Simone de Beauvoir, and Albert Einstein at the same time while fussing about in my garden. Albert gets bored with my discourse but is still humorous and friendly. I often talk with Thomas Edward Lawrence, Lieutenant Colonel Sir Francis Edward Younghusband, and Miyamoto Musashi—I love adventurers. I talk with Miyamoto mainly in English because my Japanese is limited, and for some reason, Miyamoto-san speaks fluent English these days. I have a good imagination that feels very real to me. Can one really imagine things? I think, therefore, cheeseburger.

(Oh no, I was tempted to say something about the brain's workings, and I don't know much about that domain. What gives me the right?)

GOD

Define God as you will within the confines of your inherited culture. God must be familiar. I don't anthropomorphize God. I can't imagine a God as a Marvel Comic version of a homo sapien. Am I more pious because I can't make a craven image of the creative force or ultimate origins? Or am I a blasphemer because I imagine, however clumsily, a creative force not grounded in ancient literature? Anyway, I'll admit it: I lean towards Spinoza's God. Try as I will to educate myself in domains of science; I'm still a mystic. And I don't crave power enough to make people believe what I believe. "I command you to imagine thusly!"

Regardless of your belief systems, there are ways to explain creative forces that use the broader language and processes the practice of science has revealed.

The Theory of Evolution

One of our greatest scientific theories is the theory of evolution.

Biology, the study of life, is a fascinating domain.

A Side Note:

We all have to eat, and we all eat organic matter, even if it's a genetically modified organism. (Organism: an individual animal, plant, or single-celled life form.) Proteins, amino acids, peptides, fats, carbohydrates, cellulose, starch, hemoglobin, weak organic acids, etc., are all considered "organic." We modify organic compounds every time we cook.

At any rate, for curiosity's sake, allow me to quote an article at length on how we view the theory of evolution today:

Paul Lucas, Ph.D. in Biochemistry and Research Scientist from 1974 through the present, Studied at the University of Minnesota.

Technically, the current theory of evolution is the Modern Synthesis or Neo-Darwinism. It was formulated in the 1930s and 1940s. The Modern Synthesis reconciled Mendelian genetics and Darwin's evolution. Natural selection did not work under the theory of genetics — blended characteristics — known in Darwin's time. Mendelian genetics will explain natural selection.

Modern Synthesis; Theodosius Dobzhansky; The Modern Synthesis of Genetics and Evolution

However, the Modern Synthesis kept the five fundamental theories that constitute evolution as outlined by Darwin:

1. The nonconstancy of species (the basic theory of evolution)

2. The descent of all organisms from a common ancestor (branching evolution).

3. The gradualness of evolution (no saltations or discontinuities)

4. The multiplication of species (the origin of diversity)

5. Natural selection." Ernst Mayr, What Evolution Is. pg 86

Since the 1940s, there have been periodic calls to modify the Modern Synthesis for one reason or another. Many of those calls have been based on a very narrow interpretation of the Modern Synthesis. One attempt to modify the Modern Synthesis is based on the discovery of developmental genes and that small changes in developmental genes can have large changes in morphology and physiology. The field is known as "evolutionary development biology" or "evo-devo" for short. An example of this call for a new "synthesis" is here: A New Evolutionary Synthesis.

However, there has yet to be any scientific consensus that the Modern Synthesis needs to be replaced or even seriously modified. Stay tuned — it may happen, or maybe not.

Now, evolution is an extensive theory. It has dozens (hundreds) of subsidiary (auxiliary) theories and hypotheses. These can be changed without altering the five major theories stated above or the basics of the Modern Synthesis. An example is how new species subsidiary to #1, 2, and 4 arise. The primary mode of speciation was thought to be phyletic gradualism: a large population of a species transforms over generations into another species. However, evolutionists have noticed that speciation could occur by allopatric speciation: a small geographically isolated population of a species transformed over generations into a new species.

Eldredge and Gould proposed that most speciation in the history of life was by allopatric speciation and not phyletic gradualism. This theory was called "Punctuated Equilibrium. " Today, this is accepted: allopatric speciation is by far the most common mode for forming new species.

But notice that PE is not a "latest theory of evolution." Instead, it is a theory within evolution. And that is what most theories about evolution are: new theories within evolution.

The possible role of epigenetics in evolution is the latest theory within evolution.

Recently, an "integrated synthesis" has been proposed. It is being considered (and advocated by a few ), but so far has not gained much traction:

What this diagram does is show the relationship of the theories involving evolution. "Darwinism," or Darwin's original five theories, is always kept. The core of the Modern Synthesis is also kept. The three areas on the far left can be viewed as extreme interpretations of the Modern Synthesis. The Integrated Synthesis mostly wants to add new modes of variation, particularly epigenetics. They also want to add genomic evolution (selection within the genome) and "multilevel selection," or selection of groups instead of individuals. This multilevel selection has met the most opposition. "Replicator theory" is more within abiogenesis than evolution, so it has opposition.

Science (as in the collective thought of scientists) sometimes takes quite a long time. It took 250 years for heliocentrism to become the dominant theory in astronomy. This discussion on the Integrated Synthesis has been going on for 20+ years. Only some of the components have been there that long. For instance, epigenetic inheritance has only been discussed within the last 5–10 years.

So be patient. However, you can be sure that whatever new "synthesis" results, the original theories of Darwin and those five areas of Modern Synthesis will always be there.

China is a Replicater—it replicates Western economics, science, and technological production with Chinese characteristics, of course.

Beijing Skyline

China doesn't necessarily need Western-style economic growth. Well, it does if it wants to be competitive with the West, secure, and immune to the humiliations the West visited upon it throughout its relatively recent history. (China has been a thing for a long time.) We are all too human, and humans are violently competitive and passionately covet power and control over resources. An emperor maintains his power first and foremost and, if the ruler is wise and adept, the security of his subjects.

Xi Jinping stays in power as long as China does well, but if China does too well, it risks war with the ideologues in power in the West, which could upset the geopolitical balance of power and prosperity for billions of people for generations.

Thucydides's Trap refers to the natural, inevitable discombobulation that occurs when a rising power threatens to displace a ruling power... [and] when a rising power threatens to displace a ruling power, the resulting structural stress makes a violent clash the rule, not the exception.

Modern Economics

The modern "religion" of economics could be responsible for the death of all life on Earth. Nations have much greater destructive power than ever before. Fossil Capitalism is destroying habitats, polluting ecosystems, heating the Earth’s land, oceans, and atmosphere, and disrupting the climate in ways that could end civilization. We are facing a poly crisis resulting from our success as inventive, creative, competitive animals with super-brains.

We use cheap petrochemical energy to extract minerals from the Earth and build amazing machines. We edit genes. We use electronic media to manufacture mighty memes that influence the way people think and what they believe.

We want fusion energy and the power to mine other worlds so we can have the materials to make more and more machines. Greater, better, more powerful machines that may help us compete with different forms of intelligent life in the Universe. And so we have stories like Star Wars and Star Trek that imagine a future where our particular genius and violence can spread around the Universe.

Nature is both creative and destructive. People are profoundly beautiful and violent. Our species will not be eternal, although we'd like to think so.

All hail the material world!

The Star Trek Replicator

Biowaste and other recycled materials are broken down into essential parts: water, carbon, and other molecules fed into a replicator that uses lasers to reassemble the atomic bits into something we could consume. Superfast lasers convert incoming matter into energy and back into matter, which requires a lot of energy. 

OMG, do we have to talk about thermo dynamics now?

Of course, there are simpler ways to get a meal and build what we need for a flourishing life. But not if everyone wants to signal their status by possessing material memes. 

A decent culture, essential for a flourishing life, requires matter and imagination. A great culture is magical. We have replicators for that already; we know them as memes and stories—brain-based communications technology, A.K.A. ideas, thoughts, and feelings expressed through language and emotion.

How much energy do we need to produce how many things before we feel like we are living the good life? 

We need spirit, imagination, consideration, understanding, shared values, and enough material things to nurture and support benevolent communities that can create the conditions for competitive, productive societies able to live sustainably and peacefully on our small Earth, the home in which all life as we know it evolved.

Modern economics is an extreme expression of the seven deadly sins energized by fossil capital and ideologies turbocharged by science and technology. 

We could have a culture where science, engineering, and technology can harness energy less damaging to life systems, where wisdom, humility, and reverence could lead to everlasting peace and hundreds of thousands of years of spiritual and intellectual growth and exploration.

We could invent a cultural replicator that would allow us to maintain values in line with life. All we need is time. 

I imagine it's possible, but not probable. Time and imagination are indeed mysterious. 

Shall we muse about time? Just kidding. That's all for now.

What We Can Live With and What Kills Us

Too many addictions to superstimuli can kill us, especially when we feel powerless because all the stimulation distracts us so well from our predicament that we feel an illusion of control. (Eat your tasty fast and processed delights and take your pills.)

Much of what we believe gives us the illusion of having power when the only thing that really gives us hope is fitting into whatever random culture we were born into or fell into after having been buffeted about by circumstances beyond our control—nature, nurture, and insult. Learning the necessity of self-interrogation is a rarely sought-after art. That's okay; this is normal. We are all part of a superorganism of one kind or another that provides ready-made answers to complex and complicated problems we’d rather not confront.

Our way of life is righteous, reflects reality, and makes sense, while those of others are barbaric, ridiculous, unhealthy, and unclean.

For those of you with faith in a higher power, earthly matters don't matter much anyway because you will reap your rewards after you die. For the powerless, faith is a lifesaving habit. A relationship with an invisible power is an ounce of prevention that trumps a pound of cure.

But we must beware: our faith can also be a license to kill.

Turning the other cheek doesn’t mean we turn away when a bad guy treats another bad guy in horrifically violent and cruel ways.

Keep on consuming, and things will right themselves—that’s what we know, and we all think we are consuming the right recipes proscribed by one kind of God or another or bequeathed by a King or Ubermensch.

Chinese leader Xi Jinping will reportedly meet with top stock market regulators this week as the country contends with a rapidly worsening economy. Stocks listed in Hong Kong and mainland China have lost $7 trillion of value since 2021, and Chinese shares briefly sunk to five-year lows this week. It’s unclear if a potential stimulus measure may result from the talks. Still, government officials need to ensure the market stabilizes before China enters the Lunar New Year holiday period next week to “avoid further hurting consumer confidence,” Bloomberg reported. China has repeatedly introduced measures over the last year designed to reassure investors, but the relatively modest policies have not been enough to combat troubling economic indicators, such as high levels of youth unemployment and mammoth amounts of debt.

Let Jesus Take The Cruise

Say goodbye bye to rabid consumerism and cheap shyte dot com. We are entering a new era whether you are a techno-optimist or not. Our world has material constraints.

True value is something we thrive on; we know what it feels like, just like we know porn when we see it—addictions to commercial memes that force us to consume amount to cultural cancer.

One day, circumstances will force faithful meme-eating humans to believe it.

Huawei Is Competitive. Should The U.S. Be Worried?

There's nothing like unfair competition to make a strong country self-sufficient. Stressors make China stronger. Mao and his memes are long gone. China believes it can compete with Uncle Sam and that self-confidence may lead us to war.

HUAWEI EXPERIENCE

Huawei is becoming a top brand in China’s smartphone market again after the U.S. blacklisted the company in 2019, crippling its cell phone business by prohibiting it from using American software. Huawei gained market share after releasing its immensely popular Mate 60 Pro 5G smartphone, which uses a powerful Chinese-developed computer chip. China’s smartphone industry is rebounding after several rocky years: Shipments grew by 6.5% to 289 million units last year, according to the China Academy of Information and Communications Technology. The sales are worrying signs for U.S. firms like Apple, which saw a decline in mainland sales in the last fourth quarter.

Let's see if Janet Yellen can talk some sense into China so ragged America can have a leg up and return to the business of providing freedom, democracy, and flourishing consumerism again.

One thing patriotic Americans might do to support their country is to buy Apple VR goggles (Apple Vision Pro) and start goggling.

Also, lobby your leaders to ensure that multinational corporations only buy components from the United States and only take raw materials from weaker countries that can't make MacBooks.

And let's make sure that only real Americans are making these components (high-value manufacturing) in the United States and that there is no sneaky labor arbitrage going on in places like Vietnam and Mexico.

Trust that once all regulatory barriers are removed in the United States, all multinational corporations will want to be domiciled in the United States and operate exclusively in the United States. Corporations globalized because of draconian regulations and a lack of leadership in States naturally configured to support the American Empire. Once THE MARKET is truly Free, America will be great again.

Let's ensure corporations don't have to pay too much for a day's work, and let’s cut taxes. America has a central bank and private bankers that will ensure its sovereignty for generations to come.

If an individual in the United States wants more money, they can create a startup or start a hedge fund. If they are good, they will succeed. Americans Know Merit. The most important thing is that workers are natural-born Americans working in the United States, making American products that they can sell worldwide because they are the best products in the world, and the world knows it. Also because, the WORLD BANK has lent the world money to buy American products, while trade deals (The Rules-Based Order) ensure that American Corporations inside America have all the raw materials they need to make American products and that trade benefits the Empire.

The rules determining social hierarchy dominance also determine great power dominance. A Great Nation led by Great Leaders can act as a benevolent sovereign who maintains order in the world only when all nations understand their natural roles in the evolution of Mankind.

Someday, Chinese people will buy iPhones that contain 100% U.S.-made components made by Americans living in Beaver Con Villages.

It's only a matter of time before the PAX Americana is back in force, and the Free Market will have made it so.

And for the rest of the world, don't be jealous. Stick to your traditional ways of life and be good providers to the Empire, and we will send many tourists to your country to boost your GDP and help you enjoy good-paying service jobs.

And who knows, maybe some of you will become real Americans if you immigrate through the proper channels and bring techno-optimistic skills and investment.

Don't worry about your demographic problems. America will be a net exporter of workers in the near future. People are more than willing to live somewhere where the cost of living is less expensive and where they can take pride in having a job that supports the Empire.

When Affective Techno Optimism is fully adopted in the United States (news flash, probably this year, it’s really not that hard), most American-made products will be made by American-made robots and robotic machines run by American-made computer applications on American-made quantum computers. Most of the labor, like picking fruit, will be done by American-made field robots. Most of the cooking and cleaning will be done by American-made house robots bought and sold on the Free Market by Masters of the Universe. (Think multi-planet American civilizations.) At that time, America will be a very exclusive country club whose members are primarily bankers, lawyers, and entertainers whose job is to entertain those who write the rules for the order that the Pax Americana depends on. When this happens, the world will be much more prosperous through the use of high-value American-made products. And someday, the whole world will be a country club, and due to our multi-planet civilization, there will be plenty of country clubs for all pro-natal American masters of the Universe, their bankers, lawyers, and entertainers. But don’t expect robots to have civil rights; only cybernetic human American organisms can hope for that.

We are the world; we are the technology, and we are the ones who make a techno world, so let’s start giving and stop resisting. The Natural Order is a beautiful thing. #foraflourishingfuture

NEWMERICA Thomas Jefferson Golf Course — Milky Way, star 83729303.93851-E-7XD/4

We Can't Slow Down—We Never Could

It’s not all good. We need to be a bit more discerning.

Humans, like other animals, are survivors. Of course, all species of Hominids are extinct except ours. Homo Sapiens are by far the most innovative and productive species we know. However, even insects are innovative, given time to evolve. It depends on what we mean by innovative. Homo Sapiens are good at exploiting every resource. We do what we have to do to make things better for our group. We are competitive, passionate, brilliant, violent, creative and destructive. We are manipulative and easily manipulated. 

Due to our unique way of communicating and learning, in a sense, we have always been artificially intelligent. We can’t explain the magic of consciousness, even though lots of us have tried to tell us what God thinks.

Depending on circumstances and where we grew up, we will have a specialized cultural worldview informing our actions. We will have beliefs, ideas, and feelings that animate our interactions and form our identity, and we will take all of this for granted.

Artificial General Intelligence already governs us. We all use machines and are part of a socioeconomic, cultural machine that we hardly notice. The legally coded, neoliberal, neocon, fossil capitalism with ubiquitous propaganda outlets and its military-industrial complex is a machine, and it's already manipulating everyone from the top to the bottom of society. This ideologically out-of-control machine already manipulates everything on Earth. 

We are also highly prone to delusion. Many of our leaders think they are in control of cybernetics, but they don’t even understand the concept.

In the Global North, we believe we have to move fast, get super busy, and be active most hours of the day. "Hey, West Wing Ivy League smart ass, walk with me while I finger my phone, and let's talk about all the critical, earth-shattering things we need to do today. Would you like a glass of Kool-Aid?"

We know it all because we have read all the briefs and the snippets, watched the video clips, and listened to the popular, well-paid pundits and revolving-door think tankers. We know it all because we know what we know.

We don't have time to slow down and think things through. If we are not busy posing as busy people, we feign wisdom by choosing not to think. "Why bother with any of it? There is nothing we can do about it anyway." 

We are trained pretenders looking for a path to an authentic life. 

We can't slow down and do things right. We can't comprehend the risks we are taking because we won't take the time to understand things holistically. We can't open the black box and examine what's in it because it's invisible. 

We are not prudent, patient, wise, considerate, coordinated, or concerned about doing things properly. We are incentivized by our addictions and making money to buy stuff, thinking this will make us happy and secure. 

We don't have any deeply held ideological or philosophic interests or convictions; we are intellectual tourists, dilettantes without commitments to higher values. The new Global North's religion is anything that feels good. 

We have been so worn down by super-stimuli that we can't feel, so we can't empathize. If we thought about the suffering of others, it might awaken us to our suffering, which can not be allowed to happen.

We are all manipulated by the machine. We are wallowing in so much noise and garbage that we can't understand what we're allowing ourselves to be driven into. Our way of life is predicated on taking insane risks so that our competitors, who are also taking insane risks, don't get what we think we want before we get it. 

A vast literature spans the length of civilization addressing all of this. These observations are so banal that it makes my teeth ache. My gut hurts because I can't understand why we haven't learned from our wisdom traditions or why we don't practice those things that make us wise.

Why rush towards:

• AGI

• Hypersonic nuclear warhead delivery systems

• Drones and autonomous weapons systems

• Genome sequencing, cryo-electron microscopy, molecular cloning, reverse genetics, polymerase chain reaction (PCR), and next-generation sequencing, CRISPR, Cas9

• We need more energy (for what?)

• Financialization, derivatives trading, MMT

• GDP and on and on...

Nation-states with the resources rush on because we can't allow our competitors to get there first. It's like the Space Race (For All Mankind) on steroids. This pathological need for control is corrupting our deeper intelligence.

The Anglo-West or Global North seems willing to destroy everything if it can't run everything. 

If we all took a few months off, read good books, took walks, and talked with people in our communities, we might start to see how mad everything is these days. 

I'd like to see three hundred million people in the Anglosphere boycott the system for a quarter. That might wake people up. We don't need a violent revolution; we must stop participating in the artificial, generally unwise program for a while and give ourselves some time and space to imagine how things could be if we could all slow down and understand the broader implications of the lifestyle we have been trained to believe is natural and inevitable. 

We don't have to go back to the Stone Age; we can keep what is good for life on Earth, discard some of the things destroying habitat and life, and still have a dynamic, creative culture.

But to do this, we need to work on our global culture, and that's hard to do. We need time, folks. The fast acts will destroy us. 

Boycott the Rat Race! Tell your leaders we need to prepare for peace. Think about getting rid of all the things you don't need. Focus on building lasting relationships. Collaborate with people in your community to create what you truly need. Share resources. Cultivate generosity of spirit. Listen deeply to each other. Appreciate the differences and recognize the similarities between yourself and others. Take care of yourself and others. Maintain your sense of humor. Learn from each other. Teach each other. Slow down, look around, and be thankful. Life is short. 

Right, I know, platitudes, nothing but platitudes, how boring. Let's get bored and reconsider what we must do to imagine what's next. This thing of ours is coming to an end. It's scary as hell to stop for a moment; it feels like if we do, we'll sink to the bottom of the ocean and rot, but I fear that if lots of us don't stop, we will blow up the whole thing.

We Are Doing So Much Better Than We Thought. Right?

Despite all the mishaps, mad arrogance, and brilliance of humans, we can’t imagine how our way of life might actually be our way of death. It’s sad to say so and believe me; I don’t like saying it. Many commentators and authors are not telling the whole story, which frustrates me. Even in the confines of a specific domain, there is a complete story to be told. If you want a lucrative career, ignore the forest and talk incessantly about a tree. Below is my reaction to a Bulwark Podcast episode.

Diana Dowek Argentina

Hello, The Bulwark. Are you also talking with climate scientists? Did you have a long discussion with James Hansen? Perhaps the science is too complex for your publication. Your faith is economics. I have not stumbled upon your content since I unsubscribed to your podcast. Have Nate Hagens on your show and let him suggest some future guests. The polycrisis isn't only about global heating; it's about legally coded, neoliberal, fossil capitalism's omnicidal global culture. The good thing is David Wallace-Wells' career is not in danger. Good on you, mate, you're trying.

3% Groth Per Year! U.S.A.! U.S.A.! Rules-Based Order! LLMs, AGI, Quantum Computers! Yeah! Warm Green Showers at the Pentagon! A Green Special Farces, I mean Forces. Heck, warm green showers for everyone. Exotic warm green showers with an Eastern European accent for DJT and War Fighter Joe! Commies are gone, but the Russians stand strong, and everything is Iran-backed these days, so who needs an Iron Curtain or a Cold War when you can start a hot one?

“And I encourage you all to go shopping more.”

The world’s nations will be encouraged to give America its stuff to make more Uncle Sam culture for the world. There will be a Disneyland in every country!

The technologists and scientists (the good ones who understand what side of the culture wars to be on) will find ways to recycle and reuse microplastics and forever chemicals for the good of all Mankind, no matter what Mankind's pronoun is or what suite of critical theories it identifies as or with. Capitalists will have living space and lots of energy, food, and services from Ukraine and Greater Israel. And the beauty of it is, while this thing of ours sorts itself out, Anglo American Players won't get their hands dirty. As usual, they will find arbitrage opportunities and outsource to foreign States and coalitions of the willing. "It's not just a job; it's an adventure and a chance to be a part of THE American Dream.

Pay your rent, plebs, and proles, and thank Sam for your many gig economy jobs and your "token economy." Mind your digital currency wallet (CBDC) while Elon moves the server farms to underground bunkers on Mars, where the fusion reactors provide ample energy to run the Multiverse. "Really, It's not that hard."

Enjoy the shareholder value inherent in the zero-to-one-billionare race to space. (Vanity, it's all vanity.) Shareholder Value equals Values—a strong moral and ethical stance for human nature and teleological human cultural evolution. What a feat! The vaporware rocket ships will have fantastic press releases as long as the stock price goes up every quarter.

The Staff and Crew at the Blue Origin, Virgin Galactic, and SpaceX all work for something greater than themselves—profits. $$$.

Mine it all! A child is born every day in Congo. E-waste is a signal to Aliens that we are an advanced civilization that will send transhuman machines to colonize the Universe. Blade Runner wasn’t set on Earth. Alien civilizations can't wait to thank Uncle Sam for bringing them an Anglo Rules-Based Order. Remember this, Aliens: only one Superpower can keep the Universe expanding—if Sam isn't running the show, no one will. Sam is only doing God's will. Sam is a first mover and fast, and only Sam can fix it after he breaks it.

We are all accelerationists now. Be thankful. You know the end is only the beginning of business as usual. Take a deep breath. We can "have the conversation,” but no one will sacrifice a moment away from their many addictions to change the system, much less their lifestyle. Can we coordinate across cultures and nation-states to solve pressing existential problems? Modern Monetary Theory can make funds available to the MIC so Sam can make war, but not for much else. So let us all wait and see what’s next. It will be fun while the fun lasts.

***The Bulwark sure takes risks. Honestly, though, I think they are still apologists for business as usual. The folks at The Bulwark can’t imagine what’s next.

More Fun With The Greatest, Greater America

Who do Prof. John Mearsheimer and Glenn Greenwald think they are? Could two people ever be so misled, or perhaps just evil?

I don't think people care about war, global warming (hahaha), or "overshoot," and for many good reasons. Americans generally don't care about violence or economic troubles in the U.S. (As if!) We are too busy ignoring "collapse" (LOL) to process genocide or the potential dangers of upgrading our nuclear weapons arsenal. (We wouldn't have Social Media without military technological innovation!)

The Rules The Boss Can Break For All Mankind

"The Rules-Based Order" is a euphemism for "Protect Consumer Culture and Legally Coded U.S. Neoliberal Fossil Capitalism."

The only thing that supersedes FAITH in the United States of New Miracles is the absolute knowledge that billionaire technocrats will save America and the World. If not our genius Billionaires and their army of clerks and media support staff, then Jesus. And American billionaires will soon be immortal, Transhuman, possessing THE Singularity and protected in force-fielded City States within a Token Federal Legal System that only the best and best trained can operate.

All we have to do is make sure the rest of the world understands who's Boss. This is not hard to do because The Fed, the most powerful financial institution in all universes, can produce as much modern monetary theory money as required to support the American military-industrial complex that provides and secures World Peace and Prosperity.

Americans know that America is Number One. It's time the rest of the world understood this, too.

America needs to focus on Iranian-backed traffic jams, bad hair days, and real estate bubbles to keep the world secure. To do this, we need to keep bombing weaker countries and keep our proxies busy fighting Russia, China, and tiny countries that want to do things differently than what Uncle Sam proscribes.

The Sacred Act of providing tribute to Uncle Sam prevents negative consequences, externalities, and collateral damage. This is the greatest act of compassion a global citizen, institution, or nation-state can do. People managing things in the United States call this enlightened self-interest with interest, or, loving God. And for many aspiring servants of the most benevolent empire in all Universes, proper behavior and discipline provide a direct route to Capital on Capital returns and a mansion in a Token City State within the Token Federation where THE BEAUTIFUL PEOPLE live. Don't worry, when you've made it, you'll be beautiful too.

Americans understand that the natural order of life on earth is best understood in the context of the last 200 years of Western Civilization's history, with a particular and crucial focus on the U.S. Empire after World War II. Today's world resulted from the divine plan, the data, and natural, scientifically evidenced evolution. Things could not be different. This is the best of all possible worlds. This is what nature, the One True Universe, and God intended to manifest. People who don't understand this on a deep intellectual and spiritual level are possessed by demons, the Devil, or suffering from some form of mental illness.

European, Chinese, Russian, Iranian, Latin American, Indian, South East Asian, North East Asian, Asian, Middle Eastern, Pacific Islanders, and African people, everyone alive basically, need to learn American English, work hard to send resources to the technocratic bosses and business leaders in the United States and support American businesses.

The sooner the world's population understands how blessed, good, brilliant, ingenious, innovative, entertaining, fun, exciting, and stimulating The United States of New Miracles, a.k.a, The Greatest-Great-America is, the sooner people worldwide can understand how comfortable the Natural Order/God's Plan is.

Until then, don't worry; Uncle Sam will continue to destroy those forces and folks in the world who want to ruin your destiny and take away all the wonderful things you can aspire to have.

Eliminating Bad Ideologies

What is a lousy ideology? Is your particular brand of religious belief true while other people's are false? What do ideological systems of thought propose to address? What are ideologies reacting to? Ideological belief systems don't arise in a vacuum. Where do the ideas come from? What's their context?

Alexander Skunder Boghossian, Ethiopia “The-End-of-the-Beginning”1972-73.

Pick your favorite —ism and tell me in the comments why it's the best of all existing or possible —isms.

Another thing to consider is how difficult it is to take power away from a powerful —ism.

ideology

a set of beliefs or principles, especially one on which a political system, party, or organization is based 

People believe all kinds of strange things for all sorts of reasons. Most people tend to take their passions and beliefs for granted. Human passions and beliefs are powerful things.

Imagine you are an explorer during the age of discovery. You arrive in a far-off land inhabited by people so alien to your way of life that you can scarcely think of them as human. So, you go about the business of taking their resources, enslaving them, and eventually eliminating them through violence or by converting them to your cultural beliefs and coopting them into your system of doing things and your way of life. This has happened over and over again throughout history.

One country may want a world based on international law and another based on amorphous rules that The Empire can break at will. 

Whatever reasons and justifications an organization has, their ingrained ideological beliefs will ensure they can and are motivated to fight to preserve it. Ultimately, the most powerful side generally absorbs the weaker side, but this is not always the case.

Christendom has fought Islam for hundreds of years, and both are still with us. Neoliberal Coded Fossil Capitalism currently controls the world, but other ways of doing things continue to percolate under the surface. When one powerful system falters and collapses, new definitions of old ideas resurface, and the struggle over ways of managing things continues.

Ideologies are often deeply rooted in cultural, historical, and social contexts. Eliminating an ideology raises ethical concerns and can conflict with principles of free speech and diversity of thought. Does one even think these principles are desirable? 

Once we agree on what's universally harmful to our clique or life on earth, there are constructive ways to address and counteract destructive ideologies.

Education and Rigorous Thought Processes

Promoting education and encouraging critical thinking, open-mindedness, and a well-rounded understanding of history, philosophy, and culture can help individuals evaluate and question ideologies.

Whoops! What constitutes a "good education." Can we agree on that?

Dialogue, Diplomacy and Communication

Engaging in respectful and constructive dialogue with individuals who adhere to different ideologies can foster understanding and bridge gaps. It's essential to listen, empathize, and present alternative perspectives.

Whoops! How can we begin that process without knowing our interlocutor's perspective, culture, and beliefs? Whether they are your enemy or a stubborn standout, you can't even begin to achieve a positive result if you don't know who you are talking with.

Can We Agree On What Is Good?

Encourage and promote positive ideologies emphasizing inclusivity, tolerance, and respect for human rights. Highlighting the benefits of such ideologies may attract people away from harmful ones.

Whoops! Soft Power is good, but how hard is it to get different cultures and countries with various wants and needs to agree that the above values are universal and desirable? Do we all adhere to The Universal Declaration of Human Rights? What enforces our commitment to such values?

A Firehose Of Information

Developing media literacy skills helps individuals critically analyze information and discern fact from fiction, reducing the impact of propaganda and misinformation associated with certain ideologies.

Whoops! It seems to me there is a lot more propaganda than unbiased content, a lot more emotional rhetoric than sage advice. Even the most careful consumers of information get fooled day in and day out. Our thought processes are not as pristine as we like to imagine.

Community, Coherence, Conciliance, Alignment, Health—Game Theory

Creating strong, supportive communities that provide alternatives to extremist ideologies can be effective. People are often drawn to "Bad" ideologies due to a sense of belonging or purpose, and healthy communities can positively provide these.

Whoops! How do we characterize strong, supportive communities? Can there be all kinds of good communities? Define Bad. Define health. The devil is in the details, and we still have to go back and know each other, discover our differences, and determine what we can both value and agree upon.

Government & Governance—Ethics

Governments can enact policies that address the root causes of extremist ideologies, such as socioeconomic inequality and discrimination. Legislation should balance the need for security with protecting individual rights and freedoms.

Whoops! Who says? We have to assume we are talking about effective governments that are good at governing and govern in the name of the, what, corporation, people, or sovereign or what? What rights? What freedoms? What constraints? What limitations? Here we go again.

Economy, Politics, Justice, Stability, Security, and, again, Health

Understanding and addressing the underlying issues contributing to the appeal of certain ideologies, such as economic disparities, social injustice, and political instability, can help prevent their spread.

Whoops! And it's common for people who are being bullied, oppressed, and taken advantage of to rebel even if it's not in their immediate best interest, even if it means dying for the opportunity to be treated like a decent human being. And aren't the best leaders in the current iteration of The Great Game sociopaths and psychopaths? To fit into the current system, you need to be a self-blinding careerist or an American Psycho.

Support

Offering psychological support to individuals who may be vulnerable to extremist ideologies is crucial. Identifying and addressing underlying issues like alienation, trauma, or mental health challenges can be part of prevention efforts.

Whoops! Mental health issues for Gen Z, WEIRD people, or folks from Palestine, Somalia, or Libia? Do Indonesians have special needs? Do Nigerians? The Empire believes that once there is a Disney Land in every country and people from every culture worldwide follow their rules, however arbitrary, we'll have heaven on earth. 

We Will Always Have Competing Ideologies

Completely eradicating an ideology is unrealistic, but promoting positive alternatives and addressing the root causes can help mitigate their impact. Additionally, it's crucial to do so while respecting fundamental principles of human rights, freedom of expression, and diversity of thought.

Whoops! There I go with the WEIRD fantasy ideology of the 20th Century again.

Can people learn to respect each other and treat each other fairly? Are there moral and ethical systems we could adhere to that would make it easier for people with diverse backgrounds to get along? Most of us must know that there are, but our passions and prejudices prevent us from following their teachings, advice, and systems. We'd rather feel righteous than be righteous.

I hate to say it, but we, in the 21st Century, now know what it's like to live during the Holocaust, the collapse of civilization as we know it, and with existential threats that are entirely out of our control and imminent.

Why is it so satisfying to point our finger at the other guy and say it's their fault? It's hard work to understand each other, listen, and respect each other's legitimate needs.

Powerful countries and institutions must take a step back and reevaluate their position and the responsibilities it entails.

We need to take war off the table. War should not be politics by other means. We need to slow down and listen to each other, get to know each other and feel in our hearts and souls that people who do things differently are not that different than us. If world leaders could agree on that one thing, it would be a good start to eliminating destructive ideologies.

When will we ever learn?

Give Peace A Chance!

These young people are having a conversation about what it would take to change things for the better. It’s complex, difficult, and requires sacrifice. Will young people have the strength and the moral fortitude for a revolution that is a solution?

Human Ecology of Overshoot—You Need To Know

I believe everyone must read this paper and understand Rees’ perspective on our current predicament.

We cannot improve our civilization under our current coded neoliberal fossil capital economic systems, structure, and belief. Our current way of life is a self-terminating system. We are presently living through dramatic changes that our species has never experienced and can hardly imagine.

Please read this paper and follow William E. Rees's work.

William Rees is a bio-ecologist, ecological economist, former Director and Professor Emeritus of the University of British Columbia’s School of Community and Regional Planning. His early research focused on environmental assessment but gradually extended to the biophysical requirements for sustainability and the implications of global ecological trends. Along the way, he developed a special interest in modern cities as ‘dissipative structures’ and therefore as particularly vulnerable components of the total human ecosystem.

Rees is perhaps best known as the originator and co-developer (with his graduate students) of ecological footprint analysis—the expanding human eco-footprint is arguably the world’s best-known indicator of the (un)sustainability of techno-industrial society. His book on eco-footprinting (co-authored with his former PhD student, Mathis Wackernagel) has been published in eight languages, including Chinese. Rees is also author of over 150 peer reviewed papers and numerous popular articles on sustainability science and policy. (And sometimes the lack of policy—his recent writing focuses on biological, neuro-cognitive and socially-constructed barriers to progress.)

Prof Rees’ academic work has been widely recognized. He has served on numerous advisory committees and lectured by invitation in 30 countries. Rees is a founding member and former President of the Canadian Society for Ecological Economics; a founding Director of the One Earth Initiative; and a Fellow of the Post-Carbon Institute. He was elected to the Royal Society of Canada in 2006 and, in 2007, was awarded a prestigious Trudeau Foundation Fellowship. In 2012, Prof Rees received an Honorary Doctorate from Laval University, the Boulding Prize in Ecological Economics and a Blue Planet Prize (jointly with Dr Wackernagel). He was elected a full member of the Club of Rome in 2014.

---

The Human Ecology of Overshoot: Why a Major ‘Population Correction’ Is Inevitable

by

William E. Rees

School of Community and Regional Planning, Faculty of Applied Science, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z2, Canada

World 2023, 4(3), 509-527; https://doi.org/10.3390/world4030032

Submission received: 15 June 2023 / Revised: 7 August 2023 / Accepted: 8 August 2023 / Published: 11 August 2023

(This article belongs to the Special Issue Population Change and Its Impact on the Environment, Society and Economy)

---

Why a Major ‘Population Correction’ Is Inevitable

1. Introduction and Purpose

This paper examines the human population conundrum through the lens of human evolutionary ecology and the role of available energy. My starting premises are as follows: (1) Modern techno-industrial (MTI) society is in a state of advanced ecological overshoot (for an excellent introduction to overshoot see William Catton’s classic, Overshoot [1]). Overshoot means that even at current global average (inadequate) material standards, the human population is consuming even replenishable and self-producing resources faster than ecosystems can regenerate and is producing entropic waste in excess of the ecosphere’s assimilative capacity [2,3]. In short, humanity has already exceeded the long-term human carrying capacity of the earth. (2) The fossil-fuelled eight-fold increase in human numbers and >100-fold expansion of real gross world product in the past two centuries are anomalies; they also constitute the most globally-significant ecological phenomena in 250,000 years of human evolutionary history, with major implications for life on Earth. (3) H. sapiens is an evolving species, a product of natural selection and still subject to the same natural laws and forces affecting the evolution of all living organisms [4,5]. (4) Efforts to address the human demographic anomaly and resulting eco-crisis without attempting to override innate human behaviours that have become maladaptive are woefully incomplete and doomed to fail.

Within this framing, the overall objective of the paper is to make the case that, on its present trajectory and regardless of the much-lauded demographic and so-called renewable energy transitions, the sheer number of humans and scale of economic activity are undermining the functional integrity of the ecosphere and compromising essential life-support functions. Unaddressed, these trends may well precipitate both global economic contraction and a significant human population ‘correction’—i.e., civilizational collapse—later in this century.

2. The Nature and Nurture of Overshoot

Both nature and nurture contribute to the overshoot crisis, but the natural component is mostly ignored. Indeed, most denizens of MTI society do not think of themselves products of evolution, i.e., of Darwinian natural selection. Many resent even being reminded that they are animals.

Ironically, part of the reason for such denial resides in humanity’s extraordinary evolutionary success—we are the dominant, and certainly the most numerous, large mammal species on Earth. As much of this success is attributable to the abundance of resources made available by improving technology, cultural evolution receives all the credit. However, basic biology underpins all human cultures—even the capacity for socio-cultural organization is itself an evolved trait.

Of particular relevance in the present context are three innate abilities/predispositions that humans share with all other species. Unless constrained by negative feedback, populations of H. sapiens (1) are capable of exponential (geometric) growth, (2) tend to consume all available resources (a highly adaptive trait in the absence of refrigeration or other preservation techniques, or in the face of intense competition from neighbouring tribes), and (3) will expand to occupy all accessible suitable habitats. Significantly, in the case of humans, both the ‘availability’ (of resources) and ‘suitability’ (of habitat) are constantly being upwardly refined by technology, thus amplifying the underlying genetic predispositions.

We will return to population dynamics in a later section. Consider first industrial humanity’s characteristically insatiable demand for resources and habitat. Abetted by improving exploitation technologies, H. sapiens is depleting the seas and forests, has otherwise diminished wild nature, has destroyed a third of Earth’s arable soil and landscapes, has mined out the richest deposits of many mineral and metal ores and, in just a couple of centuries, has run through the high-quality half of the massive stocks of fossil energy that took tens of millions of years to accumulate. Society’s dependence on fossil fuels is one reason why the MTI mainstream sees an ice-free Arctic Ocean not so much as a climate catastrophe, but as the opening up of new trade routes and exposing the Arctic basin to oil and gas development. Meanwhile, having depleted the richest sources of dry-land mineral resources, some industries/countries are gearing up to mine the sea-floor—we will scour the bottom of our Earthly barrel! [6]. Looking ahead, still, others have set their sights on the presumed mineral wealth of asteroids or the moon as the next resource troves to be served up for exploitation [7].

This last point also hints at the third crucial trait noted above, humanity’s spatial expansionism. Can you think of any ecologically comparable species with a geographic range even remotely as large as that of H. sapiens? Hint: there is none—driven by our natural expansionist imperative, humans have colonized the entire planet—there is no significant patch of human-habitable landscape on Earth that we have not long since claimed as our own. We even occupy certain ‘habitats’ that are fundamentally hostile to human existence (think ‘Antarctic field stations’). Meanwhile, various entrepreneurs and humanist dreamers would have us colonize the Moon or Mars, not only for their resource potential, but to insure against the extinction of H. sapiens should Earthly life-support systems fail under the weight of human demands.

One might expect that an intelligent social species would devise cultural overrides to rein in potentially dangerous expansionist tendencies on a finite planet. Rather remarkably, the opposite is the case. One of the most important roots of overshoot is MTI society’s belief in human exceptionalism, the idea that H. sapiens is fundamentally different from other species. Exceptionalists posit that human individual and social behaviours are culturally rather than genetically determined; that human ingenuity can overcome resource scarcities; that we are not otherwise bound by the laws and limits of nature. The corresponding economic paradigm, neoliberal economics—which currently underpins global ‘development’—implicitly assumes that the economy and the ‘environment’ are separate systems, so that the former, propelled by continuous technological advances, can grow indefinitely, unconstrained by the latter. Hubristic nurture unabashedly reinforces expansionist nature.

The evidence is compelling that human exceptionalism is a deeply-flawed construct—a grand cultural illusion—that has led MTI societies into a potentially fatal ecological trap. While culture contributes unique dimensions to humanity’s evolutionary trajectory, this does not exempt humans from the same fundamental principles governing the evolution of non-human lifeforms. The conflict between mass delusion and biophysical reality is increasingly evident in the destabilization of the ecosphere induced by the excessive scale of the human enterprise. No one should be surprised—as ecological economist, Herman Daly consistently argued, far from floating in splendid isolation, “the human economy is a fully-contained wholly-dependent growing subsystem of the non-growing ecosphere” [8,9].

Consider the implication of Daly’s insight for biodiversity loss, one of the most urgent symptoms of overshoot. H. sapiens is just one of an estimated 8.7 million species of animals and plants and countless millions additional species of bacteria, fungi, and other microbes. Most of these life-forms are dependent on a tiny fraction of solar energy ‘fixed’ as biomass through photosynthesis by green plants. Plants require up to half of this ‘gross primary production’ for their own growth and reproduction, so only the remainder—so called ‘net primary production’—is available for other life-forms. This residual supports all animal life, including humans, which means that we are competing with millions of other species for a share of a continuous, but limited flux of biomass through the ecosphere.

Humans, of course, have a technological ‘leg-up’ in the competition. Our high intelligence, technology-assisted harvesting techniques and fossil-fuelled ability to transform entire landscapes to suit human needs, means that, for centuries, humans have been increasing their appropriations from the annual global flow of biomass energy [10]. Fowler and Hobbs even ask whether, in terms of common eco-variables, contemporary H. sapiens is still ‘ecologically normal’ [11]. Their data show that in terms of energy use (and therefore carbon-dioxide emissions), biomass consumption and various other ecologically significant indicators, human demands on supportive ecosystems dwarf those of similar species by orders of magnitude. For example, human consumption of biomass exceeds the upper 95% confidence limits for biomass ingestion by 95 other nonhuman mammal species by 100-fold; as previously noted, humanity’s geographic range is unequalled, exceeding the upper 95% confidence limit for the ranges of 523 other mammal species by a factor of ten. Bottom line: Like other living organisms, H. sapiens have evolved biologically to self-maximize. However, combined with our unique cultural prowess, human “…abilities for growth vastly outstrip those of all other species, as is demonstrated by our domination of the biosphere…” [12].

The consequences for non-human animal species are catastrophic, for what should be obvious reasons. Not only do we typically overexploit targeted ‘resource’ species, but any biomass the human tribe takes for its own purposes is irreversibly unavailable to competing organisms. Humanity’s foraging superiority means the ‘competitive displacement’ of other species from their food sources and habitats. The ‘other species’ consequently decline or die off. While H. sapiens comprises only 0.01% of the total Earthly biomass, the expansion of the human enterprise has eliminated 83% of wild animal and 50% of natural plant biomass. From a fraction of 1% 10,000 years ago, humanity now constitutes 32%, and our domestic livestock another 64%, of the planet’s much expanded mammalian biomass; all wild species combined account for only 4% [13]. Similarly, domestic poultry now comprises 70% of the earth’s remaining bird biomass [13,14] and commercial fishing depletes the oceans at the expense of rapidly declining fish-dependent marine mammals and birds. Seabirds are the most threatened bird group, with a 70% community-level population decline between 1950 and 2010 [15]. The remaining populations of monitored vertebrate species have also declined by ~70% in the past half-century [16].

These and related data suggest that our species has become, directly or indirectly, the dominant macro-consumer in all major terrestrial and accessible marine ecosystems on the planet. Indeed, H. sapiens may well be the most voraciously successful carnivorous and herbivorous vertebrate ever to walk the Earth—but at the expense of thousands of other species. The growth of the human enterprise (population and economy) on a finite planet is the greatest factor contributing to plunging biodiversity [17]. Reduced human populations almost everywhere are necessary to preserve remaining patches of non-human life on Earth [18].

Of course, biodiversity loss is only one major symptom of overshoot. Overshoot is a meta-problem, the cause of climate change (including desertification, faltering ocean circulation, etc.), land/soil degradation, tropical deforestation, ocean acidification, fisheries collapses, sinking water tables, incipient food shortages, plastic and other chemical contamination of food chains, falling sperm counts, increasing cancer rates, pandemics, the pollution of everything, etc. Virtually all so-called environmental problems are co-symptoms of overshoot. We humans are depleting and contaminating the biophysical basis of our own existence.

In the process, the human enterprise has also become the most significant of contemporary geological forces—people move up to 24 times as much material around as all natural geological processes combined [19,20]. Little wonder that the sheer weight of human-made stuff now exceeds the living biomass on Earth (~1.1 terratonnes) [21]. Welcome to the Anthropocene [22,23].

There is more than a touch of irony lurking behind these biophysical realities. Economists and techno-optimists hallucinate that the economy is ‘dematerializing’ or further ‘decoupling’ from the material world on such simplistic grounds that the ratio of carbon emissions or resource use per unit GDP is declining [24]. The above data illuminate the contrary fact that, in terms of what really matters to nature—the expanding human ecological niche—humans are actually becoming an ever greater and more destructive integral component of the ecosphere [25]. Indeed, the human enterprise is effectively subsuming the ecosphere.

Nevertheless, the bizarrely nonsensical myth of decoupling persists. Politicians lean on technology—efficiency and ‘dematerialization’—to argue that there is no inherent conflict between the continued growth of the economy and ‘the environment.’ They speak from naïveté or ignorance, but this assertion encourages the all-too-willing public to share in one of the most toxic of humanity’s panoply of illusions.

Why Is Nobody Listening?

In light of the cascading hard evidence, it seems fair to ask why the mainstream media do not report on, and most ordinary people have never heard of, overshoot. Much of the reason may be simple denial, but part of the problem may well reside in cognitive incompetence. H. sapiens evolved in simpler, more slowly-changing times that posed relatively limited challenges to the evolving central nervous system. We operate with what are still essentially Palaeolithic brains: modern humans are painfully short-sighted [26], tend to think in terms of immediate cause−effect relationships and respond to problems in simplistic, reductionist ways (think ‘dematerialization’). This cognitive mode was adequate in pre-agricultural times. However, in recent centuries, cultural evolution (e.g., the emergence of multi-layered cultures, global institutions, and near-magical technologies) has outpaced bio-evolution [27,28]. Our brains are arguably ill-adapted to the pace of change and compounding complexities of the human-made Anthropocene—we have rendered ourselves cognitively obsolete [29].

Perhaps the most obvious example is the global fixation on climate change as existential threat facing civilization. The media may be temporarily side-tracked by the recent pandemic, regional famines, the growing refugee crisis, or the Russo−Ukraine war, but the focus is still on one isolated issue at a time. Rarely do the media, even serious analysts, and certainly not most politicians, connect the dots to see these issues as springing from a common root in overshoot. Even the term poly-crisis (many parallel related problems) does not quite cut it. MTI peoples simply do not ‘get’ complexity; nor do they comprehend the lags, thresholds, and unpredictably discontinuous behaviours of overlapping complex systems under stress from overshoot [30]. This is crucially important if only because, while no major symptom of overshoot can be adequately addressed in isolation from the others, addressing overshoot directly would reduce all important symptoms simultaneously.

3. The Population Connection

“The human mind serves evolutionary success, not truth. To think otherwise is to resurrect the pre-Darwinian error that humans are different from all other animals” (John Gray, [31]).

Which brings us back to the population conundrum. In the simplest terms, overshoot results from too many people consuming and polluting too much. The immediate physical cause is excess economic throughput (i.e., resource consumption and waste production), but throughput is itself driven by both rising incomes and population growth. Most people tend to spend/consume to the limit imposed by their discretionary incomes (and, since the introduction of easy credit, often well beyond). High-income countries and populations are therefore responsible for three quarters of excess material consumption and pollution to date [32]. Even in 2021, “the top 10% of emitters were responsible for almost half of global energy-related CO2 emissions… compared with a mere 0.2% for the bottom 10%” [33]. For the past several decades, however, incremental increases in humanity’s consumption-based ecological footprint (EF) and carbon emissions have been driven more by population growth than increased incomes/consumption in all income quartiles. Indeed, population growth accounted for ∼80% of the increase in the total human EF above what would have accrued had populations remained constant even as incomes increased [34,35].

In this light, it is worth noting that, in 2023, about four billion people (half the human family) reside in lower-middle income and low-income countries, those countries with the highest population growth rates and whose people have yet to satisfy their material needs. The combination of population growth, massive latent demand, and rising GDP/capita—the latter fully justified—represents a huge potential increase in future global consumption/pollution, poses a double challenge to ecospheric integrity on a planet already in overshoot, and—rather belatedly—underscores the need for greater equity in access to resources for the world’s peoples.

It should also be obvious from these data and trends that any global approach to harmonizing the human enterprise with the ecosphere must include population planning. Nevertheless, until recently, the population question was out of bounds even in academia, largely on religious/cultural/humanist grounds or often spurious charges that analysts were implicitly racist [36,37]. As the ballooning costs of extreme weather, biodiversity loss, land/soil degradation, wildfires, regional famines, energy shortages, pollution, etc., affect more and more people, the obvious benefits of smaller human numbers [38] are finally dissolving the population taboo.

While it is becoming increasingly important that policy analysts and politicians fully understand what ‘population’ is all about, they will not receive a complete picture from most mainstream demographers. Oddly, despite their focus on population dynamics, demographers make little reference to key elements of population biology or environmental influences. Most human population projections are based on purely demographic factors—base population, age/sex distribution, age specific fertility, and mortality rates and migration (where applicable), i.e., they are conducted in a contextual vacuum. In addition, faulty inputs may skew the outcome. Population analyst, Jane O’Sullivan, argues that the flawed assumptions of the UN’s population model [39,40] and even that of the Earth4All consortium [41], place their projections “firmly in the realm of fairy tale” [42,43]. The UN expects the human population to peak at ~10.4 billion towards the end of the century. Earth4All’s ‘Too Little Too Late’ peak projection is for ~8.7 billion in the early 2050s; its ‘Giant Leap’ estimate tops out at ~8.4 billion in the early 2040s. Even with reasonable demographic assumptions, model results will be valid only if all exogenous factors crucial to population health and security can be maintained through the projection period. This assumption is simplistically unrealistic—the population is in a state of advanced overshoot dangerously eroding human carrying capacity. Climate scientists, ecologists, environmentalists, and even some demographers [44] are now sounding the alarm over mounting population pressures, even arguing we would all be better off if there were fewer of us [38].

The Evolutionary Roots of ‘Population-as-Problem’

Every concerned citizen should understand the basics of human population dynamics. First, as noted at the outset, human populations, like those of all other species, are capable of exponential (aka ‘geometric’) growth under favourable environmental conditions. A population growing exponentially at a fixed rate will have a constant doubling time. For example, the human population reached its peak growth rate of 2.2% per annum in the early 1960s when the global population was about 3.2 billion; had this rate been sustained, the population would have continued doubling every 32 years. As matters stand, the average fertility rate has declined so the population has increased ‘only’ 2.5 times in 60 years.

Exponential growth is a form of positive feedback where each increment to the population adds to the reproductive base, just as annual interest adds to the capital in a bank account. However, under natural conditions, most species (including humans) rarely realize their full reproductive potential. Positive feedback growth is countered by various forms of negative feedback—disease, food shortages, hostile competitors, etc.—so that natural populations typically fluctuate around a long-term mean. Numbers rise when conditions are favourable and fall when conditions change for the worse, often because of the bloated population itself—disease is easily spread, and starvation may be caused by excessive population densities.

Evolutionary biologists recognize that different species have evolved different reproductive strategies. Humans are archetypal ‘K’-strategists: ‘K’-strategic species are typically large, long-lived organisms, with relatively low reproductive rates, long-gestation periods, intensive parental care, and low infant mortality rates. At the other end of the spectrum are ‘r’ strategists, typically smaller, short-lived organisms with short life-cycles, very high fecundity (‘r’), little parental investment, and high progeny mortality rates. Species continuity depends on the survival of a tiny percentage of very large numbers of offspring. K-strategists are most frequently adapted to relatively stable habitats where, because of high survival rates, they tend to press up against the local carrying capacity (‘K’) [45]. Carrying capacity is the average maximum sustainable population for a particular habitat; thus ‘K’ represents the fluctuating equilibrium established between the species’ geometric growth potential and various negative feedbacks (e.g., food/water shortages and spatial limitations) that kick in when conditions deteriorate or excess numbers stress the habitat. These dynamics were the basis for Malthus’ concern, that population growth potential would always outstrip food supply.

Why is this significant again today? As noted at the outset, anatomically, modern humans have been around about 250,000 years. For most of this period, the population growth curve was essentially flat. There was a barely detectable global increase as H. sapiens spread from Africa over the rest of the planet over the past 50 millennia, and a modest uptick with the adoption of agriculture 10 millennia ago, but for the most part, widely-dispersed human populations have historically fluctuated close to their local carrying capacities. Suppressed by negative feedback, it took 99.9% of human history for the world population to reach one billion in the early 1800s.

With the scientific and industrial revolutions, everything changed. In particular, improving public health greatly lowered mortality rates and the increased use of fossil-fuelled technologies both steadily increased the availability of food [46] and provided the means of access to all the other resources needed to grow the human enterprise. In just 200 years (1/1250th the time it took to reach the first billion), the human population ballooned to seven billion by 2011 and reached eight billion only 11 years later, in November 2022. Meanwhile, human material demands on the ecosphere increased by more than two orders of magnitude with a greater than 100-fold increase in real gross world product (GWP) [47]. Ironically, only ~eight out of 10,000 generations of humans have lived this briefest of notable periods in human evolutionary history, yet today’s MTI society takes this utterly anomalous growth spurt to be the norm—and is doing everything conceivable to maintain it (Figure 1).

Figure 1. The anomalous fossil-fuelled human population boom.

4. On Energy Gradients: H. sapiens as a ‘Dissipative Structure’

“…we use 30 percent of all the energy, in the United States. That isn’t bad; that is good. That means that we are the richest, strongest people in the world and that we have the highest standard of living in the world. That is why we need so much energy, and may it always be that way” (US President Richard Nixon, November 1973 [48]).

The history of human population growth underscores a key factor to understanding the eco-crisis, one that is generally ignored by economists and demographers—the population bomb was assembled during the industrial revolution and exploded in the 19th century with the expanding use of fossilized organic matter that took hundreds of millions of years to accumulate. The wealth creation and technologies enabled by fossil fuels (FF)—including fertilizers and pesticides—reduced or eliminated various historically important forms of negative feedback, freeing the world’s human population to grow exponentially for the very first time. The fossil-powered explosion of the human enterprise triggered the most significant period of global ecological degradation in 250,000 years of human evolutionary history.

Understanding the role of energy also helps illuminate humanity’s future prospects. Following on mathematician Ludwig Boltzmann’s observation that the Darwinian struggle for existence is essentially a competition for available useful energy, mathematical ecologist, Alfred Lotka, proposed in the 1920s that successful systems (individuals, species, and ecosystems) were those that that maximized their appropriations and effective use of available energy (exergy) from their environments [49]. Somewhat later, ecologist Howard Odum refined and formalized the basic concept as the ‘maximum power principle’: in essence, natural selection favours systems that evolve (self-organize) in ways that maximize their energy intake and power output in the service of self-maintenance, growth and reproduction [50,51]. Systems that markedly fail to maximize their useful power output would be selected out.

H. sapiens are arguably the archetypal demonstration of maximum power. While other animal species are dependent on bodily (endosomatic) energy obtained from ingested biomass, humans are uniquely capable of using supplemental out-of-body (exosomatic) energy toward systems growth and reproduction. The history of civilization traces a sequence of external energy sources beginning with fire, flowing water, and wind, evolving through FF, hydro-electricity, and other so-called modern renewables, to nuclear power. Comparing societies from hunter−gatherers through farmers to MTI culture shows a pattern of exosomatic energy use, increasing from 20 Gjoules/person per year through 60 Gjoules/person per year to 300 Gjoules/person per year, respectively [52]. The richest, most powerful and thus successful (by contemporary criteria) cultures, societies, and nations have always been those that maximize their appropriations and effective use of available energy. As noted earlier, the explosive increase of GWP beginning in the 19th century was energized by FF. It is not by chance that the GDP of modern nations remains tightly correlated with petroleum consumption (Figure 2) and that the poorest half of humanity accounts for less than 20% of the global energy use [53].

Figure 2. GDP is proportional to oil consumption (Log scales). Graph courtesy of Arthur Berman.

As matters stand, the modern world remains largely dependent on the unmatched energy density of FF. Despite the hyperbole surrounding the rapid development of alternative allegedly renewable energy sources [54], 82% of the world’s primary energy was provided by coal, oil, and natural gas in 2021. Non-hydro renewables, mostly wind turbines and solar panels (the recipients of most new investment), provided less than 7.0%. In effect, fossil fuels powered the world economy for 290 of 365 days in 2021 compared with 24 days by all non-hydro renewables (wind, solar, biomass, and geothermal) combined.

Continued fossil fuel dependence is hugely problematic and not just because of climate change. The many components of MTI civilization from individual people and industries, to whole cities and nation states—indeed the entire human enterprise—share the characteristics of ‘dissipative structures’, the term coined by Ilya Prigogine to describe processes of non-equilibrium self-organization in living systems [55,56]. Dissipative structures develop/evolve in response to energy gradients, which they subsequently ‘dissipate’ (i.e., consume and degrade) to self-produce and maintain themselves. Indeed, self-organization in open systems (systems able to exchange energy and materials with their environments) requires the dissipation of energy.

The human enterprise is a complex of overlapping, highly structured, non-linear, open sub-systems each functioning in far-from-(thermodynamic)-equilibrium. ‘Thermodynamic equilibrium’ describes the state of a system in which there is no structure or gradients and thus no internal flows of matter or energy. Thermodynamic equilibrium can also exist between a system and its environment. In either case, no measurable changes can occur. In contrast, self-producing non-equilibrium systems—e.g., individual living cells, the human body, economic processes—are capable of dynamic change, including net flows between the systems and their environments and the permanent dissipation of energy and matter. Such systems are thus said to be operating ‘far-from-equilibrium’.

As noted, the modern human enterprise has evolved in its present form largely in response to the steep energy gradient represented by fossil fuels which it has been dissipating, on an accelerating curve, particularly over the past two centuries (half the fossil fuels ever consumed have been burned in just the past 30–35 years). It is not only fossil fuels. Fossil-fuelled industrialization has increased the world’s consumption of many minerals and metals by several orders of magnitude, so the best deposits of many finite and non-replenishing non-renewable resources have also been largely depleted and dissipated. Resource scarcity may well accelerate industrial civilization’s descent from overshoot. The continued growth—or even the steady-state operation—of the human enterprise thus depends entirely on the continuity of this energy flow, i.e., on the maintenance of a comparably steep energy gradient (and this assumes other resources will also be available) [57].

However, there is a problem. It is becoming increasingly evident that a quantitatively equivalent energy transition from FFs to so-called green electricity sources on a climate/overshoot friendly schedule is not likely to occur [58,59,60]. It is true that there has been impressive expansion of electricity generation by wind turbine and solar panel installations in some countries in recent years. However, as noted, FF still provided 82% of the world’s primary energy and even 61% of the world’s electrical power in 2021. Wind turbines and solar installations did give the world 10% of its electrical energy (up to 12% by 2023) but, since electricity is only ~19% of final energy consumption, wind and solar electricity account for only ~2.3% of consumers’ total energy supply, this after several decades of increasing deployment (data from [61]).

Renewable green energy clearly has a long way to go—in some years, additions to renewable capacity do not even keep up with the growth in total demand for energy. As we phase out (or run out) of FF, some analysts suggest that the world community should be preparing for a steep energy descent, a future with markedly lower—as much as 50% lower—and increasingly unreliable energy supplies [62]. The obvious, but often unspoken, corollary is that the weakening of our energy gradient will be accompanied by a massive simplification of that greatest of dissipative structures—the human enterprise. Certainly, there will be a corresponding plunge in GWP (see Figure 2); we should also anticipate global shortages of food and all the other FF-dependent material resources needed to run modern civilization—and we have not yet accounted for the simultaneous consequences of accelerating global heating. Should MTI culture maintain its present course, a major population correction seems inevitable.

5. The World’s Response to Overshoot

“Overshoot is overshoot. Once your civilization starts to consume more than what naturally gets regenerated in its folly to pursue infinite growth on a finite planet, collapse is only a matter of time” (B [63]).

Humanity’s evolutionary trajectory and our recent period of industrial expansion have obviously generated a truly unique eco-predicament for humanity—humans are innately expansionist, and MIT culture is growth-addicted, but material growth on a finite planet must eventually cease. The most encouraging sign of awakening to this contradiction is that an international planned ‘degrowth’ movement is gathering momentum, particularly in Europe [64]. Even members of the European Parliament are openly concerned about the risks associated with continued economic growth [65]. Such concerns are stimulated by increasing numbers of science-based analyses and popular reports that, even without mentioning overshoot, broach the possibility that MTI societies are facing economic and population collapse [66,67,68].

Societal collapse is a complex controversial subject. There is no consistent definition. However, there is consensus that collapse can be rapid or take decades, but invariably involves a significant loss of socio-political and economic complexity, including the dissolution/replacement of formal governments [69]. Significant population decline is possible even with regional collapses—there is a considerable history of associating collapse with overpopulation and competition for scarce resources [70].

Those who doubt that collapse is a real possibility should remember that many regional human societies have imploded in the past and that MTI societies are now so tightly entangled that the next contraction may well be global. In a rational world, the international community would act cooperatively and decisively in response to evidence of overshoot and organize to eliminate its corrosive impacts. Regrettably, nothing of the kind is occurring. MTI society does not even acknowledge overshoot. On the contrary, most industrialized countries and even the mainstream environmental movement retain their simplistic foci on climate change and both seem determined to find ways of maintaining the perpetual growth trajectory.

Some environmentalists do urge rapid disinvestment from, and the abandonment of, coal, oil, and natural gas. However, aggressive moves to reduce FF use by even the Paris Climate Agreement’s minimal 45% by 2030, would constitute political (if not societal) suicide in the absence of viable energy alternatives and a comprehensive socioeconomic restructuring plan backed by public support. Everything in the modern world depends on the continuity of energy supplies. Thus, rapid FF cutbacks would result in economic chaos—reduced goods production, massive unemployment, broken supply chains, failing GDP, declining personal incomes, over-whelmed social services, etc. Food production would plummet; essential marine and diesel-powered inter-city transportation would falter; there would be local famines, mass migrations, and a global food shortage, exacerbated by continuing climate change, civil disorder, and geopolitical chaos. Even if atmospheric GHG concentrations were to stabilize, there is already an additional 0.6 °C warming ‘in the pipe’ due to short-term feedback such as the thermal inertia of the oceans. This alone will take the world over the 1.5 °C warming limit and further destabilize the climate [71].

All of which helps explain why most of MTI’s senior governments, urban administrations, international organizations, many academic analysts, and even environmental organizations have adopted an alternative two-track strategy oriented to maintaining the status quo as follows:

Track 1: Rather than abandoning FFs, governments are maintaining subsidies to FF development: indeed, subsidies in 2022 were double those of the previous year [72]. Consequently, even the International Energy Agency expects that the share of fossil fuels in the global energy mix will remain above 60%, even in 2050 [73]. This will keep our industrial Titanic afloat until Track 2 can be fully realized or until economically extractable FFs are depleted.

Track 2 (running parallel to Track 1): Meanwhile, seduced by the promise of cheap, 100% renewable energy [54], the world has also bought into a new mythic construct, the so-called renewable energy (RE) transition. Under such banners as the ‘Green New Deal’, the ‘circular economy’, and the oxymoronic concept of ‘green growth’, MTI societies are striving to electrify everything and drive investment into so-called renewable green energy sources, particularly wind turbines, solar panels, and, most recently, hydrogen (none of which are truly green), along with corresponding infrastructure and applications (i.e., electric vehicles). All such ‘approved’ technologies—including as yet unproved carbon capture and storage technologies—involve massive capital investment, significant job creation, and excellent opportunities for profit, i.e., everything necessary to maintain growth-oriented ‘business-as-usual-by-alternative-means’. Arguably, the mainstream MTI approach is designed to make industrial capitalism appear to be the solution to, rather than a cause of, the problem [74].

Regrettably, the overall MTI strategy is ecology-, energy-, material-, and technology-blind—tantamount to ‘Electrifying the Titanic’, as if this would melt the icebergs [75]. As already noted, the much-vaunted green energy transition has arguably barely started and is mired in controversy. See the rebuttals to Seibert and Rees [76] available at: https://doi.org/10.3390/en14154508 (accessed on 8 August 2023). Its most ebullient proponents ignore important technical issues, ecological and social impacts, and problems stemming from the massive scale of the exercise, i.e., they ignore overshoot. In a nutshell, wind and solar technologies are actually not renewable (merely replaceable); their production from mine-head through manufacturing to installation is itself fossil-energy-intensive; so, the transition, in the best case, will generate at least a short-term bump in carbon emissions; they cannot deliver the same quantity and quality of energy as FFs, and their life-cycles, including orders of magnitude increases in mining and refining activities for certain crucial rare minerals, entail massive ecological degradation and (so far) egregious social injustice [76]. Several authorities have calculated that there are simply not enough economic material deposits or adequate time to replace the existing fossil fuel powered system with renewable technologies on the schedule set by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports and advanced by the Paris and subsequent climate Agreements [77,78]. Various climate scientists refer to ‘net zero by 2050′ as involving yet another collection of “magical yet unworkable” technical (non)solutions to the climate conundrum [79] or as “not just a goal, but a strategy for COP-26 to lock in many decades of unnecessary fossil fuels use well past 2050… [and creating] unacceptable risks of unstoppable climate warming” [80]. Remember, Track 1 entrenches the FF addiction. Indeed, 50 years after the publication of Limits to Growth, several formal ‘scientists’ warnings to humanity’, 27 United Nations COP meetings on climate, and several agreements on emissions reductions, the mainstream approach has so far failed to do anything significant to reduce global FF use and associated emissions. Instead, human-induced global warming rates are at their highest historical level, and the world can expect to reach and exceed the 1.5 °C global warming within the next 10 years [81,82].

In this light, Track 1 of the MTI strategy is potentially catastrophic. Continued use of FF means there is virtually no possibility that the world will achieve the Paris Agreement target to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 45% from 2010 levels by 2030 and virtually none that the world will reach net zero emissions by 2050. Indeed, the UN reports that current national commitments will actually increase emissions by 10.6% by 2030 [83]. Not only will we blow past the 1.5 °C mean global warming limit of the Paris agreement [84], we are likely to exceed even the less stringent 2.0 °C degree limit by 2050. We are actually on track for 2.4–2.8 degrees warming by century’s end [85]—atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, are still increasing [86]. Meanwhile, climate change has already put ~9% of people (>600 million) outside the historic safe human climate niche and 2.7 °C global warming could push about one-third of humanity outside the niche [87]. This does not account for threshold effects—even 2 °C warming may well trigger irreversible runaway “hothouse Earth” conditions [88], ending prospects for global civilization. Local ecosystems and possibly the ecosphere as a whole are similarly prone to abrupt, unpredictable irreversible changes that are potentially hostile to human (and other) life, if pushed beyond unknown tipping points [89].

Even under in the best-case scenario, Track 1 leads the world to more and longer heat waves and droughts, more violent tropical storms, extended wildfire seasons, accelerating desertification, and water shortages. In many respects, 2023 is turning out to be a record-breaking archetypal demonstration of what the future will bring. Many regions on several continents are suffering record heat waves and drought or unprecedented precipitation and floods; and, at the time of writing, over 900 wildfires are raging, most out of control, in the Boreal forests of Canada and many more in the forests of Siberia. As parts of the planet become uninhabitable, we should expect faltering agriculture, food shortages, and possibly extended famines [90]. Rising sea levels over the next century will flood many coastal cities; with the breakdown of national highway and marine transportation networks other cities are likely to be cut off from food-lands, energy, and other essential resources. Some large metropolitan areas will become unsupportable and not survive the century [91]. Even in 2021, at least 414 cities with a total 1.4 billion plus inhabitants, were deemed to be at high or extreme risk from a combination of pollution, dwindling water supplies, extreme heat stress, and other vulnerabilities to climate change alone [92].

Which brings us back to the faltering Track 2 and overshoot. Barring all-out nuclear holocaust, one could argue that the only thing worse than the failure of Track 2’s so-called green renewable energy transition would be its success. Developing another assured supply of abundant cheap energy would simply allow for the extension of growth-based ‘business-as-usual-by-alternative-means’, increasing the depletion/dissipation of the natural world and worsening overshoot:

It is human nature to “…intensify our exploitation of fossil fuels, metals, and non-metallic minerals in order to perpetuate our industrial lifestyle paradigm for as long as possible… Paradoxically, the more vigorously we strive to perpetuate our unsustainable industrialized way of life… the more quickly and thoroughly we will deplete Earth’s remaining non-renewable and renewable reserves, thereby hastening and exacerbating our global societal collapse” ([93], emphasis added).

Ironically, then, with the success of the Track 2 mission, the ecosphere would succumb within decades to irreversible degradation, disordering, and dissipation, taking the global human enterprise with it. Arguably, a smaller contraction sooner is preferable to a massive one later.

It Would Not Be the First Time

The prospect of societal collapse, however horrific it sounds to MTI ears, is perfectly consistent with history and the systems dynamics characterizing the rise and fall of previous human civilizations [94,95]. In particular, many MTI nations are exhibiting the diminishing returns and socio-political pathologies—egregious and increasing inequality, government and institutional incompetence and corruption, currency debasement, popular loss of confidence in the state, increasing civil unrest, etc.—of an overly complex society on the verge of collapse [96] as well as the potentially avoidable symptoms—ecological destruction, climate change, breakdown of trade and international relationships, and inability or unwillingness to adapt to changing circumstances—of a society apparently ‘choosing’ to fail [97].

More generally, the stages of civilizational development and decay catalogued by Toynbee [94] (genesis, growth, time of troubles, universal state, and disintegration) are markedly similar to the phases of the repetitive cycles common to living systems (initiation and exploitation, maturation and conservation, rigidification and release (i.e., collapse)). Gunderson and Holling advance the ‘panarchy’ theory to explore such cyclical change as a mechanism for adaptation common to complex ecosystems and social systems. They argue that each iteration of a naturally-repeating cycle (e.g., the cyclical fire regime of certain forest ecosystems) theoretically provides opportunities for innovation and evolutionary adaptation [98]. One is forced to wonder why modern H. sapiens stubbornly fail to apply lessons from well-studied historic collapses to develop the foresight and the policy actions needed to head off the next.

On the contrary, many analysts reject historical precedents as guides to contemporary policy. Perhaps they should take warning from the aforementioned infamous 1972 Club of Rome/MIT study, Limits to Growth (LTG) [99], which showed that, on a business-as-usual track, global society would face collapse by mid-21st century. As might be expected, many economists and techno-optimists roundly rejected this assessment—economists ignore overshoot and even grossly underestimate the damage from climate change; their concepts and models are divorced from biophysical reality [100]. However, subsequent studies show that the real world is behaving with disturbing fidelity to LTG modelling, particularly the two (of four) scenarios that indicate a halt in growth over the next decade or so, followed by subsequent declines and collapse [101].

6. Summary and Conclusions: It’s Really Quite Simple

“Without a biosphere in a good shape, there is no life on the planet. It’s very simple. That’s all you need to know. The economists will tell you we can decouple growth from material consumption, but that is total nonsense… If you don’t manage decline, then you succumb to it and you are gone” (Vaclav Smil, [102]).

H. sapiens, like all other species, are naturally predisposed to grow, reproduce, and expand into all suitable accessible habitat. Physical growth is natural, but is only an early phase in the development of individual organisms; growth in sheer scale, including population growth, is characteristic of early phases of complex living systems, including human societies. However, both material and population growth in finite habitats are ultimately limited by the availability of essential ‘inputs’, by the capacity of the system’s environment to assimilate (often toxic) outputs, or by various forms of negative feedback as previously listed. Growth will cease, either by “design or disaster” [103]

For most of H. sapiens’ evolutionary history, local population growth has, in fact, been constrained by negative feedback. However, improved population health (lower death rates) and the use of fossil fuels. particularly since the early 19th century, enabled a period of unprecedented food and resource abundance. In nature, any ‘K’-strategic species population enjoying such favourable conditions will expand exponentially. Growth will generally continue until excess consumption and habitat degradation once again lead to food shortages and starvation, or disease and predation take their toll. The population then falls back below the long-term carrying capacity of the habitat and negative feedback eases off. Some species repeatedly exhibit this cycle of population boom and bust.

Humanity is only a partial exception. The abundance generated by fossil fuels enabled H. sapiens, for the first time, to experience a one-off global population boom−bust cycle (Figure 1). It is a ‘one-off’ cycle because it was enabled by vast stocks of both potentially renewable self-producing resources and finite non-renewable resources, including fossil fuels, which have been greatly depleted. No repetition is possible. As Clugston argues, by choosing to industrialize, Homo sapiens unwittingly made a commitment to impermanence [77]. We adopted a self-terminating way of life, in which the finite resources that enable our industrial existence would inevitably become insufficient to do so.

The physical mechanisms are simple. Living systems, from individual cells through whole organisms to populations and ecosystems, exist in nested hierarchies and function as far-from-equilibrium dissipative structures [104]. Each level in the hierarchy depends on the next level up both as a source for useful resources (negentropy) and as a sink for degraded wastes (entropy). As Daly [8,9] reminds us, the human enterprise is a wholly-dependent subsystem of the ecosphere; it produces and maintains itself by extracting negentropic resources from its host system, the ecosphere, and dumping degraded en-tropic wastes back into its host. It follows that the increasing structural and functional complexity of the human sub-system as a far-from equilibrium-dissipative structure (a node of negentropy) can occur only at the expense of the accelerated disordering (increas-ing entropy) of the non-growing ecosphere. Indeed, humanity is in overshoot—global heating, plunging biodiversity, soil/land degradation, tropical deforestation, ocean acidi-fication, fossil fuel and mineral depletion, the pollution of everything, etc., are indicative of the increasing disordering of the biosphere/ecosphere. We are at risk of a chaotic break-down of essential life-support functions [105].

Little of this is reflected in contemporary development debates or in discussions of the population conundrum. The international community’s response to incipient biospheric collapse is doubly disastrous. MTI culture’s commitment to material growth, including continued FF use (Track 1), condemns humanity to the predictably dangerous impacts of accelerating climate change; at the same time, our pursuit of alternative energy sources (themselves FF dependent) in order to maintain the growth-based status quo (Track 2) would, if successful, assure the continued depletion and dissipation of both self-producing and non-renewable resources essential for the existence of civilization.

The mainstream view of population asserts that the growth rate is declining so “not to worry”—or worry that population decline is bad for the economy! Even the base assertion is controversial. Jane O’Sullivan points out that the rate of decline has itself declined in this century. She argues that UN demographers have thus ‘persistently underestimated recent global population, due to their over-anticipation of fertility declines in high-fertility countries’ [106]. The human population continues to grow at about 80 million per year—O’Sullivan argues that the number is closer to 90 million—and its ultimate peak is highly uncertain. Renewed negative feedback may well end growth well before the population reaches the UN’s expected 10.4 billion in the late 2080s.

It is crucial to remember that, right or wrong, conventional projections ignore the fact that the ecosphere is not actually now ‘supporting’ even the present eight billion people. The human enterprise is growing and maintaining itself by liquidating and polluting essential ecosystems and material assets. In short, even average material living standards are corrosively excessive, yet, in 2019, ‘almost a quarter of the global population… lived below the US3.65 per day poverty line, and almost half, 47 percent, lived below the US6.85 poverty line’ [107] and the world considers sheer material growth as the means to address this problem. Following this path, eco-destruction will ramp up, increasing the probability of a self-induced simplification and contraction of the human enterprise.

Baring a nuclear holocaust, it is unlikely that H. sapiens will go extinct. Wealthy, technologically advanced nations potentially have more resilience and may be insulated, at least temporarily, from the worst consequences of global simplification [108]. That said, rebounding negative feedbacks—climate chaos, food and other resource shortages, civil disorder, resource wars, etc.—may well eliminate prospects for an advanced world-wide civilization. In the event of a seemingly inevitable global population ‘correction’, human numbers will fall to the point where survivors can once again hope to thrive within the (much reduced) carrying capacity of the Earth. Informed estimates put the long-term carrying capacity at as few as 100 million [109] to as many as three billion people [110].

It is uncertain whether much or any of industrial high-tech can persist in the absence of abundant cheap energy and rich resource reserves, most of which will have been extracted, used, and dissipated. It may well be that the best-case future will, in fact, be powered by renewable energy, but in the form of human muscle, draft horses, mules, and oxen supplemented by mechanical water-wheels and wind-mills. In the worst case, the billion (?) or so survivors will face a return to stone-age life-styles. Should this be humanity’s future, it will not be urban sophisticates that survive but rather the pre-adapted rural poor and remaining pockets of indigenous peoples.

Bottom line: Any reasonable interpretation of previous histories, current trends, and complex systems dynamics would hold that global MTI culture is beginning to unravel and that the one-off human population boom is destined to bust. H. sapiens’ innate expansionist tendencies have become maladaptive. However, far from acknowledging and overriding our disadvantageous natural predispositions, contemporary cultural norms reinforce them. Arguably, in these circumstances, wide-spread societal collapse cannot be averted—collapse is not a problem to be solved, but rather the final stage of a cycle to be endured. Global civilizational collapse will almost certainly be accompanied by a major human population ‘correction’. In the best of all possible worlds, the whole transition might actually be managed in ways that prevent unnecessary suffering of millions (billions?) of people, but this is not happening—and cannot happen—in a world blind to its own predicament.

Imagine Another Joyful Day

"Imagine all the people

Livin' life in peace." — John Lennon.

I post on globehackers Facebook page not to hurt your feelings or make you uncomfortable; I don't do it for status or likes or because I think it makes me look one way or another. There probably are better curators of information about current events elsewhere. I post links to articles, books, and videos because I am human, I live here, I love life, and I can't turn away, so I keep up with current events and try to imagine something better even though I am as hopeless, powerless and helpless as most people.

I imagine that if more people understood what was going on in the world from various perspectives, they might find hope, power, and confidence in the project of building a better way of life, a kinder culture, a world where life is sacred, where we all live in justice and peace.

How much will we learn and discover if our species lasts another thousand years? I can imagine the joyous smiles of children seeing wild animals living in pristine, healthy habitats—the excitement they'd feel while watching a breaching whale. I can imagine a world where most people are enlightened, wise, healthy, and robust. I can imagine a world where people love and respect each other despite their differences.

I can imagine this because I feel it. I imagine these things to hold back my tears and find joy in living another day.

Where In The World Can Loving People Go And Be Left Alone

This is the reality we are living in:

The World Has Already Ended

How Social Engineering Drives Technology

With all of the ominous challenges we are facing, people are still arguing about who killed Kenedy. You'd laugh if you heard me say that in a casual social context. It’s a joke, a bitter ironic joke—a protective tonic.

Patrick Lawrence: What Died 60 Years Ago?

Most of us are apologists for business-as-usual. We may not be as intelligent or educated as Steven Pinker, but we do our part.

What we lost, we lost long before what we lost due to the assassinations of the 1960s, through dozens of choices, big and small, and uncompromising faith in a system that would always destroy visions of peace and cooperation among peoples and nations.

What kinds of democracies have we known since ancient Greece? What has come of modern democratic social experiments or any other social systems we’ve tried since the dawn of fossil capitalism?

What did international cooperation look like before modernity? We have no idea what it's like to be hunter-gatherers. With the exception of some indigenous and isolated groups that have existed and survived in small, remote pockets of the world, we have no idea what their values were or how they felt about life. We have not inherited mythologies from their like. We know only civilization and its demands, and it demands everything.

This is because this is.

we are born, raised and programmed to fit into this.

We are nothing but human capital. Anyone wanting a system that would elevate the human spirit, that of love, compassion, cooperation, deep imagination, creativity, and amazement, is always crushed beneath the requirements of "Capital." Capitalism requires the commodification of everything and, ultimately, the transformation of life into a dead machine with no purpose but to consume. It is the metaphorical black hole at the center of lust.

Modernity is accelerationism and has no conscience; it only cares about manipulating more materials to serve various civilized belief systems inherent to The Great Game Two Point Zero To One. It runs on its own sick logic. "Exploit everything, kill it all, a bonsai charge to the finish. Do it for God, do it for Country, do it for Power, do it for Freedom, do it for Law, do it for Fame...!"

Modern Empires overthrow any attempt to live differently. You are human capital, a commodity, and you will be devoured.

What violence can bring about peace, and what peace can survive the violence of such a culture?

I fear that there is no answer to that question.

Become the loving, loving be, be no end,

I know the Universe is free.

Will AI Replace Us

Firstly, does it matter if AI replaces us? 

Please allow me to prime the pump with some good old-fashioned culture before moving on to the new-fangled genies and black boxes that control our lives.

On the Seashore

BY RABINDRANATH TAGORE

On the seashore of endless worlds children meet.

The infinite sky is motionless overhead and the restless water is boisterous. On the seashore of endless worlds the children meet with shouts and dances.

They build their houses with sand, and they play with empty shells. With withered leaves they weave their boats and smilingly float them on the vast deep. Children have their play on the seashore of worlds.

They know not how to swim, they know not how to cast nets. Pearl-fishers dive for pearls, merchants sail in their ships, while children gather pebbles and scatter them again. They seek not for hidden treasures, they know not how to cast nets.

The sea surges up with laughter, and pale gleams the smile of the sea-beach. Death-dealing waves sing meaningless ballads to the children, even like a mother while rocking her baby's cradle. The sea plays with children, and pale gleams the smile of the sea-beach.

On the seashore of endless worlds children meet. Tempest roams in the pathless sky, ships are wrecked in the trackless water, death is abroad and children play. On the seashore of endless worlds is the great meeting of children.

Think of the mad hubris involved in thinking our species knows the mind of God. It is undeniable that all religious scriptures are human stories serving human purposes. There is a vast amount of literature on the subject.

Our experience with science, technology, mathematics, philosophy, etc., is a struggle to understand and exploit nature and reality to pursue benefits. People pray to God for help. People also learn from nature and use their intellect to help themselves overcome challenges and improve the quality of their lives. All stories across cultures express this adventure.

All of our endeavors and experiences are human, all too human.

Esteeming humble truths. It is the sign of a higher culture to esteem more highly the little, humble truths, those discovered by a strict method, rather than the gladdening and dazzling errors that originate in metaphysical and artistic ages and men. At first, one has scorn on his lips for humble truths, as if they could offer no match for the others: they stand so modest, simple, sober, even apparently discouraging, while the other truths are so beautiful, splendid, enchanting, or even enrapturing. But truths that are hard won, certain, enduring, and therefore still of consequence for all further knowledge are the higher; to keep to them is manly, and shows bravery, simplicity, restraint. Eventually, not only the individual, but all mankind will be elevated to this manliness, when men finally grow accustomed to the greater esteem for durable, lasting knowledge and have lost all belief in inspiration and a seemingly miraculous communication of truths. — Human, All Too Human: A Book for Free Spirits by Friedrich Nietzsche

AI is a Greek Tragedy unfolding in front of us that we are mostly incapable of understanding because we don't understand the technology, how it works, or its significance. No, most of us don’t understand the ubiquitous science, engineering, and technology we all take for granted; we struggle even to understand ourselves.

Extinction, for us, is the end of time. What consciousness in the Universe will remember us? Is Gaia conscious in the way humans are? How would we know? When will we know?

Gaia because Gaia

Remember, extinction is the rule for life on Earth, not the exception.

Greek Tragedy

Tragedies don't always go from good to bad. They can go from bad to good to bad or from good to bad to good again, and for Aristotle, it was mutability; it was the change that was tragic, not necessarily the direction of the change. (so much for progress) We think of tragedy as something terrible happening. We mostly misuse the term.

Greek tragedy was a ritual performance of the downfall of a great man — usually a king or a nobleman — brought low because of some random mishap or inexplicable fate.

tragedy

/ˈtradʒɪdi/

noun

an event causing great suffering, destruction, and distress, such as a serious accident, crime, or natural catastrophe.

"a tragedy that killed 95 people"

a play dealing with tragic events and having an unhappy ending, especially one concerning the downfall of the main character. "Shakespeare's tragedies"

Greek tragedies were stories about how people interact, and inevitibilities occur. Accidents and chance play a significant role in Greek tragedy. We always encounter what we don't expect: outliers, black swans, long tails in statistics, collateral damage, externalities, unforeseen disasters, etc. 

Friar Lawrence helps “Romeo and Juliet” throughout Shakespeare’s play simply because he cares about the star-crossed lovers. But what foils all of the characters is an accident. A letter arrives late, and a reversal of fate ensues. 

We assume that we know the mind of God because we are God's creatures, and we are geniuses in controlling nature because we are Homo Sapiens with unique intellectual superpowers. This allows us to play God and create God. And yet, we still have that pesky problem of evil. We invent a loving, merciful God and still go to Hell. We develop machines and exploit cheap, abundant, reliable, and powerful energy sources only to run out of them while changing the atmosphere's chemistry to the point where we are in danger of losing habitat to such a degree that it might extinct our species.

Lousy timing, fate, and things spinning out of control are familiar to most of us—so much so that we subscribe to a dozen information channels to focus our attention, day after day, on the misfortune surrounding us and the tragedy we invent in our stories. 

Romeo and Juliet is a dramedy until, through many mishaps, Romeo finds Juliet dead. Romeo takes poison and, while dying, kisses Juliet. Friar Lawrence enters the tomb, and Juliet wakes up and finds Romeo dead. Frightened by a noise, the Friar flees the tomb. Juliet kills herself with Romeo's dagger.

Romeo and Juliet was an innovative, hybrid play. Shakespeare was familiar with Greek tragedy and comedy. His works fell out of favor until Coleridge and German Romanticism revived an appreciation for his works’ organic form.  

Greek tragedy presents moral dilemmas. 

A hero or great man has to do something but makes a mistake, which creates a reversal that is an emotionally wrenching, cathartic experience for the audience. A tragic flaw is always present. One shoots for the bullseye and misses. The character mistook something; he got it wrong. He did not know. He was caught by surprise. In the case of Oedipus, he could not have known who his parents were and ended up in his mother's household. He doesn't know the woman is his mother and ends up marrying her, a horror they can not survive. These events have nothing to do with a failure on Oedipus' part.

Agamemnon is confronted with the need to sacrifice his daughter, which is horrific, but it's framed in a situation where there is no way to avoid doing something wrong.

Agamemnon was forced to put on the the yoke, the harness of necessity. Necessity implies something he HAS to do; it’s unavoidable. He was both responsible and not responsible. Tragedy plays with the relationship between necessity and freedom, fate and choice. Achilles chooses to fight even though he knows he will die if he does. His reward is fame. 

These stories knew nothing of the modern debate concerning free will.

Why is there so much suffering, and why do we enjoy stories of so much suffering? We watch hours and hours of horror, pain, and suffering on our screens every day.

Pathei Mathos—"We learn by suffering." Suffering is a great teacher. It is part and parcel of any intelligent grappling with the human experience, both physically, personally, and politically. Salon, Polis, Cosmos—from small to large. Suffering is programmed into the human system, internally and externally, in our minds, bodies, and souls and in manifesting our ambitions and actions. 

Suffering is not someone's fault; it happens; it is a feature, not a bug. It may seem unjust, but it's programmed into the system, into human experience. We must not be afraid to look at the injustice written into and structuring the system itself.

Examining suffering and the randomness of fate is unavoidable if we want to understand who and what Homo Sapiens are. 

Will AGI replace us? It seems as likely as any other accident. We must not ignore the question, however: our ambitions have led to weapons of mass destruction, the Anthropocene, the sixth extinction, global heating, destruction of habitat, pollution, and ill health despite science-based/evidence-based medicine. 

AI is a cascade of tragic accidents happening right now. It is only the hubris of a conscious species with a clever mind that thinks it can understand the mind of God or play God.

Do we want to be replaced? Accelerationism, Tech Optimism, The Singularity, etc. Who wants this? Do ordinary people dream of becoming a machine? Is there a pill one can take to understand reality beyond how we can access and understand it with our minds and bodies? What must we build to make a human better? Must we always optimize and improve to the point where we are no longer human?

It won't replace us, it won't serve us, it isn't us, but it may help us destroy what it is to be human. Before that happens, billions of us may die due to our hubristic nature and failure of stewardship. If anything is left after the next dark age, only a great science fiction writer with a fantastic imagination can attempt to answer the question of what's left and what it is or looks like.

If AGI replaces us, we can only hope there will remain, in the Universe, the faint echo of a clever conscious species of life on Earth that remained only briefly in the mind of God.

To me, God is creation's ineffable, unknowable mystery. Peace be with us.

Well, that was dark. Let’s say that AI, LLMs, and, in a decade or so, AGI helps governments and corporations come up with ways to return the atmosphere to equilibrium, saving us from the worst consequences of global heating. Let’s also imagine that we find new energy sources that are clean, safe, cheap, abundant, etc. Without radical changes in our social, political, and economic structures and systems, will we be able to develop a sustainable, peaceful global civilization where people are healthy, wealthy, and wise? One must not lose hope.

Mick and I spoke about governments and governance. Perhaps people in First World nations, in particular, “The Anglosphere,” are feeling that they can’t trust governments to regulate and control the development of AI such that it may benefit people without threatening our hard-won freedoms and civil rights. If so, who can be trusted with these world-changing technologies? Private corporations like Amazon, Google, and Facebook.

The imperative for regulatory oversight of large language models (or generative AI) in healthcare

Historically, Public/Private partnerships have driven technological development, particularly in wealthy countries that can invest heavily in their military-industrial complexes.

Here are some historical examples:

1. DARPA and AI Research:

   • The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) in the United States has played a significant role in funding and supporting AI research since the 1960s. DARPA's investments have contributed to the development of various AI technologies, including natural language processing and machine learning.

2. Academic and Corporate Collaboration:

   • Many breakthroughs in AI research have emerged from collaborations between academia and industry. Researchers in universities often work closely with private companies, sharing expertise and resources. For example, companies like Google, Facebook, and Microsoft have sponsored AI research at universities and have hired many AI researchers from academia.

3. OpenAI and Partnership Models:

   • OpenAI, a research organization focused on artificial general intelligence (AGI), was founded with the goal of advancing AI in a safe and beneficial manner. It was initially backed by prominent figures in the tech industry, including Elon Musk and Sam Altman. OpenAI has also sought partnerships with private companies to fund its research.

4. Industry Research Labs:

   • Many major technology companies, including Google, Microsoft, IBM, and Facebook, have established their own AI research labs. These labs conduct extensive research on AI and LLMs, contributing to the advancement of the field. These companies often collaborate with each other and with academic institutions.

5. Government Funding and Initiatives:

   • Various governments around the world have provided funding and support for AI research. For instance, the European Union has invested in AI research through programs like Horizon 2020. In China, the government has outlined ambitious plans for AI development and has invested heavily in AI research and infrastructure.

6. Language Model Development:

   • The development of Large Language Models (LLMs) like GPT (Generative Pre-trained Transformer) involved collaborations between researchers and engineers in both industry and academia. OpenAI, the organization behind GPT, has received funding from private investors and has collaborated with various partners.

7. Commercialization of AI:

   • Private corporations played a crucial role in commercializing AI applications as AI technologies matured. Companies like Amazon, Google, and Microsoft offer cloud-based AI services, making AI capabilities accessible to businesses and developers.

Overall, the development of AI and LLMs has been a collaborative effort involving a mix of government support, academic research, and contributions from private corporations. The landscape is dynamic, with ongoing partnerships shaping the future of AI technologies.

The Essential Skills for Large Language Model Development: What You Need to Know

complex enough for you?

The development of Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) is a complex and resource-intensive endeavor, and currently, only a few technologically advanced countries are actively working on AGI research. These countries have the necessary infrastructure, talent pool, and financial resources to collaborate with private companies to pursue AGI. Some of these countries include:

United States:

The United States is a global leader in AI research and development. It is home to major technology companies, research institutions, and government agencies actively contributing to AGI research. Silicon Valley, in particular, is a hub for AI innovation.

China:

China has made significant strides in AI research and has ambitious plans to become a global AI leader by 2030. The Chinese government has invested heavily in AI initiatives, and Chinese tech companies are actively involved in AGI research.

European Union (EU) Countries:

Several countries within the European Union, such as Germany, the United Kingdom, France, and others, have been actively investing in AI research. The European Commission has outlined strategies to promote AI development, and there are collaborative efforts at the national and EU levels.

Canada:

Canada, and in particular the city of Toronto, has emerged as a significant hub for AI research. The country has a robust academic community that has produced influential contributions to the field. Canadian companies, along with international collaborations, are engaged in AGI research.

These countries have a combination of factors that enable them to afford and pursue AGI development, including an intense research and educational infrastructure, access to top talent, robust funding mechanisms, and supportive government policies. AGI development involves private companies and collaborations with academic institutions and government agencies. The landscape may evolve as other countries with emerging AI capabilities actively participate in AGI research and development.

Major AI concerns.

Speed Kills—we are not incentivized to go slow.

1. Bias and Fairness: Many experts have raised concerns about the potential bias in large language models, reflecting and perpetuating existing societal biases. If the training data is biased, the model can learn and reproduce those biases in its outputs.

2. Ethical Use: There are worries about the potential misuse of AI and large language models for malicious purposes, such as generating fake news, deepfakes, or engaging in harmful activities like cyber attacks.

3. Lack of Explainability: Large language models often operate as "black boxes," making it challenging to understand how they arrive at specific decisions or generate certain outputs. This lack of transparency raises concerns about accountability and trust.

4. Security Risks: As AI systems become more integrated into various domains, concerns about their susceptibility to attacks exist. Adversarial attacks, where input data is manipulated to deceive the model, are of particular concern.

5. Unintended Consequences: Deploying large language models may lead to unforeseen consequences. For instance, the generation of misleading or harmful content, unintentional biases, or other adverse outcomes arise from these models' complexity and scale.

Many AI experts are concerned with aligning the goals of AGI with human values and the potential for unintended consequences. AGI systems need to be designed with sufficient safety measures.

There will be a "control problem," emphasizing the difficulty of ensuring that a superintelligent AI system behaves in ways aligned with human values and doesn't pose risks to humanity.

WHAT PARTICULAR SET OF HUMAN VALUES CAN THE WORLD AGREE ON?

There will probably be all kinds of contrasting and competing AI systems, leading to an arms race and the weaponization of AI.

How can we (who are we) align the goals and values of AGI with a globally agreed-upon set of human values to prevent unintended consequences?

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

What are the potential dangers of artificial intelligence?

15 Potential AI Risks  

• Automation-spurred job loss.

• Deepfakes.

• Privacy Violations.

• Algorithmic bias caused by bad data.

• Socioeconomic inequality.

• Danger to humans.

• Unclear legal regulation.

• Social manipulation.

In a world where billions of people are starving and migrants wander the Earth in search of food, who will shepherd and police AI?

Who has the money and resources to run AI, and what are their goals? Profit? Power? Control? State Control, Private Control, or a perfect combination of both? How much energy and resources can we channel into these data centers or decentralized systems?

Do we need quantum computing to ensure safety and security? Security for people or what? 

WE HAVE A HUMAN NATURE PROBLEM.

“Guns don't kill, people do.” 

Can “we” develop robust and verifiable control methods to ensure AGI's safe deployment? Who regulates it? 

Jobs? What kinds of jobs will AI, LLMs, and AGI generate? What kind of people will we become if we are over-dependent on machines?

Oh, and there is still the global neoliberal, financialized, unfettered, omnicidal heat engine and our religious belief in growth as measured by GDP. A.K.A Capitalism. What do we do with those values? Will AI be wise enough to nudge us toward change if we are not?

Stuart Russell, a professor of computer science and co-author of the widely used textbook "Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach," has emphasized the importance of aligning AI systems with human values to ensure their safe and beneficial deployment.

What values? Values randomly scrapped off of social media? Who will curate the inputs or develop the algorithms to curate inputs by machines? What libraries will we use, Western, Eastern, Eurasian—perhaps in Esperanto?

Demis Hassabis is the co-founder and CEO of DeepMind. This leading AI research lab has been instrumental in advancing the field of reinforcement learning and neural networks, with a focus on AGI.

Who among us knows how neural networks work? We live in a black box with genies stochastically flying around doing opaque miraculous deeds. What will "They" (insert conspiracy theory here) want to use them for, and why? To what purpose?

Yoshua Bengio, Geoffrey Hinton, and Yann LeCun are three researchers often called the "Godfathers of AI" or the pioneers of deep learning. Their work has profoundly impacted the development of machine learning techniques that are crucial for AGI research.

Who uses machine learning, and to whose benefit? The Market? Are we, forever more, the beneficiaries of these technologies? We must be careful how these technologies are used and for what purpose. Can these technologies be deployed and used in a “democratic” way?

Andrew Ng is a computer scientist and co-founder of Google Brain. Ng has significantly contributed to developing deep learning algorithms and advocated for AI education. Is Andrew our friend?

Shane Legg is a co-founder of DeepMind along with Demis Hassabis. Shane Legg has contributed to the research and development of artificial intelligence, particularly in reinforcement learning and AGI.

What the heck is reinforcement learning? Do you think you should know about any of this, or will we sit around watching Netflix Black Mirror episodes until we come what may? We must get involved if we will use these technologies to benefit life on Earth.

According to experts, what are the top potential benefits of AI, LLMs, and AGI?

Do ordinary folks have any ideas about how they'd like to use the technology or benefits they'd like to experience? Who decides for us?

Automation and Efficiency:

AI has the potential to automate routine and repetitive tasks, improving efficiency and freeing up human resources for more creative and complex endeavors.

I’d love to see people having more time for creative work. Can ordinary people embrace complexity? Efficiency to what end? What of the simple life? We might want to keep bees and fish in a pristine lake with healthy fish stocks.

Medical Advancements:

AI can assist in medical diagnosis and treatment by analyzing vast amounts of medical data, identifying patterns, and providing insights to healthcare professionals. This is potentially great, but if profit is the primary driver of these endeavors, then we are in big trouble.

Improved Decision-Making:

AI systems can quickly process and analyze large datasets, helping humans make more informed and data-driven decisions across various industries. Decisions to what ends?

Enhanced Productivity:

Businesses can use AI to streamline processes, optimize supply chains, and improve productivity. To make more stuff?

Natural Language Processing:

LLMs and advancements in natural language processing enable more realistic and sophisticated interactions between humans and machines, improving communication and user experience. All of my best friends are machines.

Scientific Discovery:

AI can accelerate scientific research by analyzing complex datasets, simulating experiments, and identifying patterns that might be challenging for humans to discern. How much control do we want to give our machines?

Environmental Monitoring:

AI can contribute to environmental monitoring and conservation efforts by analyzing data from various sources, such as satellite imagery and sensor networks, to track ecosystem changes and address environmental challenges. This would be nice.

Personalized Services:

AI can tailor services and recommendations based on individual preferences and behavior, providing a more personalized experience in entertainment, marketing, and e-commerce. To heck with that, I need to interact with people. I need good relationships.

Education and Training:

AI technologies can support personalized learning experiences, providing adaptive educational content and assessments tailored to individual student needs. Education is a fine use case, but we still need teachers. We can’t thrive without the human “interface.”

Assistive Technologies:

AI can be applied to develop assistive technologies that enhance the quality of life for individuals with disabilities, offering mobility, communication, and independent living solutions. This would be great. I hope this happens.

Exploration and Space Research:

AI can aid in space exploration by assisting in autonomous navigation, analyzing data from space probes, and supporting the planning of complex missions. I love the idea of intelligent machines exploring the universe while people stay on Earth doing Earthling stuff to maintain a healthy biosphere for diverse life forms. 

Innovation and Creativity:

AI systems can generate novel ideas, designs, and solutions, contributing to innovation and creativity across various industries. It can help creative people.

additional book suggestion

A sweeping study of how capitalism first promoted fossil fuels with the rise of steam power—and contributed to the worsening climate crisis

The more we know about the catastrophic implications of climate change, the more fossil fuels we burn. How did we end up in this mess? In this masterful new history, Andreas Malm claims it all began in Britain with the rise of steam power. But why did manufacturers turn from traditional sources of power, notably water mills, to an engine fired by coal? Contrary to established views, steam offered neither cheaper nor more abundant energy but superior control of subordinate labor. Animated by fossil fuels, capital could concentrate production at the most profitable sites and during the most convenient hours, as it continues to do today.
 
Sweeping from nineteenth-century Manchester to the emissions explosion in China, from the original triumph of coal to the stalled shift to renewables, this study hones in on the burning heart of capital and demonstrates, in unprecedented depth, that turning down the heat will mean a radical overthrow of the current economic order.

“The definitive deep history on how our economic system created the climate crisis. Superb, essential reading from one of the most original thinkers on the subject.”
—Naomi Klein, author of This Changes Everything and The Shock Doctrine

ARTICLES

The 15 Biggest Risks Of Artificial Intelligence

12 Risks and Dangers of Artificial Intelligence (AI)

SQ10. What are the most pressing dangers of AI?

Here's Why AI May Be Extremely Dangerous—Whether It's Conscious or Not

The risks of AI are real but manageable

Against Safetyism

AI system outperforms humans in global weather forecasting

Among the most extreme sci-fi speculations of AI doomsday are “Roko’s basilisk” and the “paperclip maximizer” thought experiments, which are designed to illustrate the risks of a superintelligent, self-replicating, and constantly self-improving future AGI — one that might become uncontrollable and incomprehensible, even for its creators. But these hypothetical scenarios are built on questionable, and often highly anthropomorphizing assumptions, such as that safety measures can’t be built into these systems, that AI can't be contained, that a future AGI is subject to the selection pressures of natural evolution, or that a superintelligent AI will invariably turn evil. 

And a deeper problem with these extreme scenarios is that it’s essentially impossible to predict the medium-term, let alone the long-term impact of emerging technologies. Over the past half-century, even leading AI researchers completely failed in their predictions of AGI timelines. So, instead of worrying about sci-fi paperclips or Terminator scenarios, we should be more concerned, for example, with all the diseases for which we weren’t able to discover a cure or the scientific breakthroughs that won’t materialize because we’ve prematurely banned AI research and development based on the improbable scenario of a sentient AI superintelligence annihilating humanity.

Last year, a Google engineer and AI ethicist claimed that Google’s chatbot achieved sentience. And leading AI researchers and others, including Elon Musk, just recently signed a letter calling for a moratorium on AI research — all it will take, in other words, are six months to “flatten the curve” of AI progress (obviously, China’s CCP would be very supportive). Signatories seem to not only fear the shimmering cyborg exoskeletons crushing human skulls — which Terminator 2’s opening scene immortalized — but also the automatization of jobs and, predictably, fake news, propaganda, misinformation, and other “threats to democracy.” But the call for a moratorium on AI — which confuses existential risks with concerns about unemployment — doesn’t define what the risks and their probabilities are, and lacks any criteria for when and how to lift the ban. So, given that regulations for AI applications, such as for autonomous driving and medical diagnostics, already exist, it’s unclear why a ban on basic AI research and development is needed in the first place.

But, as if a temporary ban on AI research isn’t enough, Eliezer Yudkowsky, a leading proponent of AI doomerism — and who expects that humanity will very soon go extinct due to a superhuman intelligence-induced Armageddon — called for a complete shutdown of all large GPU clusters, restricting the computing power anyone is allowed to use in training AI systems, and, if necessary, even destroying data centers by airstrike. The only way to prevent the apocalypse, according to this extreme form of AI safety doomerism, is for America to reserve the right to launch a preemptive strike on a nuclear power to defeat Ernie, the chatbot of Chinese search engine Baidu. (This would be doubly ironic, because China's Great Firewall turns out to be a pioneering effort to censor text at scale, exactly what generative AI companies are being called on to do today.) It’s one thing to generate an infinite number of improbable apocalypse scenarios, but it’s another thing to advocate for nuclear war based on the release of a chatbot and purely speculative sci-fi scenarios involving Skynet. 

“Deeply-entrenched risk aversion” as “paralysis”:

Now, while concerns about the safety of emerging technologies might be reasonable in some cases, they are symptoms of a societally deeply-entrenched risk aversion. Over the past decades, we’ve become extremely risk intolerant. It’s not just AI or genetic engineering where this risk aversion manifests. From the abandonment of nuclear energy and the bureaucratization of science to the eternal recurrence of formulaic and generic reboots, sequels, and prequels, this collective risk intolerance has infected and paralyzed society and culture at large (think Marvel Cinematic Universe or startups pitched as “X for Y” where X is something unique and impossible to replicate). 

Take nuclear energy. Over the last decades, irrational fear-mongering resulted in the abandonment and demonization of the cleanest, safest, and most reliable energy source available to humanity. Despite an abundance of evidence, which scientifically demonstrates its safety, we abandoned an eternal source of energy, which could have powered civilization indefinitely, for unreliable and dirty substitutes while we simultaneously worry about catastrophic climate change. It’s hard to conceive now but nuclear energy once encapsulated the utopian promise of infinite progress, and nuclear engineering was, up until the 1960s, one of the most prestigious scientific fields. Today, mainly because of Hiroshima, Fukushima, and the pop-culture imagery of a nuclear holocaust though, the narrative has shifted from “alchemy,” “transmutation,” and “renewal” to dystopian imagery of “contamination,” “mutation,” and “destruction.” Although most deaths during the Fukushima incident resulted from evacuation measures — and more people died because of Japan’s shutting down of nuclear reactors than the accident itself — many Western nations, in response to the meltdown, started to obstruct the construction of new reactors or phase out nuclear energy altogether. This resulted in the perverse situation where Germany, which has obsessively focused on green and sustainable energy, now needs to rely on on highly polluting coal for up to 40% of its electricity demand. The rise of irrational nuclear fear illustrates a fundamental problem with safetyism: obsessively attempting to eliminate all visible risks often creates invisible risks that are far more consequential for human flourishing. Just imagine what would have happened, if we hadn’t phased out nuclear reactors — would we now have to obsess over “net-zero” or “2°C targets”? 

Mitigating risk creates risk:

Now, whether we think that an AI apocalypse is imminent or the lab-leak hypothesis is correct or not, by mitigating or suppressing visible risks, safetyism is often creating invisible or hidden risks that are far more consequential or impactful than the risks it attempts to mitigate. In a way, this makes sense: creating a new technology and deploying it widely entails a definite vision for the future. But a focus on the risks means a definite vision of the past, and a more stochastic model of what the future might hold. Given time’s annoying habit of only moving in one direction, we have no choice but to live in somebody’s future — the question is whether it’s somebody with a plan or somebody with a neurosis.

What Will Allow Us To Free Our Imaginations From The Lies?

Over the past twenty years, I've noticed that we are bred to be consumers. What we learn to think, believe, and do is about performing our part as consumers. Profit flows from our addiction to nice stuff. Money, power, and control over resources go to the few who are aggressive and competitive enough to play The Great Game and channel profit to themselves. In our current world, nothing else is more important than these functions.

It’s a global aspiration—one we have been trained to desire

I follow experts in various domains, well-meaning, earnest people who do their best to do good work and communicate their findings to ordinary people when they think we need to know. When they stick to their area of expertise, they are tremendously valuable. The main problem with sincere, caring experts is sometimes they need to remember that they are not experts in everything. Most importantly, kind and diligent experts must maintain the profit-first narrative the minute they stray from what they know well. I could spend all day making a list of examples, but I don't have to; you know this if you are curious, pay attention to current events, have developed a good bull shit detector kit, read books, and have a modicum of critical thinking skills. 

"Who's the best critical thinker you ever saw?"

Humble, all too humble. No, great confidence is attractive.

I was rattling on last month about Samantha Hill's "The Problem From Hell" America in the Age of Genocide. It's an informative book—I highly recommend it. I think she is an impressive person. When she wrote the book, she was the Professor of Human Rights Practice at Harvard's John F. Kennedy School of Government. 

Samantha Jane Power (born September 21, 1970) is an American journalist, diplomat, and government official currently serving as the Administrator of the United States Agency for International Development. Previously, she served as the 28th United States Ambassador to the United Nations from 2013 to 2017. She is a member of the Democratic Party.

Samantha Jane Power is the epitome of the mainstream of The Great Game. I am sure she's a good person. She continues to have a stellar career. Once admitted to The Great Game on that level, the most important thing to do is to keep playing, stay relevant, and never get kicked out of the club. You have a responsibility to all the Players who share The Great Game with you.

People who are part of the structure and system of the game of profit and control over resources must stay on script. Protecting the game is the prime directive. Maintain the proper narrative, keep your position, and advance. This is why a few days after October 7, Ms. Power trotted out the CNN script about beheaded babies and so on. Careerists like Powers won't wait for evidence, eyewitness testimony, and investigations before they go to bat for The Great Game. They will save that stoic work for their next book.

Like I said, I could present examples like this all day. Instead, I'll do what I always do and ask you to read a book. After reading it, you will be better equipped to deal with the torrent of lies coming at you all day from multiple quarters and domains you may not be familiar with, much less expert in.

So here's what I want to impress upon you: if you were born in a wealthy nation, a so-called "first world" nation, you started learning to be a good consumer in your mother's womb. Depending on how privileged and talented you are, you began training to be a diligent consumer or a Player from preschool. If you had great talent and people who could and would support you with their attention, mentorship, money, and resources, you'd go to university and train to be a clerk for the Players. If you performed your job well, you would rise through the ranks, take advantage of opportunities to make more money and consume more and better things. You'd gain status, attention, fame, and more privilege. You'd have a family of your own, only now you are wealthier than your parents and your grandparents and able to pass wealth on to your children who are luckier than you were and can forgo being simply a modest consumer and be trained at an Ivy League university to be a Players in The Great Game. Now, you are a guardian of the narrative from which all the lies flow, and you are powerful.

The Great Game is eternal. Even when you die, whether you have seen yourself as the center of the Universe or have been a true believer in something greater than yourself, after a profound burial ritual attended by crowds of admirers, you will be further compensated through your legacy and, for believers, great rewards in heaven. 

I'm not saying all Players are bad people; many may not know they are part of 'this thing of ours.' Excuse me, they are only following their programming, sorry, their rarified education.

The Great Game has evolved over approximately eight thousand years of civilization. Never have better tools been available to Players to help them maintain profits, control over resources, and power.

Plebs and proles (the faithful) owe all of their access to God, to lovely things, and stimulating addictions to the Players and the Super Consumers who drive The Great Game. We all have our part to play.

All of this is to say that financialized, neoliberal global capitalism and its derivatives are going to destroy The Great Game and civilization with it, and there is nothing we can do about it because it's the only thing we know. Even the many earnest experts, the brilliant minds I follow, hardly notice The Great Game because we are all functionaries in The Great Game. We are addicted to what we think, believe, and do and cannot discover a perspective where we can see beyond our limited role.

Everything in our world is commodified and traded on the markets of roles, stereotypes, and big lies.

You will hear clever people say clever things before they reflexively trot out the big lies that make up the grand narrative of The Great Game. 

The only way to grow out of this predicament would be to be born and grow up in a completely different world. Circumstances will dictate when this becomes possible. The Great Reset is nothing more than the collapse of civilization and the possibility of a new way of living on this Great Earth, the giver of life, where consciousness arose, and dozens of other marvelous things that will always remain a mystery.

At the risk of sounding gnostic, God knows this: look into your heart, read that book, walk in the woods, cradle your pet, kiss your partner, compliment your child, be human for a quiet moment, and you will find shelter from the lies. Clear-headed, your imagination will take flight, and you'll have a glimpse of that new world I'm dreaming about.

Do We Still Have A Futurism?

We seem hell-bent on destroying civilization in a firehose of lies. I used to be fascinated by all the possibilities the future would bring; now, it breaks my heart to live in a world where too many young people have the terrible intuition that the future may be worse than the past.

This is a post from when the ‘World Wide Web’ was in its heyday, when a free-spirited virtual frontier brought hidden ideas from active minds out in the open where they could be contemplated, shared, and interacted with without fear of cancellation, doxxing, woke activists, or mob tweeting maniacs. A more intimate period before the world was on Facebook, outed, shamed, confused and outraged.

Futurism

05 May 1997 17:41

No, no, not mumbo-jumbo like Toffler or Spengler; I mean the modernist artistic movement founded in 1909 by F. T. Marinetti in friends; the first artists to really, consciously and with immense self-promotion embrace technology and constant change and shock and all that good stuff. They were the first cyberpunks, the first Discordians, and (perhaps not coincidentally) some of the first Fascists. The original (pre-WWI) Futurists were also good artists. One of my works-in-glacial-progress argues that ``we are all Futurists now'' --- all of us on the Net, anyhow.

• Recommended:

• Giacomo Balla was a good painter, but his pupils, Federigo Severini and (especially) Umberto Boccioni were even better. H. N. Abrams issued the catalog of a Boccioni retrospective a few years ago, and if anyone is looking to drop about $150 on a gift for me, that would do nicely.

• Reyner Banham has some good chapters on both the general character of the movement, and its influence on modern architecture, in Theory and Design in the First Machine Age

• Igor Golomshtok, Totalitarian Art

• The Futurist Programmers, especially the Manifesto of the Futurist Programmers.

• James Joll, Three Intellectuals in Politics [Marinetti is the last of the three, preceeed by Leon Blum and Walther Rathenau, who were respectively the Premier of France and in charge of the German economy during the Great War.]

• F. T. Marinetti

  • The Futurist Manifesto

  • The Futurist Cookbook

• The Neo-Futurists are a Chicago group which put on a damn fine show, Too Much Light Makes the Baby Go Blind, which tends to blow the minds of those who aren't prepared for, say, thirty plays in sixty minutes; I wasn't.

• Bruce Sterling, The Manifesto of January 3, 2000

• J. C. Taylor, Futurism is the very good catalog of a show at the New York Museum of Modern Art in 1961.

• Kim Scarborough's Futurism Index has a wider selection of manifestoes, and links to such other Futurist pages as can be found.

• To read:

• Günter Berghaus, Futurism and Politics: Between Anarchist Rebellion and Fascist Reaction, 1909--1944 [Looks like pure apologetics, along the lines of ``the collaborated, but they had private objections.'' As Kolakowski says somewhere about the analogous position under Stalin, the rulers ask for no more.]

• Cinzia Sartini Blum, The Other Modernism: F. T. Marinetti's Futurist Fiction of Power

• Richard Humphreys, Futurism [Blurb]

• Marinetti, The Untameables

• Marianne Martin, Futurist Art and Theory

• Perloff, The Futurist Movement

• Russolo, Art of Noises

Shalizi Notebooks

Filippo Tommaso Emilio Marinetti was an artist and a fascist. I am not a fascist, but I wonder what the new wave of fascism will look like once it fully expresses itself when the metacrisis is in full panic mode. One must never forget the past, shirk participating in the present, or neglect to imagine the future.

The Futurist Manifesto

F. T. Marinetti, 1909

We have been up all night, my friends and I, beneath mosque lamps whose brass cupolas are bright as our souls, because like them they were illuminated by the internal glow of electric hearts. And trampling underfoot our native sloth on opulent Persian carpets, we have been discussing right up to the limits of logic and scrawling the paper with demented writing.

Our hearts were filled with an immense pride at feeling ourselves standing quite alone, like lighthouses or like the sentinels in an outpost, facing the army of enemy stars encamped in their celestial bivouacs. Alone with the engineers in the infernal stokeholes of great ships, alone with the black spirits which rage in the belly of rogue locomotives, alone with the drunkards beating their wings against the walls.

Then we were suddenly distracted by the rumbling of huge double decker trams that went leaping by, streaked with light like the villages celebrating their festivals, which the Po in flood suddenly knocks down and uproots, and, in the rapids and eddies of a deluge, drags down to the sea.

Then the silence increased. As we listened to the last faint prayer of the old canal and the crumbling of the bones of the moribund palaces with their green growth of beard, suddenly the hungry automobiles roared beneath our windows.

`Come, my friends!’ I said. `Let us go! At last Mythology and the mystic cult of the ideal have been left behind. We are going to be present at the birth of the centaur and we shall soon see the first angels fly! We must break down the gates of life to test the bolts and the padlocks! Let us go! Here is they very first sunrise on earth! Nothing equals the splendor of its red sword which strikes for the first time in our millennial darkness.’

We went up to the three snorting machines to caress their breasts. I lay along mine like a corpse on its bier, but I suddenly revived again beneath the steering wheel – a guillotine knife – which threatened my stomach. A great sweep of madness brought us sharply back to ourselves and drove us through the streets, steep and deep, like dried up torrents. Here and there unhappy lamps in the windows taught us to despise our mathematical eyes. `Smell,’ I exclaimed, `smell is good enough for wild beasts!’

And we hunted, like young lions, death with its black fur dappled with pale crosses, who ran before us in the vast violet sky, palpable and living.

And yet we had no ideal Mistress stretching her form up to the clouds, nor yet a cruel Queen to whom to offer our corpses twisted into the shape of Byzantine rings! No reason to die unless it is the desire to be rid of the too great weight of our courage!

We drove on, crushing beneath our burning wheels, like shirt-collars under the iron, the watch dogs on the steps of the houses.

Death, tamed, went in front of me at each corner offering me his hand nicely, and sometimes lay on the ground with a noise of creaking jaws giving me velvet glances from the bottom of puddles.

`Let us leave good sense behind like a hideous husk and let us hurl ourselves, like fruit spiced with pride, into the immense mouth and breast of the world! Let us feed the unknown, not from despair, but simply to enrich the unfathomable reservoirs of the Absurd!’

As soon as I had said these words, I turned sharply back on my tracks with the mad intoxication of puppies biting their tails, and suddenly there were two cyclists disapproving of me and tottering in front of me like two persuasive but contradictory reasons. Their stupid swaying got in my way. What a bore! Pouah! I stopped short, and in disgust hurled myself – vlan! – head over heels in a ditch.

Oh, maternal ditch, half full of muddy water! A factory gutter! I savored a mouthful of strengthening muck which recalled the black teat of my Sudanese nurse!

As I raised my body, mud-spattered and smelly, I felt the red hot poker of joy deliciously pierce my heart. A crowd of fishermen and gouty naturalists crowded terrified around this marvel. With patient and tentative care they raised high enormous grappling irons to fish up my car, like a vast shark that had run aground. It rose slowly leaving in the ditch, like scales, its heavy coachwork of good sense and its upholstery of comfort.

We thought it was dead, my good shark, but I woke it with a single caress of its powerful back, and it was revived running as fast as it could on its fins.

Then with my face covered in good factory mud, covered with metal scratches, useless sweat and celestial grime, amidst the complaint of staid fishermen and angry naturalists, we dictated our first will and testament to all the living men on earth.

MANIFESTO OF FUTURISM

1. We want to sing the love of danger, the habit of energy and rashness.

2. The essential elements of our poetry will be courage, audacity and revolt.

3. Literature has up to now magnified pensive immobility, ecstasy and slumber. We want to exalt movements of aggression, feverish sleeplessness, the double march, the perilous leap, the slap and the blow with the fist.

4. We declare that the splendor of the world has been enriched by a new beauty: the beauty of speed. A racing automobile with its bonnet adorned with great tubes like serpents with explosive breath … a roaring motor car which seems to run on machine-gun fire, is more beautiful than the Victory of Samothrace.

5. We want to sing the man at the wheel, the ideal axis of which crosses the earth, itself hurled along its orbit.

6. The poet must spend himself with warmth, glamour and prodigality to increase the enthusiastic fervor of the primordial elements.

7. Beauty exists only in struggle. There is no masterpiece that has not an aggressive character. Poetry must be a violent assault on the forces of the unknown, to force them to bow before man.

8. We are on the extreme promontory of the centuries! What is the use of looking behind at the moment when we must open the mysterious shutters of the impossible? Time and Space died yesterday. We are already living in the absolute, since we have already created eternal, omnipresent speed.

9. We want to glorify war – the only cure for the world – militarism, patriotism, the destructive gesture of the anarchists, the beautiful ideas which kill, and contempt for woman.

10. We want to demolish museums and libraries, fight morality, feminism and all opportunist and utilitarian cowardice.

11. We will sing of the great crowds agitated by work, pleasure and revolt; the multi-colored and polyphonic surf of revolutions in modern capitals: the nocturnal vibration of the arsenals and the workshops beneath their violent electric moons: the gluttonous railway stations devouring smoking serpents; factories suspended from the clouds by the thread of their smoke; bridges with the leap of gymnasts flung across the diabolic cutlery of sunny rivers: adventurous steamers sniffing the horizon; great-breasted locomotives, puffing on the rails like enormous steel horses with long tubes for bridle, and the gliding flight of aeroplanes whose propeller sounds like the flapping of a flag and the applause of enthusiastic crowds.

It is in Italy that we are issuing this manifesto of ruinous and incendiary violence, by which we today are founding Futurism, because we want to deliver Italy from its gangrene of professors, archaeologists, tourist guides and antiquaries.

Italy has been too long the great second-hand market. We want to get rid of the innumerable museums which cover it with innumerable cemeteries.

Museums, cemeteries! Truly identical in their sinister juxtaposition of bodies that do not know each other. Public dormitories where you sleep side by side for ever with beings you hate or do not know. Reciprocal ferocity of the painters and sculptors who murder each other in the same museum with blows of line and color. To make a visit once a year, as one goes to see the graves of our dead once a year, that we could allow! We can even imagine placing flowers once a year at the feet of the Gioconda! But to take our sadness, our fragile courage and our anxiety to the museum every day, that we cannot admit! Do you want to poison yourselves? Do you want to rot?

What can you find in an old picture except the painful contortions of the artist trying to break uncrossable barriers which obstruct the full expression of his dream?

To admire an old picture is to pour our sensibility into a funeral urn instead of casting it forward with violent spurts of creation and action. Do you want to waste the best part of your strength in a useless admiration of the past, from which you will emerge exhausted, diminished, trampled on?

Indeed daily visits to museums, libraries and academies (those cemeteries of wasted effort, calvaries of crucified dreams, registers of false starts!) is for artists what prolonged supervision by the parents is for intelligent young men, drunk with their own talent and ambition.

For the dying, for invalids and for prisoners it may be all right. It is, perhaps, some sort of balm for their wounds, the admirable past, at a moment when the future is denied them. But we will have none of it, we, the young, strong and living Futurists!

Let the good incendiaries with charred fingers come! Here they are! Heap up the fire to the shelves of the libraries! Divert the canals to flood the cellars of the museums! Let the glorious canvases swim ashore! Take the picks and hammers! Undermine the foundation of venerable towns!

The oldest among us are not yet thirty years old: we have therefore at least ten years to accomplish our task. When we are forty let younger and stronger men than we throw us in the waste paper basket like useless manuscripts! They will come against us from afar, leaping on the light cadence of their first poems, clutching the air with their predatory fingers and sniffing at the gates of the academies the good scent of our decaying spirits, already promised to the catacombs of the libraries.

But we shall not be there. They will find us at last one winter’s night in the depths of the country in a sad hangar echoing with the notes of the monotonous rain, crouched near our trembling aeroplanes, warming our hands at the wretched fire which our books of today will make when they flame gaily beneath the glittering flight of their pictures.

They will crowd around us, panting with anguish and disappointment, and exasperated by our proud indefatigable courage, will hurl themselves forward to kill us, with all the more hatred as their hearts will be drunk with love and admiration for us. And strong healthy Injustice will shine radiantly from their eyes. For art can only be violence, cruelty, injustice.

The oldest among us are not yet thirty, and yet we have already wasted treasures, treasures of strength, love, courage and keen will, hastily, deliriously, without thinking, with all our might, till we are out of breath.

Look at us! We are not out of breath, our hearts are not in the least tired. For they are nourished by fire, hatred and speed! Does this surprise you? it is because you do not even remember being alive! Standing on the world’s summit, we launch once more our challenge to the stars!

Your objections? All right! I know them! Of course! We know just what our beautiful false intelligence affirms: `We are only the sum and the prolongation of our ancestors,’ it says. Perhaps! All right! What does it matter? But we will not listen! Take care not to repeat those infamous words! Instead, lift up your head!

Standing on the world’s summit we launch once again our insolent challenge to the stars!

---

I would never glorify violence. Violence makes me sick. However, I appreciate the passion of breaking free from dishonesty, blunder, laziness, gluttony, calculated foolishness, willful ignorance, addictions, and all pathological activities embedded in our global, materialistic, profit-obsessed culture.

The first half of the Twentieth Century was horrific, destructive, full of fear, death, and passion. I don't want to repeat those times, but what makes me sadder and sicker than the lies and the violence of today is the constant whimpering of our drowning souls.

Progress Drives Extinction—Reexamining Goals And Questions

Questions, all kinds of questions.

“A prudent question is one half of wisdom.” — Francis Bacon

“The one who knows all the answers has not been asked all the questions.” — Confucius

Questions determine the direction an inquiry goes in. You'll get your desired answers if you ask conventional questions about something traditional. Questions that help you discover something new are not tethered to ideological frameworks and dogmas. Are you arguing to learn something new or justify your beliefs? A line of questioning can be a trap that impedes one from achieving better outcomes. What do you want? Why do you want it? How are you going to achieve it? What and why are the core questions? If Carl Icon wants to generate shareholder value, he’ll ask questions about that goal.

Is our species at risk of extinction? Is our way of doing things increasing the chance that our species goes extinct, and is this outcome imminent if we don’t change course? A completely new set of questions is generated if your intuition tells you to answer yes to these questions. Those questions will force you to see the world and what we do in it in new ways.

It’s vital to ask the right kinds of questions: closed, open, funnel, leading, recall, process, rhetorical, divergent, probing, evaluation, inference, comparison, application, problem-solving, affective, and structuring are the kinds of questions one uses once one fully understands the goals of the inquiry.

My friend Mick said, “Progress is achieving good outcomes,” or something to that effect. My question is good for what? Sometimes, great outcomes can kill you. It could be that all the marvelous things we have access to today are destroying our world, our civilization, and our health.

Maybe we need new goals and new questions.

Does Israel have the right to defend itself? If one looks at the situation in Israel, maybe that question is irrelevant, only meant to keep people from wrestling with more difficult questions, questions many people are disincentivized to want to ask.

Is wealth creation a good thing? What do you mean by wealth? Once one starts questioning the questions, one’s lines of inquiry get a lot more complex.

The following is an outline based on the discussion about whether progress is going to kill us. I think our civilization is an omnicidal heat engine (the Anthropocene) that’s likely to destroy itself. It’s also probable that our way of doing things drives not only the extinction of flora and fauna but might also end in our species’ extinction.

The Will To Live

"The Will to Live" is a concept that transcends various domains and perspectives, encompassing philosophical, biological, psychological, and cultural dimensions. It is often used to describe the innate drive or instinct within living organisms to survive and thrive. 

• Leo Tolstoy: The Religious Path

• Albert Camus: The Atheistic Path

• William James: The Spiritual Path

• Richard Dawkins: The Path of Evolution

• Niccolo Machiavelli: The Path of Power and Politics

• Lao Tsu: Harmony with Nature

From a biological standpoint, the will to live is deeply rooted in the instinct for self-preservation and reproduction. It drives behaviors that ensure an individual organism's and its species' survival. Biological adaptations, such as the fight-or-flight response, can be seen as manifestations of this will to live.

Philosophical Perspective:

Philosophically, the will to live has been a central theme in existential philosophy. Thinkers like Arthur Schopenhauer and Friedrich Nietzsche explored the concept, with Schopenhauer positing an overarching force, the "will," as the driving factor behind all existence. On the other hand, Nietzsche discussed the will to power, emphasizing the inherent drive for self-overcoming and self-expression. (Epistemology, Ontology, Ethics, Metaphysics, Stoicism, Epicureanism, Hedonism)

Psychological Perspective:

In psychology, the will to live intersects with concepts such as resilience and the human drive for meaning and purpose. Viktor Frankl, a psychiatrist, and Holocaust survivor, developed logotherapy, which centers on the search for meaning as a fundamental motivation for human existence. (Poly-crisis, Metacrisis, meaning-making, sensemaking, Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, Freud, Jung)

Cultural and Spiritual Perspective:

Many cultural and spiritual traditions recognize and celebrate the concept of the will to live. In religious contexts, the idea may be associated with divine purpose or the sacredness of life. Cultural practices often emphasize the importance of perseverance, hope, and the pursuit of a meaningful existence.

Medical and Ethical Perspective:

In medicine and ethics, the will to live is a significant factor in decisions related to patient care, end-of-life choices, and medical interventions. Respect for an individual's autonomy and their expressed will to live or not to live is a central ethical consideration.

Environmental and Ecological Perspective:

The will to live is not limited to individual organisms; it extends to ecosystems and the biosphere. The interconnectedness of species and their adaptations to environmental challenges expresses the collective will to persist and adapt to changing conditions.

Artistic and Literary Perspective:

The theme of the will to live is a recurring motif in literature, poetry, and art. Creative works often explore the human experience, resilience, and the search for meaning amidst adversity—a theme in positions ranging from classical literature to contemporary storytelling.

Social and Community Perspective:

The will to live is not solely an individual endeavor but is also reflected in the collective aspirations of communities and societies. Social movements, resilience in the face of challenges, and pursuing a better future for generations are expressions of the communal will to live. (socialism, democracy, anarcho-syndicalism)

Scientific Perspective:

In evolutionary biology, the will to live is embedded in the principles of natural selection. Traits that enhance an organism's ability to survive and reproduce are favored, contributing to the continuation of life and the adaptation of species over time. (biology, oceanography, chemistry, ecosystems, systems theory, physics)

Educational and Personal Development Perspective:

In education and personal development, fostering the will to live involves nurturing resilience, a growth mindset, and a sense of purpose. Encouraging individuals to explore their passions and find meaning in their pursuits can contribute to a more fulfilling life. (self-help, human potential, graduate school, trade school, music, arts, crafts)

"The Will to Live" is a multifaceted concept that resonates across disciplines and human experiences, reflecting the deep-seated and dynamic nature of the drive for existence and flourishing.

Progress & Modernity

"Progress" and "modernity" are often associated with technological advancements, economic development, and societal changes. While they bring numerous benefits, they can also contribute to the acceleration of extinction in various ways. Understanding the interconnectedness of human activities with the environment and biodiversity is essential.

Habitat Destruction:

Urbanization and Infrastructure Development: As societies modernize, there is a demand for infrastructure development and urban expansion that often leads to the destruction of natural habitats, displacing and fragmenting ecosystems, which can result in the extinction of species unable to adapt or migrate. (carbon pulse, energy, materials, scarcity, ill health)

Pollution:

Industrial and Agricultural Pollution: Modern industrial and agricultural practices release air, water, and soil pollutants. This pollution negatively impacts the health of ecosystems and their inhabitants, contributing to the decline and extinction of many species.

Climate Change:

Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Industrialization and the reliance on fossil fuels contribute significantly to the emission of greenhouse gases that lead to climate change, altering temperature and precipitation patterns, which can disrupt ecosystems and make them uninhabitable for certain species.

Overexploitation:

Resource Extraction: Modern societies often demand large quantities of natural resources for energy, manufacturing, and consumption. Overexploitation of these resources, such as deforestation, overfishing, and mining, results in the decline and extinction of plant and animal species.

Introduction of Invasive Species:

Global Trade and Travel: increased global connectivity through trade and travel facilitates the unintentional introduction of invasive species to new environments. These invasive species can outcompete or prey upon native species, leading to population declines and extinctions. It also degrades local culture and traditions and exacerbates wealth gaps. (Airbnb, franchises)

Technological Advancements in Hunting:

Advanced Hunting & Fishing Techniques: Progress in technology has enabled more efficient hunting and fishing methods, putting additional pressure on already vulnerable species. Overhunting and overfishing, particularly massing fishing trawlers, the exotic pet trade, or traditional medicine, can lead to population crashes and extinctions. (anthropocentric biomass, factory farms, monocultures, water use)

Genetic Pollution:

Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs): Introducing genetically modified organisms into the environment can lead to genetic pollution, where altered genes can crossbreed with wild populations, potentially threatening the survival of natural species with a negative impact on biodiversity.

Fragmentation of Ecosystems:

Infrastructure Development: Roads, dams, and other infrastructure projects can fragment ecosystems, isolating populations and reducing genetic diversity. This isolation makes species more susceptible to the adverse effects of environmental changes and increases the risk of local extinctions.

Lack of Environmental Regulation:

Inadequate Policies and Enforcement: In some cases, rapid progress and modernization may be needed to improve the development of effective environmental policies and regulations. Without proper safeguards, however, ecosystems and species may suffer from the negative consequences of human activities.

Sustainable practices, conservation efforts, and responsible development can mitigate these negative impacts and ensure a more harmonious coexistence between human activities and the natural world.

The financialization of the economy, excessive debt, capital on capital returns, and globalism can contribute to the acceleration of environmental degradation and biodiversity loss in many ways.

Short-Term Profit Maximization:

Financialization and Speculation: The financialization of the economy often prioritizes short-term profit maximization over long-term sustainability. Speculative activities, such as investing in commodities and natural resources, can drive overexploitation and contribute to the destruction of ecosystems. (All of this is tied to consumerism, conventional economic theories, growth, neoliberalism, colonialism, imperialism, and modern capitalism.)

Excessive Debt and Environmental Impact:

Debt-Driven Resource Extraction: Excessive debt levels can force companies and nations to exploit natural resources to meet financial obligations, leading to overharvesting, deforestation, and other forms of environmental degradation contributing to species loss. (Borrowing from the future, IMF, corporate control over sovereign governments)

Capital on Capital Returns:

Emphasis on Shareholder Value: Opportunities for capital on capital returns and maximizing shareholder value can encourage companies to prioritize profits over environmental sustainability. Practices such as aggressive cost-cutting, resource extraction, and pollution may result in habitat destruction and negatively impact ecosystems.

Globalization and Supply Chains:

Ecological Footprint of Global Supply Chains: The globalized economy often relies on extensive supply chains traversing the globe, leading to increased ecological footprints as products are sourced, manufactured, and transported over long distances, contributing to deforestation, pollution, and habitat destruction. (black box complexity) (energy, oil, gas, carbon pollution, increased work capabilities)

Lack of Regulation and Accountability:

Global Regulatory Gaps: The global nature of financial markets and economic activities can create regulatory gaps, making it challenging to enforce environmental protections uniformly. Without robust regulations and international cooperation, destructive practices may go unchecked. (The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, United Nations Climate Org., COP28, etc.)

Erosion of Local Economies:

Impact on Local Livelihoods: Capital on capital returns and globalization can lead to the erosion of local economies that are often more in tune with sustainable practices. Large-scale industrial activities may replace traditional, environmentally friendly livelihoods, disrupting ecosystems and contributing to species decline. (Small is Beautiful, Think Global, Act Local)

Land Use Change and Monoculture Agriculture:

Financial Pressures on Agriculture: Global economic forces can exert pressure on agriculture to maximize production, often converting diverse ecosystems into monoculture agricultural landscapes. This shift can result in the loss of biodiversity and disrupt natural habitats. Small farms can’t survive, and large-scale corporate farming takes over where only profitable crops are grown with energy-intensive methods. (Global Permaculture, Small Farms, Suburban Yard Gardens)

Resource Extraction and Pollution:

Unsustainable Resource Extraction: Pursuing profit in a globalized economy can drive unsustainable resource extraction, leading to environmental pollution and habitat destruction. Mining, logging, and industrial activities can release pollutants that negatively impact ecosystems and contribute to species extinction.

Climate Change and Financial Risks:

Climate-Related Financial Risks: The global financial system is exposed to risks associated with climate change. Extreme weather events, resource scarcity, and other climate-related challenges can disrupt economic activities, exacerbate environmental degradation, and affect biodiversity. Insurance companies are threatened by excessive risk.

Addressing these issues requires a holistic approach to integrating environmental sustainability into economic and financial decision-making. This includes developing and enforcing international ecological regulations, promoting sustainable business practices, and shifting toward economic models prioritizing long-term ecological health over short-term financial gains. (Global Cooperation in a Multipolar World)

Traditionalism, Religion, and Ways of Life

Understanding the traditional moral and ethical foundations of religions and indigenous cultures, particularly their reverence for nature, can play a crucial role in helping humanity mitigate the negative influences of progress and modernity.

Promoting Stewardship and Respect for Nature:

Many religious and indigenous traditions emphasize the idea of humans as stewards of the Earth, responsible for taking care of the natural world. Understanding and embracing these values can lead to greater responsibility and respect for nature, encouraging sustainable practices and discouraging exploitative behaviors.

Fostering a Sense of Connection and Interdependence:

Traditional beliefs often highlight the interconnectedness of all living things. Recognizing and internalizing this interconnectedness can foster a sense of empathy and understanding that goes beyond anthropocentrism. This broader perspective may lead to more conscientious decision-making accounts for the well-being of ecosystems and all species.

Balancing Material Progress with Spiritual Values:

Many religious and indigenous ethical frameworks advocate for a balance between material and spiritual aspects of life. By incorporating these values into modern societies, there can be a shift toward more sustainable models of development that prioritize well-being and spiritual fulfillment over excessive consumption and environmental degradation.

Encouraging Sustainable Practices:

Indigenous cultures often have a deep knowledge of sustainable practices that have been developed and refined over generations. Integrating this traditional ecological knowledge with modern science can lead to innovative and sustainable agricultural solutions, resource management, and conservation solutions.

Inspiring Environmental Ethics:

Religious and indigenous ethical teachings often include principles that apply to the environment. For example, concepts of justice, compassion, and non-violence can be extended to the treatment of the environment, advocating for fair and sustainable resource use and protection of ecosystems. (Reverence)

Respecting Biodiversity and Cultural Diversity:

Indigenous cultures often have strong connections to specific landscapes and ecosystems, and their traditional practices aim to preserve biodiversity and watersheds and harmonize with their surroundings. Recognizing and respecting the cultural diversity of indigenous peoples is an essential step toward promoting biodiversity conservation and sustainable development.

Creating Environmental Awareness:

Religious teachings and indigenous wisdom often contain narratives and rituals that celebrate the beauty and importance of nature and the mystery of creation. By incorporating these elements into education and public awareness campaigns, societies can cultivate a deeper appreciation for the environment, fostering a collective commitment to its protection.

Influencing Policy and Governance:

Religion and indigenous cultures' moral and ethical foundations can influence political and legal systems. Advocacy based on these values can lead to the development of policies that prioritize environmental conservation, the protection of sacred sites, and the rights of indigenous communities.

Cultivating a Sense of Awe and Wonder:

Many religious and indigenous traditions encourage individuals to experience awe and wonder in the face of nature. Cultivating this sense of reverence can inspire people to value the natural world beyond its instrumental utility, leading to a more profound and lasting commitment to environmental stewardship.

Integrating traditional moral and ethical foundations that emphasize the sacredness of nature can provide valuable guidance in navigating the challenges posed by progress and modernity. This integration can lead to a more sustainable and balanced coexistence with the environment, promoting the well-being of both current and future generations. (God, Humanism, Ways of Life)

Science-Based

A science-based approach to resource management is essential for creating a more sustainable global civilization, especially under novel economic conditions.

Systems Thinking:

Adopt a holistic, systems-thinking approach to understand the interconnectedness of social, economic, and environmental systems. Recognize that actions in one part of the world can have far-reaching consequences on global ecosystems. (understanding complexity)

Resource Efficiency:

Prioritize resource efficiency and circular economy principles. Design products and processes that minimize waste, encourage recycling and extend the lifespan of goods to reduce the pressure on finite resources and decrease the environmental impact of production and consumption.

Renewable Energy Transition:

Accelerate the transition to renewable energy sources. Investing in and scaling up renewable energy technologies can reduce dependence on finite fossil fuels, mitigate climate change, and decrease environmental degradation associated with energy production. (The Cautionary Principle, Careful Geoengineering, A Measured, Patient Approach)

Sustainable Agriculture:

Promote sustainable agriculture practices prioritizing soil health, biodiversity conservation, and water efficiency. Agroecological approaches, such as organic farming and permaculture, can enhance resilience to climate change and reduce the environmental footprint of food production.

Conservation and Restoration:

 Implementing conservation and restoration initiatives to protect biodiversity and restore ecosystems includes establishing protected areas, reforestation projects, and preserving critical habitats.

Technology for Monitoring and Management:

Utilize advanced technologies such as satellite imagery, remote sensing, and data analytics for real-time monitoring of resource use, deforestation, and environmental changes. This information can inform evidence-based decision-making and resource management strategies.

Regenerative Practices:

Embrace regenerative practices that aim to sustain current resource levels and restore and revitalize ecosystems, including regenerative agriculture, forestry, and fisheries practices that work with natural processes to enhance ecological health.

Inclusive Governance and Stakeholder Engagement:

Establish inclusive governance structures that involve diverse stakeholders, including local communities, indigenous peoples, and scientific experts. Collaboration and shared decision-making can lead to more effective and equitable resource management. (Democratic values & developing a culture that values good governance.)

Green Finance and Sustainable Investments:

Encourage green finance and sustainable investments. Redirecting capital toward environmentally friendly and socially responsible projects can drive innovation, support sustainable businesses, and incentivize adopting eco-friendly practices.

Education and Awareness:

Promote environmental education and awareness at all levels of society. An informed and engaged public is more likely to support sustainable practices, demand responsible policies, and contribute to positive behavioral changes. Organize at a local level and put pressure on political and business leaders.

Adaptive Management:

Embrace adaptive management approaches that acknowledge the complexity and fragility of ecosystems. Regularly assess the effectiveness of resource management strategies, be open to adjusting policies based on new scientific findings, and learn from successes and failures.

International Cooperation:

Foster international cooperation to address global challenges. Environmental issues transcend national borders, and collaborative efforts are necessary to manage resources sustainably, protect biodiversity, and address climate change. The profit-first incentive must be challenged.

By integrating these science-based principles into resource management practices, societies can work towards a more sustainable global civilization that balances economic prosperity with environmental conservation, social well-being, and justice. This approach is crucial for addressing the challenges of the Anthropocene and creating a resilient and thriving web of life for future generations.

Economic Growth

When imagining sustainable economic growth, it's important to consider fundamental constraints to ensure that development is ecologically viable, socially equitable, and economically resilient.

Ecological Limits:

Growth should operate within the planet's ecological capacity, including considerations of resource availability, biodiversity conservation, and the planet's ability to absorb waste and pollution.

Climate Change:

Economic growth must align with efforts to mitigate climate change, which involves transitioning to renewable energy, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, new concepts of wealth, and adapting to the impacts of a hotter climate.

Resource Scarcity:

Addressing resource scarcity requires moving towards a circular economy, efficiently using resources, and, where possible, recycling and minimizing waste. Sustainable growth models should reduce dependence on finite resources and encourage responsible resource management. We must consume less.

Social Equity:

Sustainable economic growth should prioritize social equity, ensuring that benefits are distributed fairly among different segments of society, including addressing income inequality, providing equal opportunities, and safeguarding human rights.

Population Growth:

We must consider the relationship between economic growth and population growth. Strategies for sustainable development should account for demographic trends and aim for a balance that supports human well-being without exceeding the Earth's carrying capacity.

Technological Innovation:

Technology can be a double-edged sword. While innovation can drive sustainable growth, it must be carefully managed to avoid unintended environmental and social consequences. Ethical and responsible innovation is crucial for long-term sustainability.

Waste Management:

Sustainable growth models need to address the issue of waste, including plastic pollution, electronic waste, and other non-biodegradable materials. Emphasizing recycling and reducing waste generation are vital components.

Economic Resilience:

Economic growth must be resilient. Systems should be robust enough to withstand financial, environmental, or social shocks.

Alternative Economic Growth Models

Considering these constraints, here are some sustainable economic growth models. The status quo is pathological.

Circular Economy:

This model emphasizes reducing, reusing, and recycling materials to minimize waste. It aims to decouple economic growth from resource consumption and environmental degradation.

Implementation requires policies and incentives that encourage recycling, remanufacturing, and the design of products for easy disassembly and reuse. Planned obsolescence must be eliminated. Products must be built to last. Fashion trends can be expressed through arts & crafts, ideas, and social activities.

Doughnut Economics:

Developed by economist Kate Raworth, this model envisions an economic system within the "doughnut," representing the social foundation and ecological ceiling. It seeks to meet the needs of all within the planet's means. This model requires policies that address social inequality, promote sustainable resource use, and prioritize well-being over GDP growth.

Steady-State Economy:

In a steady-state economy, the focus is on maintaining a stable level of resource consumption and population size to avoid exceeding ecological limits. Qualitative improvements in well-being replace economic growth.

Instead of pursuing endless growth, the emphasis is on qualitative improvements and sustainable well-being. This model requires policies that encourage resource efficiency, limit population growth, and prioritize the conservation of ecosystems.

Green Growth:

This model aims to decouple economic growth from environmental degradation by promoting the development of environmentally friendly technologies, renewable energy sources, and sustainable practices.

Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs):

The United Nations' SDGs provide a comprehensive framework for sustainable development, addressing issues such as poverty, hunger, health, education, and environmental sustainability. Achieving these goals requires an integrated approach to economic growth.

Regenerative Economics:

This model goes beyond sustainability to focus on restoring and enhancing ecological and social systems. It seeks to create economies that contribute positively to the planet's health and communities' well-being. This model requires investment in regenerative agriculture, renewable energy, and restoration projects that improve ecosystem health.

Localism and Community-Based Economics:

Emphasizing local production and consumption can reduce the environmental impact of long-distance Transportation and foster community resilience. Community-based economic models focus on meeting local needs sustainably. This model prioritizes support for local businesses, community gardens, and initiatives that promote self-sufficiency and reduce the carbon footprint of goods and services.

Degrowth:

In contrast to traditional growth-oriented models, degrowth advocates for reducing overall economic activity to achieve sustainability. The emphasis is on improving well-being without continuous material growth. This model requires policies that prioritize leisure, quality of life, and environmental sustainability over the pursuit of ever-increasing production and consumption.

Well-Being Economy:

A well-being economy focuses on maximizing the well-being of individuals and communities rather than solely on economic output. It considers social and environmental factors in decision-making. Measurement of well-being indicators, such as health, education, and happiness, alongside traditional economic metrics. This model emphasizes policies that prioritize social welfare and environmental sustainability.

Commons-Based Peer Production:

Commons-based peer production involves collaborative, decentralized efforts to create and manage resources as shared goods. This model challenges traditional notions of ownership and encourages collective action. Open-source projects, community-based initiatives, and cooperative enterprises harness the power of collaboration for the common good.

Ultimately, achieving sustainable economic growth requires a paradigm shift that values well-being, environmental stewardship, and social equity over purely quantitative measures of economic output. Integrating these principles into economic policy and practice is essential for building a more sustainable and resilient future.

Implementing these alternative economic systems often requires a combination of regulatory frameworks, policy incentives, and shifts in cultural and societal values. The goal is to create economic models that align with the planet's ecological limits, promote social equity, and prioritize the well-being of current and future generations.

Ecosystem Destruction

Ecosystems, the complex webs of interactions between living organisms and their physical environment, can be disrupted and destroyed by various human activities and natural processes.

Habitat Destruction and Fragmentation:

Deforestation: Clearing large areas of forests for agriculture, logging, and urban development removes critical habitats and disrupts ecosystems.

Urbanization: Expanding cities and infrastructure often leads to the fragmentation and loss of natural habitats, isolating species and reducing biodiversity.

Pollution:

Air Pollution: Emissions from industrial processes, vehicles, and other sources introduce pollutants into the air, affecting terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems.

Water Pollution: Runoff from agriculture, industrial discharges, and improper waste disposal can contaminate water bodies, harming aquatic life and ecosystems.

Soil Pollution: Using pesticides, herbicides, and other chemicals can degrade soil quality and impact plant and animal species.

Climate Change:

Global Warming: Rising temperatures, linked to the increase in greenhouse gas emissions, can alter ecosystems, affecting the distribution and behavior of plant and animal species. When our habitat is dead, we all starve to death. Famine happened all throughout history and in every region. No one is immune from global heating.

Extreme Weather Events: More frequent and intense storms, droughts, and heatwaves associated with climate change can cause direct damage to ecosystems.

Overexploitation:

Overfishing: Unsustainable fishing practices, including overfishing and destructive fishing methods, deplete fish populations, disrupt marine ecosystems, and lead to the collapse of fisheries.

Illegal Wildlife Trade: Poaching and the illegal trade of wildlife can lead to population declines and even extinction of vulnerable species.

Invasive Species:

Introduction of Non-Native Species: Human activities, such as global trade and travel, can introduce non-native species to new environments. These invasive species can outcompete native species, leading to biodiversity loss.

Resource Extraction:

Mining: Extracting minerals and resources through mining can result in habitat destruction, soil erosion, and contamination of water sources, negatively impacting ecosystems.

Logging: Unsustainable logging practices can destroy forests, affecting the flora and fauna that depend on these habitats.

Agricultural Practices:

Monoculture Farming: Large-scale agriculture that relies on monoculture can deplete soil nutrients, increase the use of pesticides, and disrupt local ecosystems. Monoculture farming at a scale that is profitable requires financialization, large energy inputs, and technology, and no matter how efficient it is, it’s still destructive.

Irrigation: Excessive water extraction for irrigation can lead to the depletion of water sources and alter the natural flow of rivers, affecting aquatic ecosystems. We are experiencing a global water crisis now.

Infrastructure Development:

Dams and Water Diversion: Construction of dams and water diversion for irrigation can alter natural river systems, impacting aquatic habitats and migratory patterns of fish. As the world heats up, these projects will falter and erode.

Roads and Transportation: Infrastructure development can fragment habitats, leading to roadkill, isolation of populations, and disruption of migration routes. Roads are energy-intensive and cost billions to maintain. We will need to rethink transportation on all levels.

Wildfires:

Human-Induced Fires: Land clearing, agricultural burning, and arson contribute to wildfires that can devastate ecosystems, particularly in fire-prone regions. As the world heats up, we are running out of capacity to control fires.

Disease:

Introduction of Pathogens: The movement of people and goods can introduce diseases to new areas, causing population declines and even extinctions of vulnerable species. Novel viruses and bacterial diseases are being released as permafrost melts.

Addressing ecosystem destruction requires a comprehensive and interdisciplinary approach, including conservation efforts, sustainable resource management, and global cooperation to mitigate the impact of human activities on the natural world. The world will fail if we put trillions of dollars worth of resources into war and defense.

World Peace

World peace can profoundly and positively impact sustainability and civilizational health across various dimensions, including financial, social, political, and economic perspectives. 

Financial Perspective:

Reduced Military Spending: Achieving and maintaining world peace would lead to a decrease in military spending globally. Governments and nations could reallocate significant portions of their budgets from defense and towards social and environmental initiatives, including sustainable development projects, poverty alleviation, and healthcare.

Stable Global Markets: Peace fosters stability in global financial markets. Reduced geopolitical tensions and conflicts contribute to a more predictable and secure economic environment, promoting investor confidence and economic growth.

Social Perspective:

Improved Quality of Life: World peace contributes to a safer and more stable world, leading to improved quality of life for people across different societies. Communities can focus on education, healthcare, and social welfare programs, fostering well-being and happiness.

Enhanced Cross-Cultural Collaboration: Peace encourages cross-cultural understanding and collaboration. People from different backgrounds can interact positively, share knowledge, and work together to address global challenges, promoting social cohesion and unity.

Political Perspective:

Global Governance and Cooperation: World peace often requires effective global governance and diplomatic cooperation, establishing and strengthening international institutions and agreements to address common challenges, including environmental sustainability and resource management.

Political Stability: Peaceful nations are more likely to experience political stability. Stable political environments create conducive conditions for effective policymaking, long-term planning, and the implementation of sustainable development strategies.

Economic Perspective:

Trade and Economic Growth: Peaceful relations between nations facilitate international trade and economic cooperation. Open and stable trade routes encourage economic growth, technological exchange, and the development of sustainable business practices.

Investment in Sustainable Technologies: A peaceful world encourages investment in research and development of sustainable technologies. Nations can collaborate on initiatives such as renewable energy, environmental conservation, and sustainable agriculture, fostering economic growth without compromising the planet's health.

Environmental Perspective:

Conservation and Biodiversity Protection: Peaceful conditions allow nations to focus on environmental conservation and biodiversity protection. International collaboration can lead to transnational parks, conservation agreements, and initiatives to combat climate change.

Reduced Environmental Degradation: Armed conflicts often result in environmental degradation, including deforestation, pollution, and habitat destruction. World peace would reduce these negative impacts, allowing ecosystems to recover and promoting a healthier environment.

Health Perspective:

Improved Public Health: Peace contributes to improved public health outcomes. Nations at peace are better equipped to address healthcare challenges, prevent the spread of diseases, and allocate resources to healthcare infrastructure.

Humanitarian Assistance: In times of peace, nations can focus on providing humanitarian assistance to regions affected by natural disasters, epidemics, or other crises to enhance global health resilience and cooperation.

World peace can create a more sustainable, prosperous, and healthy global civilization. By redirecting resources from military expenditures to social and environmental initiatives, fostering international cooperation, and creating stable political and economic environments, the positive impacts of peace can resonate across various aspects of human civilization. Peace leads to a brighter, healthier future.

CAPITALISM—The Great Satan

Critics of capitalism often highlight several ways the system can be destructive on various levels. It's important to note that while capitalism is associated with economic growth and innovation, these critiques emphasize the potential negative impacts.

Income Inequality:

Critique: One of the most prominent criticisms of capitalism is its tendency to exacerbate income inequality. The system can concentrate wealth in the hands of a few, leading to a widening gap between the rich and the poor and social and economic consequences, including reduced social mobility and increased social tensions.

The exploitation of Labor:

Critics argue that capitalism can lead to the exploitation of labor, especially in low-wage industries and developing countries. Issues such as sweatshop labor, poor working conditions, and inadequate wages are examples of the negative impact of profit-driven capitalism on workers.

Consumerism and Overconsumption:

Capitalism is often associated with a culture of consumerism, where the emphasis is on constant growth and increased consumption, leading to environmental degradation, overexploitation of natural resources, and the generation of excessive waste, contributing to ecological problems.

Short-Term Focus:

Pursuing short-term profits in a capitalist system may prioritize immediate financial gains over long-term sustainability, leading to decisions that compromise environmental health, public welfare, and the well-being of future generations.

Environmental Degradation:

Capitalism contributes to environmental degradation, particularly in its more unrestrained forms. Prioritizing profits can lead to practices that harm ecosystems, exploit natural resources, and contribute to climate change. The focus on perpetual growth can be at odds with ecological sustainability.

Financial Instability:

Capitalist economies are prone to cycles of boom and bust. Critics argue that these fluctuations can result in financial crises, causing widespread economic distress, unemployment, and social upheaval. The 2008 global financial crisis is but one example.

Market Externalities:

Capitalism may not fully account for externalities, such as economic activities' environmental and social costs. For example, companies might not bear the full cost of pollution or social inequality associated with their operations, leading to suboptimal resource allocation and societal well-being.

Focus on Shareholder Value:

The emphasis on maximizing shareholder value can prioritize short-term financial gains over the interests of other stakeholders, including employees, communities, and the environment. This narrow focus may lead to decisions that neglect broader social and ethical considerations.

Crisis Response:

Capitalism's ability to respond to crises, such as pandemics or environmental emergencies, has been questioned. Critics argue that profit-driven motives may hinder effective and equitable crisis response, particularly when essential services become commodities.

Cultural Homogenization:

Capitalism contributes to cultural homogenization, especially in its globalized form. The spread of multinational corporations and standardized products can erode cultural diversity and local traditions.

Many advocates of capitalism argue that it has led to increased living standards, technological innovation, and economic growth. The debate often revolves around finding a balance that harnesses the benefits of capitalism while addressing its potential drawbacks. Moreover, different forms of capitalism exist, and various nations incorporate different degrees of regulation and social intervention within their economic systems.

We must reexamine our goals, values, and desires and ask the right questions.

The Mall of Mayhem

Are you saved? Do you know how this ends?

For those that don’t know, there are journalists, commentators, and experts on alternative media that will help you have a better understanding of what’s happening:

The Arseholes Of Democracy

To all the people supporting all this war

indi.ca

Practically all clips from MSM in the Anglo-sphere are sickening. There is no theory of mind for leaders, paid pundits, and think-tankers in the USA. Integrity and honesty is a lost art.

Will the IDF kill the ideology born out of the conflict created by The Great Game? No, Palestinian children will grow up to be hateful maniacs, which is probably why the IDF wants to kill Palestinian children. The imaginary utility of genocide is fucked up game theory logic. The world can't win because too many people in the anglosphere think war is entertainment. They believe their side is the right side. They can't comprehend the complexity of the systems that comprise the whole.

Can we educate folks in the USA about the nuances of history, psychology, and other domains relevant to our worsening global predicament? Too many people I encounter want to avoid learning. They want a monster truck. They want to go fishing. They want validation on TikTok. Folks in the States are waiting for movies and Netflix series about the Gaza War. "Fauda" is playing now on the platform. There were dozens of series glorifying black ops, special forces, CIA, MI6, and the Empire's self-righteous violence before this particular battle broke out.

Few read books like "A Problem From Hell, America in the Age of Genocide."

Did a war end? Did I miss something huge? Wasn't the last few of years in the region a hot ceasefire of a sort?

In The Great Game, no one is human except The Individual, and some are more human than others. Maggie should have elaborated.

High-tech weapons are a very lucrative market ecosystem, but shortly, the high-tech weapons industry will die along with everything else. If our culture stays the same, soon, we will have little left to bomb.

We ignore the most critical existential risks. Those who pay attention know what they are.

What will people do with the calories from the pizza delivered by an Amazon drone? They'll watch Monday Night Football or the Circus known as cable news. They'll shed tears for an IFA that an investor dissed because they were concerned about MFM. They'll go to a workshop at their Mega-Church to learn about Christian Zionism. 'Tis true; many people in the United States of New Miracles are already saved and waiting to be Raptured. They know how this all ends. The secular folks will get another gig-economy job to boost their credit rating to be able to borrow money for that truck. The sociopaths will compete to become Players in The Great Game and become psychopaths—zombie killers, qu'est que ce, fa, fa, fa, fa, fa, fa, fa, fa, fa, faaaaa from a peacemaking culture. There's no vaccination for Uncle Sam. The mall of mayhem is endemic.