Become Aware Of It, Pay Attention To It. Read About It, Learn About It, Write About It, Talk About It. Teach It.
Reflections upon anything under the sun and beyond. It may not be easy to be a Global Citizen, but it's not hard to engage the Globe.
The Convivial Descent: A Freestyle Inquiry for an Unraveling World—North America Style
Will we do anything about our predicament? Are we partially responsible for our circumstances? From the depths of feel-good culture: “You can’t be neutral on a moving train.”
***Writing isn’t a business for me. I don’t spend much effort branding or promoting my work on Substack, so the algorithms aren’t kind to me. Publish and monetize or die, whether you are a hack, a professional investigative journalist, or a literary genius. If you find this book compelling or vexing, let me know your thoughts in the comments, and please share it with friends, acquaintances, young people, and talk with them about it. I am not preaching to the choir. This book is not about me or you; it’s about why more of us aren’t doing enough to replace a broken, pathological system with its complex beliefs and ideologies with something fit for posterity and respectful of the living systems upon which we all depend. You’ll understand where I get my assumptions as you read. I want readers to think deeply about the ideas I’m focusing on here, and even more so about the thought processes inherent in the people whose work I reference. I believe that people will discover new life-enhancing interests and projects by engaging in a little positive doomerism. By “doomerism,” I mean rigorous critical thinking, self-examination, social awareness and critique, and a crucial understanding of biophysical reality amidst the ongoing polycrisis. There is a lot to think about here; I am asking readers to take their time, consider what’s mentioned and referred to carefully, and reflect on the thought processes behind the inquiry. We have to ask rigorous, tough questions and understand how to answer them. We need to figure out what must be done to lessen the catastrophe we are immersed in. I primarily publish here on Substack and on my website, so people can follow the hyperlinks as they work through the book. I will publish an ebook version soon. Finally, I have much to learn; your feedback would be a helpful and much appreciated gift.
Uncle Sam Inc. (author)
Before We Begin
For generations, those concerned with nature, ecology, overshoot, the limits to growth, anthropogenic climate change, peace, health, justice, living systems, human flourishing, and posterity have said things like what William Rees says below and a whole lot more. Still, he says it so well here, at this time, and his points help set the stage perfectly for the various perspectives on our predicament that I curate and discuss in this book, so much so that I am compelled to quote the first section of his article here.
We are in a pickle because we are H. sapiens. Our problems are entirely of our own making.
In a recent Guardian article, Eduardo Porter argues that humanity’s best bet in our defence against global heating is heavy investment in air conditioning, particularly in the most exposed low-income nations. The piece begins with a critique of the (allegedly dangerous) notion that our global climate conundrum results from overconsumption—particularly of energy—and excess population:
“The greenest campaigners against climate change have long suffered from a crippling shortcoming: they too often frame the challenge as a problem of excess consumption. This motivates calls to ‘degrow’ the economy and to curb the population” (my italics).”
Porter goes on to assert that “Nowhere has the tension between this proposition and reality become more palpable during this sweltering summer than in the conversation over air conditioning.”
I admit to having to stop to catch my breath at that point—for three reasons, actually. First, my subconscious suddenly, rudely, brought it to my attention that Porter’s article was not just a bit of clever satire aimed at society’s perversely simplistic, utterly ineffective approach to climate change. Second was disappointment that Porter—like most folks—still sees global heating/climate change as the existential threat facing confronting humanity and, third, was mild shock at what the author meant by “reality”. This last tripwire in particular jogged me into awareness that Porter was serious.
So, just what is the real story here?
Let’s step back a bit.
There can hardly be a better illustration of the fact that human beings routinely observe the same phenomena and ‘problems’ from radically different cognitive universes. It’s not the nature of reality that shapes our perceptions as much as how and what we think about what we perceive. And just how any human group, including modern techno-industrial (MTI) society, perceives/thinks about reality reflects quirky aspects of our species’ evolutionary heritage.
This is not a trivial observation. Even Shakespeare reminds us, through Antonio in The Tempest, that ‘What’s past is prologue’—and H. sapiens’ evolutionary past provides a profoundly cautionary prologue to our contemporary eco-predicament and future fate.
First, there is no dispute that anatomically modern humans evolved for hundreds of millennia in relatively simple social and biophysical environments that posed only modest short-term challenges to the evolving human brain. The lasting result is that humans are cognitively adapted to… well, ‘simple’. Even modern humans’ instinctive approach to problems is simplistic, reductionist and myopic. We tend to see ‘problems’ one at a time, in isolation from everything else, rarely connecting the dots among issues that are intimately related facets of the same complex phenomena—think of news reports on global heating, plunging biodiversity, marine dead zones, ocean acidification, micro-plastic contamination, and, yes, air conditioning, each issue typically floating free from all the others.
It’s not our fault that we are not systems thinkers; it’s basic human nature, it’s just the way we are. And while ‘just the way we are’ obviously served well enough for hunter-gatherers, it is dismally inadequate for people trying to cope with the mind-boggling, often human-made complexities of the 21st Century. It may well be that we moderns have rendered ourselves cognitively obsolete.
A second evolutionary hold-over is that humans are innate story-tellers. All human groups and societies make sense of the world by ‘socially constructing’ shared narratives (tribal myths, religious doctrines, political ideologies, even scientific theories) that may or may not accurately reflect crucial aspects of objective reality.
Significantly, people acquire their culture’s narratives unconsciously, automatically, simply by growing up and being ‘educated’ within that particular socio-cultural context. We can’t avoid this process; we’re all in it together, yet the average person on the street isn’t aware that s/he has been subliminally programmed with a complex cultural worldview consisting of several overlapping made-up stories.
Of course, we subsequently have no choice but to ‘act out of’ our prescribed narratives as true believers, as if these particular narratives were real and true. When they are not, there can be tragic consequences.
And this is where cognitive imprinting becomes relevant to global heating. Consider that MTI culture is in thrall of a particularly pernicious meta-narrative, the quasi-religious yet largely-unspoken belief in human exceptionalism. This is the fabricated notion that H. sapiens is not like other species. According to exceptionalists, humans are superior beings; some assert that we have an immortal soul; humans are not part of, nor dependent on, nature; we are exempt from natural laws; individual and social behaviors are mostly socially and culturally determined.
Ironically, then, while human exceptionalism is itself a product of H. sapiens’ innate proclivity for story-telling and believing, it denies that our evolutionary heritage significantly influences how humans ‘act out’ in the world.
But, in fact, it does—in spades. Exceptionalism provides the theoretical foundation for MTI societies’ dominant growth-demanding neo-liberal economics (including socialist and communist variations). Standard models represent the economy and ‘the environment’ as separate, largely independent systems, a material absurdity bolstered by economists’ hubristic add-on: human ingenuity, not nature, is the ultimate resource. In the neoliberal cognitive universe, technology can substitute for any good or service provided by nature, so there are no binding limits to material or population growth.
Read the rest of the article and come back here
Forward
Today, our global culture is fixated on too few and outdated solutions to complex problems. Modern society leads us to seek straightforward narratives, easy technical remedies, and effortless optimism, even as our ecological, political, economic, and technological systems begin to break down. Instead of accepting this dogmatic way of thinking, ‘The Convivial Descent’ promotes a necessary and radical alternative: a multiplicity of multiperspectival collaborative thinking and imagining.
To navigate the polycrisis, we need to examine our world and our collective and individual actions from multiple points of view. This book serves as a conceptual kaleidoscope because, by continually returning to the main themes—namely, biophysical limits, technological control, human psychology, and civilizational hubris—across different domains, it offers a comprehensive view that can dislodge our fixations on outmoded concepts and behaviors. By looking at issues from various standpoints—historical precedent, ecological thermodynamics, and cross-cultural metaphysics or systems theory, among others—we can begin to understand what matters in today’s and future challenges. Complex systems do not reveal their secrets to simple, one-sided analysis, jingoism, fantasies, or stubborn adherence to ideology.
Unlocking Agency in an Unraveling World
If we are confined to a single master narrative, then our own choices vanish, and we are reduced to passive recipients of circumstances deliberately arranged by others. By bringing to light the various aspects of our situation/predicament, we regain exactly those qualities which are necessary for dealing with it:
Autonomy: Identifying the unwritten assumptions—ranging from platform algorithms to imperial mythologies—that gently influence the daily decisions we make.
Moving away from learned helplessness and therapeutic denial and instead taking direct, courageous, and localized action.
Creativity means moving beyond the “One-World World,” characterized by endless economic extraction, and creating space for the Pluriverse—a world in which many worlds can coexist.
The shift from seeing a challenge as a “problem to solve” to a “predicament to navigate” is not a sign of giving up; it is the exact moment when human creativity, agency, and joy come into play.
Problems vs. Predicaments
Technical solutions exist for problems, and they restore or improve the present situation (for example, a broken pipe, a missing line of code, or a flat tire).
Predicaments arise from biophysical reality or systemic limits (such as gravity, mortality, and thermodynamic and material overshoot); no single solution can resolve them, so they lead to unavoidable consequences that require conscious adaptation and a redesign of the underlying structures.
Why Limits Ignite Creative Will
It forces a shift from simply expecting things to change one way or another to taking an active, creative role when a difficult situation dispels the false idea of easy solutions. Facing tough conditions usually leads to strong intrinsic motivation instead of causing paralysis:
The pleasure of craftsmanship and complexity is that people usually do not feel great satisfaction from solving trivial puzzles; only when dealing with a difficult system do they feel excited, as they must push imagination, ability, and cooperation to the limit in the face of great obstacles.
The idea of ‘success’ changes when natural forces limit macro-outcomes; success no longer means ‘stopping the storm’, but instead becomes the art of navigating the waters with dignity, intelligence, and mutual care.
The autonomy of the present moment means macro-determinism does not eliminate micro-choice: in how we organize things, the kinds of things we build, and how we treat one another in our immediate surroundings, everything remains within our sphere of freedom.
Adaptation as a Life-Affirming Act
Paralysis sets in when we expect a difficult situation to act like a problem. When we stop feeling under obligation to ‘rescue’ a system that cannot be maintained, a great deal of creative energy becomes available. Activities such as designing simple tools, rehabilitating local topsoil, or establishing restorative community circles are not desperate efforts to change global thermodynamics; they are instead joyful and significant expressions of human intent at this very moment.
Positive doomerism is less alarming and more like a productive practice.
From Positive Doomerism to Convivial Action
This investigation is not rooted in paralyzing defeatism; instead, it embraces what I call “positive doomerism.” Rather than viewing the breakdown of late-industrial civilization as an apocalyptic horror to be feared, it sees it as an inevitable biophysical reset. It thus calls for us to descend the ladder of complexity with grace, humor, and moral clarity. As the high-energy engine of late modernity comes to a halt under its own weight, the aim shifts from preserving those fragile megastructures to developing convivial tools, relational ontologies, and resilient local communities.
Reading this text may help move us away from cultural passivity. If we revisit ideas surrounding this theme again and again, consider the thought processes behind them, and face up to our shared responsibilities, we can regain the ability to become active, grounded caretakers of the finite, living Earth, transition visionaries, and co-creators of a future where people and living systems thrive.
Table of Contents
Preface: Positive Doomerism & The Illusion of Progress
The Pamphlet’s Purpose: Unpacking Pathological Systems
Macondo as Allegory: Technology as an Extractive Trojan Horse
Relational Ontology, Travel, and the Act of Unlearning
The One-World World vs. The Pluriverse
Descending the Ladder of Complexity: Civilization in Reverse
The Icaryana Project: Neo-Neolithic Foundations
1. Positive Doomerism & Expired Stories
Living Off Expiring Narratives (Hospicing Modernity)
Multiperspectivalism and the Nature of Joy
Navigating National Narratives and Everyday Captivity
The Icaryana Neo-Neolithic Cooperative
The Illusion of Quick Fixes: “Fk It” vs. Genuine Engagement
Information Oversaturation and the Erosion of Critical Thought
2. Civilization, Culture, and the Great Fracture
Etymological Roots of “Civilization” and “Culture”
Disconnection from the Biosphere and the Global Topsoil Crisis
Neoliberal Capitalism, Media Spectacle, and Algorithmic Manipulation
The Game-Theoretic Trap of Modernity
Bridging C.P. Snow’s “Two Cultures”: Biophysical Realities vs. Morality
Autonomous Design and Radical Interdependence (Designs for the Pluriverse)
3. Psychological Dynamics of Compliance & Denial
The American Ethos: Exceptionalism, Hedonism, and Self-Optimization
The Utility of Hate: Hoffer, Girard, Nietzsche, and Arendt
Distinguishing Transient Happiness from Grounded Joy
Neuroscientific Plasticity and “Making Friends” with Panic (Mingyur Rinpoche)
Practical Wisdom vs. Technical Expertise
Hyper-Individualism and the Spectacle of Performance
4. Comparative Ontologies & Secular Metaphysics
Cross-Cultural Frameworks: Wa, Giri, Ubuntu, and Gaman
Amazonian Multinaturalism and the Australian Dreaming (Everywhen)
Andean Ayni and Oceanic Seascapes
The Pacified Citizen and Polycrisis Avoidance
Secular Metaphysics: Emergent Wonder in Physical Reality
Tools for Conviviality: Illich, Mumford, Schumacher, and the Convivialist Manifesto
5. Radical Theology & The Imperative of Action
The First-Century Context of Joshua (Jesus) and Roman Occupation
Compassion Systems vs. Exclusionary Purity Systems
Universal Moral Convergence: Jesus, Buddha, Lao Tzu, and Socrates
Secular Spirituality, Spiritual Materialism, and Bypassing
Facing Biophysical Limits: Climate Reality vs. Institutional Myths (Kevin Anderson)
The Psychology of Inaction, Paralysis, and Alarm Fatigue
6. Technofeudalism, Algorithmic Control, & Academic Apologetics
Technocratic Power: Peter Thiel, Mimetic Theory, and Monopolistic Logic
Platform Capitalism: Cloud Rent, Digital Serfdom, and the Gig Economy
Academic Apologetics: The “Turing Trap” and Labor Sanitization
Algorithmic Power and “Algor-Ethics” (Paolo Benanti)
Stoicism, Amor Fati, and Systems Science (Massimo Pigliucci)
Predestination, Determinism, Moral Luck, and Randomness
The Anatomy of Stupidity: Cipolla, Bonhoeffer, and Frankfurt’s On Bullshit
Socratic Ignorance, AI Coordination Traps, and the “Moloch” Race
The “Intelligence Curse” and Algorithmic Targeting in Warfare
Parables of Feedback: The Alien Mirror and the Fall of Atlantis
7. Imperial Overreach, Systemic Violence, & The Path to Renewal
The U.S. Military as an Institutional Environmental Polluter
Resistance, Doykeit, and Local Solidarity (Molly Crabapple)
Decentralized Anti-Fascism vs. Institutional Control
Foreign Policy Critique: The Mechanics of Empire and Proxy Warfare
Inequality and Oligarchic Capture: The Failure of the Meritocracy Myth
Disaster Capitalism and the Deep State (Aaron Good & Karen Kwiatkowski)
American Exceptionism as a Moral Double Standard
Agroecology, Syntropic Farming, and Living Systems (Olivier Hamant)
The Dehumanization Trap and the Breakdown of International Law (Craig Mokhiber)
The Cinematic Grammar of Collapse: From Network to Killing Them Softly
Radical Anthropotechnics: Sloterdijk, Co-Immunism, and Transition Knowledge
Appendix: Philosophical Frameworks & Case Studies
Literary Analysis: Kurt Vonnegut’s Slaughterhouse-Five—Trauma, Tralfamadorian Fatalism, and Duty
Decolonial Theory: Coloniality of Power, Eurocentrism, and Epistemic Disobedience (Quijano, Fanon, Mignolo)
Relational Metaphysics: Unfixing the Real and Non-Substantial Selfhood (Prabakaran)
Field Prototypes: Portugal as a Living Laboratory—Ecovillages, Syntropic Agriculture, and the Friction of Gentrification
Historical Precedent: Emperor Haile Selassie I’s 1963 Address to the United Nations General Assembly
“Many years later, as he faced the firing squad, Colonel Aureliano Buendía was to remember that distant afternoon when his father took him to discover ice. At that time, Macondo was a village of twenty adobe houses, built on the bank of a river of clear water that ran along a bed of polished stones, which were large and white, like prehistoric eggs. The world was so recent that many things lacked names, and to indicate them one had to mention them with a finger.” —García Márquez
My former life of dreams while living in the fast lane, a world of urban delights and my quest to “succeed,” to get over and get by, while wallowing in and ensnaring people in marvelous inventions and ambitions—exploratory, exciting, precarious, dangerous, and insecure in a world where I believed anything was possible. Odd. Ironic. Improvisational. Beautiful. Scary. Ugly. Sick.
Somehow, if I could only learn how. If I could do what it takes. If I fell in with the right people. If I got lucky…
Oh, the stories we tell ourselves.
Today, I confront old stories and tell them in reverse.
Are modern lives encased in narratives—like in amber or in dreams?
One understands things as one goes along and then again and again, in different ways, if one is “free,” if one has an imagination, if one knows what’s what.
If we are paying attention and self-aware, aware of our own B.S., our narratives will evolve within the context of our place, experiences, and relationships, and our sense of connection and identity may become more authentic and meaningful. The key is whether we can sense the subtle changes and be open to them.
I think this holds even in traditional cultures. Our internal lives are dynamic even when constrained.
I don’t think we can truly love ourselves if we don’t “hate” ourselves. A little self-deconstruction is good. Tear down your defenses to find out how fit you are, what your role is, who you are, and why you matter.
But all of this is so philosophical and modern. I wish I could know myself as a Paleolithic man.
Macondo and the Illusion of Progress
Gabriel García Márquez employs the tragic arc of Macondo in One Hundred Years of Solitude as a profound allegory of humanity’s destructive relationship with technology. I read it long ago and hardly remember what I thought of it then, but I do remember talking about it with a friend for weeks. We lived in that story and found places that reminded us of scenes from the book. We even role-played. The story begins in a state of primitive innocence, with a village of “twenty adobe houses” by a river whose stones were “white and large, like prehistoric eggs”. However, when the patriarch, José Arcadio Buendía, encounters the gypsies’ new inventions, his initial wonder quickly turns into a strong desire to master them. He tries to use magnets to extract gold from the Earth and turns a magnifying glass into a weapon against supposed enemies. Literary critics and post-colonial scholars argue that Macondo’s development mirrors the historical tragedy of the Global South and the wider modern world: technology does not arrive as a neutral instrument of enlightenment, but as an extractive Trojan horse. What starts as innocent excitement over the discovery of ice eventually leads to the arrival of the North American Banana Company, which reorganizes local labor, poisons the environment, and carries out a state-approved massacre of thousands of striking workers—an act of atrocity which the state then removes from the official history books, making the survivors believe that it never took place. Pristine gaslighting.
When I was young and traveling, I always felt something was off; my presence in Chiapas, Tonga, Israel, Italy, or Bali felt inappropriate and embarrassing somehow, and I never slowed down enough to experience what I truly needed and wanted from ‘being there’. Moving through a place I wasn’t from felt too superficial and transient. Later, my travels became stories that I embellished as I grew and learned, more satisfying in a retrospective, self-indulgent, performative sense. There is something magical about an audience. The actor is only an instrument when he holds his audience's emotional attention. I was always too far ahead of myself. I couldn’t ascertain what people thought of my performance. I still can’t, and I still don’t know exactly why I see life as a performance.
To make life feel more grounded and real, I learned I had to slow way down and live in one place for an extended period to establish the relational ontology necessary for a profound sense of connection and belonging.
A relational ontology is a philosophical approach that holds that entities—whether human beings, animals, ecosystems, or objects—do not exist as fixed, independent, self-contained units before their interactions. Instead, reality consists of dynamic interconnections; things emerge through relationships, mutual dependencies, and reciprocal encounters. Unlike the Cartesian view, which sees the individual as a separate observer looking at an objective, passive environment, a relational ontology considers the self porous, emergent, and fundamentally linked to the web of life. Identity is not an inherent private possession to be protected or improved upon, but rather a continuous process of ‘becoming-with’ the people, the land, and the other living systems around us.
From the perspective of a relational ontology, travel and self-discovery shift from a merely consumerist show to a fundamental act of unlearning. If we travel with a sense of relationship, self-discovery no longer becomes a narcissistic endeavor focused on personal branding, a desire for novel experiences, or the accumulation of status. Rather, coming across foreign landscapes and communities undermines our protected idea of ourselves, showing us just how much local and temporary circumstances shape our daily routines and values. When we truly open ourselves to other ways of knowing, our imagination is aroused, and we realize that human life can be based on reciprocity, stewardship, and mutual care rather than extraction, exploitation, and isolated competition. This sudden shift opens new possibilities. It leads to ‘new world creation’—the practical, collective effort to shape lived realities in ways that respect relational depth rather than commodified passivity.
This view of relations is in direct contrast to the ‘One-World World’ (OWW) standpoint—the prevailing imperialist belief that there is just one objective, universal reality to which all of humanity must ultimately adhere. Modern industrial capitalism and technocratic reasoning have established this OWW and assert a single global master narrative based on endless economic growth, market efficiency, and linear progress, treating alternative ways of being as nothing more than ‘folklore’ or evidence of primitive backwardness. While the One-World World violently reduces cultural diversity to create a uniform monoculture of consumers, a relational ontology upholds the idea of the Pluriverse: a ‘world in which many worlds fit’. Where the One-World World extracts from and homogenizes the Earth, treating it as a dead warehouse of resources, relational thinking re-enchants existence by acknowledging that every territory, culture, and ecosystem has its own valid way of bringing reality into being, and thus urges us to give up the hubris of our civilizations and instead work together to co-create a living, multifaceted future.
The Seduction of the Machine and Critical Reflections
Reactions to One Hundred Years of Solitude usually fall along a clear dividing line. Many ordinary readers see the story of Macondo as simply a mythical or fatalistic fable and complain that its cyclic pattern makes human action meaningless. On the other hand, insightful critics see García Márquez identifying a particular cultural illness: the arrogance of mistaking technical advancement for real progress. Or, at least, I think so. The way José Arcadio Buendía loses his mind—by becoming attached to a tree after being paralyzed by his own obsessive inventions—shows how late-capitalist society is trapped by its own technological systems. When the Banana Company leaves Macondo after abandoning its industrial machinery, it leaves behind a damaged ecosystem, shattered social ties, and a traumatized population unable to remember its own history. What kind of community does the market for cocaine produce in Colombia now? But, you know, northern consumers like their drugs. As Marxist and systems-based critics note, Macondo’s collapse shows that whenever a culture replaces its relational, human-scale traditions with the quick extraction of capital, it necessarily creates its own spiritual and material grave.
Quick Detour
My friend “Josh” and I sit and cry, having drunk quite a bit of wine. My friend Josh is my imaginary, historical Jesus. He is very real to me. I bring this up now because many of my friends from the United States are Christians, and ‘chosen’ to rule the world. They think Jesus/God is coming to judge us. Josh and I think we don’t judge enough sometimes.
In the time of the historical Jesus (about 4 BCE to 30–33 CE), the Roman Empire put thousands of people to death by crucifixion in Judea and Galilee. Crucifixion was no uncommon or sacred rite; it was a standardized and industrial method of Roman state terrorism, one that was specifically used against enslaved people, rebels, bandits, and political agitators who endangered the Pax Romana.
Today, the Trump administration and U.S. institutions threaten Iran with annihilation by nuclear weapons strikes.
The historical record left by the first-century Jewish historian Flavius Josephus provides a terrifying sense of scale:
When Publius Quinctilius Varus, the Roman governor of Syria, after the death of Herod the Great in the year 4 before the Christian era—that is, at about the time when Jesus was born—suppressed a widespread Jewish revolt by mass-crucifying 2,000 Jewish rebels outside the walls of Jerusalem.
In the year 7 CE, while Judas the Galilean was leading the revolt against the Roman tax collection, hundreds or even thousands of others were hunted down and put to death all over the Galilean countryside, the area where Jesus was brought up.
During the governorship of Pontius Pilate (26–36 CE), Roman provincial rule was characterized by routine, summary brutalizations. Both Josephus and the Jewish philosopher Philo describe Pilate as a ruthless administrator who frequently ordered the slaughter and execution of Jewish and Samaritan religious movements without trial.
When the First Jewish-Roman War broke out a few decades later in 70 CE, the Roman general Titus was crucifying as many as 500 Jewish fugitives each day outside Jerusalem until the hillsides actually ran out of wood for the crosses. In the course of Jesus’s lifetime alone, conservative historical estimates show that several thousand Jewish peasants and political subversives were nailed to wooden posts along the roads in Judea.
The Historical Peasant and the Imperial Myth
The Jesus of history lived in a time when the cross was a common and terrifying sight, serving as a constant reminder of the fate that befell any provincial citizen who spoke out against Roman taxation, land dispossession, or imperial sovereignty. The two men who were put to death alongside Jesus are referred to in the original Greek Gospels as lestai. However, this term is usually translated into English as “thieves”; in Roman law, it specifically meant insurgents, guerrilla fighters, or anti-imperial bandits. Jesus was executed by the Romans not because he had preached an abstract spiritual theology, but because he was seen to pose a political threat as an itinerant peasant preacher who proclaimed a “Kingdom of God” in direct opposition to the Kingdom of Caesar.
As New Testament scholar and historian Bart Ehrman observes:
“One of the most certain facts of history is that Jesus was crucified on orders of the Roman prefect of Judea, Pontius Pilate... For Rome to get involved, there had to be a perceived political threat... Jesus was put in that same category and thus received the same punishment [as rebels].”
Prominent historical-Jesus scholar John Dominic Crossan puts it even more plainly:
“Jesus called for nonviolent resistance to Rome and just distribution of land and food. He was crucified because he threatened Roman stability – not as a sacrifice to God for humanity's sins.”
The Political Co-optation of a Movement
The transformation of an executed anti-imperial peasant into the divine cornerstone of a world empire took centuries of intense political engineering. Early Christianity began as a radical, decentralized network of egalitarian communities that practiced mutual aid, shared property, and resisted Roman civic idolatry. However, over three centuries, as the movement grew, it was systematically institutionalized and co-opted.
When Constantine legalized Christianity in 313 CE and convened the Council of Nicaea in 325 CE, the Roman state made a skillful political move: it adopted the Pauline religion of those it had executed as rebels. It turned it into the Empire’s official ideology. The radical ethics of the Palestinian carpenter/stonemason/constructoin worker were stripped of their opposition to imperial power and instead used as a tool within an administrative system to enforce compliance with the Empire, uphold feudal hierarchies, and eventually drive colonial conquests. Nowadays, critical thinkers—that is, the ‘saints’ of today who know far more about physics, evolutionary mechanics, and historical sociology than the ancient mystics—can clearly see that the rise of institutional Christianity was as much the result of statecraft, geopolitical convenience, and military conquest as it was of spiritual devotion.
As critical theorist and historian Howard Zinn remarked regarding the distortion of radical historical figures by powerful institutions:
“There is no gain in pretending that history is neutral... The memory of those who resisted tyranny is routinely sanitized by the very institutions that inherited the power of their oppressors.”
Honoring the Forgotten
If we get rid of the theological terminology used by institutional religion, we see that Jesus was by no means the only teacher, idealist, or rebel who was tortured and put to death at the pleasure of powerful people. Thousands of poor men, women, and children, who had been conquered, or who had dared to imagine a world free from imperial exploitation, died of bleeding and suffocation on the Roman crosses along the dusty roads of Judea, their names being deleted from the official histories simply because they were poor or conquered.
For those who stand side by side as brothers in both life and love, the moral obligation is to refrain from worshipping the powerful organizations that have taken over these stories, and instead to stick firmly to the human truth at their heart. We must maintain a strong unity with all those who have passed on valuable teachings on love, justice, and community, and who, throughout human history, have paid the highest price at the hands of violent empires, corrupt courts, and self-serving elites. Genuine respect should not be found in the great cathedrals built by kings and oligarchs, but rather in the memory of the dissidents, the martyrs, and the lovers of humanity and living systems who stood up against tyranny in every age.
And it’s important to understand that patriarchal human supremacy was well established long before Christ’s sacrifice was established, and wars over the Christian religion raged across centuries.
Nature itself has made the most profound sacrifice. Or perhaps Nature doesn’t sacrifice; it only creates.
Going in Reverse: From Industrial Superstructure to the Stones
Macondo’s final destiny—where a biblical hurricane of wind and dust erases the town from human memory—clearly indicates our present situation. Now, as our highly connected, techno-industrial society encounters the thermodynamic limits of resource depletion, topsoil loss, climate instability, and the mainstream contemplation and planning for tactical nuclear war, we are realizing that our various empires are not permanent achievements in the evolutionary process, but rather fragile, high-energy, power-hungry beasts. They are but illusions, impotent social constructs. The modern belief that history progresses in a straight line towards infinite technological growth is running out of fuel, and its ‘spirit’ is bereft. As biophysical limits break down global supply chains and digital networks, industrial civilization will not lead to a high-tech, post-scarcity utopia; it will instead go in reverse. We are moving into an age in which the highly complex and fragile systems of late modernity will collapse under their own weight, thereby descending the ladder of complexity.
When I moved to Portugal, I started writing a story and am still at it. I had no idea where it was going, but now I think it’s taking me where I need to go. Macondo is a fictional place; Icaryana is a ‘real,’ imaginary representation and expression of a place in the pluralverse that’s emerging right now again, and more vividly and forcefully, with a growing awareness and concern about the pathology of this ‘thing of ours,’ and how it produced the polycrisis/metacrisis.
The stakes are high, but the work of creating new worlds is persistent, imperturbable, and incipient, informed by multiperspectival perceptions and routines made prevalent by constantly emerging circumstances. The outcomes are not knowable or inevitable, but they are and will be radically different from the history of modern civilization and our current way of life. You may not have noticed, but we are creating this new world even as we are trapped in the old-world paradigm. New worlds will rise from the destruction of the old world, and from very different material circumstances. What you co-create through your relationships is a profound opportunity to reinvigorate cultures and rescue them from the omnicidal Modern Techo-Industrial heat engine.
Reclaiming the Foundation at the Nadir
The idea of going back to “huts by the stones”—that is, to local, low-energy, Neo-Neolithic ways of living—is not something tragic to lament, but the unavoidable biophysical reset that occurs when civilization pushes the natural living and physical systems of the planet beyond its human civilizational carrying capacity. When humanity is removed from its artificial “immune spheres” consisting of consumer distractions, smart devices, and algorithmic control, it will eventually end up where Macondo began: firmly rooted in the immediate physical realities of soil, water, weather, habitat, and the local community. Relational. Embedded in Nature. The centuries-long journey of industrial extraction will end, leaving behind a landscape littered with junk that will inspire new, simpler ways of living. If we can give up the arrogant belief in technological salvation and carry out the difficult work of self-examination now, we can face this descent with dignity—by once again learning how to build simple homes by the river, naming our world through direct experience, and living within the living boundaries that supported us long before the machine arrived.
When my friend Josh and I talk, we talk about what we must do. We dream. We imagine new worlds, where life is sacred and loving is easier. Worlds that existed long before our civilizations, world that will be far different from prehistoric times.
The USA needs to mature in wisdom by learning from other places, cultures, and times. The USA needs a new kind of revolution. Can the USA evolve, or is it too much of a gangster culture, obsessed with wealth and power?
1. Introduction: Positive Doomerism & Expired Stories
In Chapter 1 (“Who the Heck Is Modernity?”) of Hospicing Modernity, Vanessa Machado de Oliveira writes:
“We are living off expired or expiring stories. Stories that expire can no longer dance with you. They are lethargic or stuck, they can’t move things in generative ways anymore, but we often feel we cannot let them go. Many of these expired stories give us a sense of security, purpose, and direction—precisely because they seem stable and solid. Thus, we become attached to them and get used to their weight in our lives. If we notice they are dying, we refuse to accept it and we put them on life support because we fear the void left in their place when they are no longer there.”
Have you ever thought of a word, thinking that it might not be a word, looked it up, and realized it’s the word you were looking for? I talk about multiple perspectives, thought processes, trains of thought, ways of thinking, avenues of thought, and so on. I am always stumbling upon different ways of thinking, probably because I read a lot and am exposed to many perspectives. The word is: Multiperspectivalism, an approach that uses multiple viewpoints, disciplines, or frameworks to understand a single subject or problem rather than relying on a single perspective. I try to understand things from multiple perspectives. I am not exactly sure how I became that way, though I have some ideas.
When I think about joy and happiness, I can have very little to say about it—or a lot—depending on my mood, who I am talking with, and why I’m having the conversation: a shrug and a grin, or a long discussion across domains. I have sections in this book concerning wisdom, joy, and happiness, and how they relate to “feel-good” culture, but the approach here is just one of many I might find myself pondering and articulating. I take everything I encounter, even things that profoundly affect my sensibilities and opinions, with a light touch because I know that my thoughts, ideas, and feelings are changing and evolving. Having this orientation towards things enhances my joy and happiness, my “feel-good” quotient. I guess. I seem to take everything seriously, but not too seriously, giving what I encounter a chance to breathe, percolate, ferment, age, ripen, mature, and fade.
Joy and happiness have little to do with narratives about myself and much more to do with other people, sunshine, Nature, pets, activities I enjoy, sensations, flavors, novel experiences, simple daily interactions. Walking home from the cafe at night after drinking wine with friends, I walk at a brisk pace, taking deep breaths, gulping in the night air; I can almost feel starlight entering my lungs as I continue cycles of long, deep, almost athletic breaths, marching down the middle of the road under the streetlights as I get closer to home with every step, metabolizing the wine and conversations with friends. Here in the countryside, the air is fragrant, different from the city, but here and there I love to indulge my senses.
I don’t depend on others for subtle feelings of joy and happiness (I guess); it has little to do with my identity (I guess); the sensations come and go and flow through me, sometimes in waves of transient euphoria, sometimes barely perceptible pokes or blips, sometimes subconsciously (I imagine). I don’t hold on to these feelings; I suppose I can’t, but it’s amazing to me how many profoundly joyous moments I remember with what seems like absolute clarity. Sometimes these memories come out of nowhere, popping up in a sudden burst of exuberance; sometimes, in quiet moments, I’ll fish one out and indulge myself. It makes me happy to know how fortunate I am to have such memories. Every day I have moments of joyous, mundane interactions with places, people, creatures, things, thoughts, and ideas.
How luxurious it is to live in a peaceful place.
I guess joy and happiness require autonomy, freedom, security, and imagination, but I don’t know for sure. I am not an expert in anything, so when I point to people who have studied a thing for decades, I do so because I sincerely believe they have a lot to say, but not the final word.
Each of us, as we engage with someone’s ideas, thoughts, and feelings, adds to them in our own way, and the more open we are, the more likely something good will come of the interaction.
I could talk about sadness, but I won’t here. Much of what frustrates me about what I mildly critique here comes from our sadness, loneliness, and trauma. Fear and anger arise for many reasons. Explore, open up, if you can. I think it will help a little.
I want people to feel good about themselves; I want them to enjoy their hobbies, families, and friends. Feeling pride in good works and accomplishments is natural. Emotional well-being is essential to a life well lived.
I understand why people would be thankful to have been born in the United States. I grew up in Denver, a pretty nice place. I fully get why U.S. national and cultural narratives are so powerful; I am steeped in them. We are all captive to national narratives to some degree.
Some fish know they swim in water.
I am an NFL fan (sports fan). I think the NFL business ecosystem (pardon the jargon) includes incredible athletes, coaches, staff, owners, managers, and supporting professionals who make American Football a premier, exciting professional sports spectacle. I could go on and on about the NFL and college football business infrastructure and how much it means to people and the economy. Think of all the jobs the NFL creates, and all the happy football fans. I sometimes watch docuseries on streaming channels about NFL teams, players, and coaches. They all seem like good people to me. I admire them.
This is what matters to people:
The NFL fined San Francisco 49ers All-Pro fullback Kyle Juszczyk for what it deemed an “offensive” celebration similar to one he had been doing for several years with no issues.
Juszczyk was fined $14,926 after he imitated drinking a beverage following a catch in the third quarter of San Francisco's win over the Miami Dolphins on Sunday.
“Your imitation of chugging a beer constituted an offensive demonstration and could reasonably be construed as being in poor taste,” the league wrote in the fine letter to Juszczyk, which was obtained by The Associated Press. “Players are expected to conduct themselves in a manner that reflects positively on the game and is consistent with NFL standards of sportsmanship.” —ABC News
I have read that Women’s Soccer in the USA is the next big “money printer” in sports—a new windfall for the one percent and more diversion for the plebs and proles who can afford a ticket or a streaming service subscription.
Before we get into it, let me flex my Yankee credentials and come clean: I'm a lifelong sports fan. Few are immune to the pull of the spectacle.
The Imperial Spectacle: Wealth, Ideology, and the Owners of the Shield
The fact that professional sports are linked with the major geopolitical, military, and ideological aspects of the United States is no coincidence; it is simply the natural outcome of a financialized empire. If we are to understand why professional sports fit so well within the state’s foreign policy consensus—such as support for Christian Zionism and advocacy for Israel—one has only to examine the demographics of both the elite group of sports owners and the large evangelical political base. In the United States, there are estimated to be between 30 and 35 million Christian Zionists (a group notably organized through organizations like Christians United for Israel, which has over 10 million registered members) who form the ideological foundation for unconditional state support of Israel. This wide populist base overlaps closely with a billionaire class of owners who regularly use their positions to promote particular geopolitical objectives.
Well-known athletes and team owners often use their franchises to exert political influence. For example, New England Patriots owner Robert Kraft has long maintained strong financial, business, and political ties with Israel. Through his Foundation to Combat Antisemitism, he spent $7 million on a prominent Super Bowl advertisement to influence public perception, while also personally funding athletic facilities worth millions of dollars in Jerusalem and arranging luxurious “Touchdown in Israel” trips that send NFL Hall of Famers to the country as cultural ambassadors. Similarly, other billionaire owners in both the NFL and the NBA—such as Arthur Blank (of the Atlanta Falcons), Jeffrey Lurie (of the Philadelphia Eagles), and the family of the late Sheldon Adelson, who had interests connected with sports and real estate in Las Vegas—function within the same elite circle in which corporate philanthropy, defense contracting, and Zionist political action committees (such as AIPAC) come together.
And before getting triggered (and apt metaphor), understand that the State of Israel was controversial long before the modern State of Israel existed.
The Scale of Mass Pacification: Attendance and Viewership Statistics
The sheer physical and digital reach of American football illustrates its role as the undisputed center of modern cultural consumption:
The NFL ranks as the sports league with the highest average attendance worldwide. Average stadium attendance regularly hits 69,000 to 70,000 people per game, which results in total in-person attendance during the regular season exceeding 18.8 million fans. Popular teams such as the Dallas Cowboys usually draw more than 91,000 to 93,000 spectators per home game, exceeding 100% of stadium capacity.
At the college level, football acts as a kind of regional religion, with teams such as Michigan, Ohio State, Penn State, Alabama, and Texas A&M frequently filling stadiums that have a capacity of over 100,000 spectators for each game, with top teams attracting more than 1.1 million fans in total per season for both home and away games. The total number of people attending NCAA Division I FBS football games each year is well above 35 million.
In terms of television and streaming viewership, the NFL has unmatched dominance. Its regular-season games attract on average between 17.5 and 18.6 million viewers each. Single-game broadcasts—for example, those on Thanksgiving Day or the major Sunday night games—usually draw between 30 and 42 million viewers, and the Super Bowl consistently breaks broadcasting records with more than 120 million viewers at home.
The Canary in the Coal Mine: Pro Sports and Civilizational Decline
In a declining techno-industrial empire, professional sports act as the ultimate panem et circenses—the modern version of the Roman arena, meant to channel human passion, aggressive impulses, and tribal identity into a commodified, “harmless” ritual. Professional sports are the real canary in the coal mine of today’s techno-industrial, financialised, neoliberal culture. Only because the high-energy grid, middle-class discretionary spending, and consumer complacency have temporarily stayed intact are massive television contracts, municipal subsidies for stadiums, and the integration of multi-billion-dollar sports betting industries possible.
“Ain’t gonna be no revolution. Nurse your addictions and then you die.”
If stadium attendance drops sharply and permanently and broadcast ratings collapse, this does not mean Americans have lost interest in the games. Rather, it means the empire’s biophysical and financial foundation is suffering terminal decline. Empty stadiums would indicate that people can no longer afford tickets at $150 or $15 beers, that the municipal power grids can no longer reliably provide electricity for huge arenas, or that the psychological ‘buffered self’ of the typical American consumer has at last broken down under the pressure of resource scarcity, hyper-inflation, and social disintegration. As long as tens of millions watch every Sunday, the empire's anesthetic continues to work.
The UFC, Dana White, and TKO: The Gladiator Machine of Late Capital
The Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC) is the naked, hyper-individualized peak of the late-capitalist evolutionary model if the NFL is an example of the traditional corporate-institutional approach to the spectacle. With Dana White as both CEO and President, the UFC has grown from a nearly bankrupt, banned “human cockfighting” fringe event in the late 1990s into a global enterprise worth several billion dollars. White has replaced the traditional team-based, civic look of established sports with a raw, highly combative, individualistic gladiator style that directly appeals to a disaffected, globalized audience.
The corporate structure of the UFC reflects the hyper-consolidation of modern media capital:
In 2023, parent company Endeavor merged the UFC with World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE) to form TKO Group Holdings, a sports-and-entertainment conglomerate listed on the public markets and worth more than $21 billion.
Revenues and profit margins: In 2024, the UFC alone achieved record revenue of $1.41 billion and produced an amazing $801 million in Adjusted EBITDA, corresponding to a phenomenal profit margin of 57 percent—far exceeding that of traditional team sports leagues.
In 2025, Dana White reached an enormous agreement with Paramount and CBS for broadcast rights that lasted seven years and was valued at $7.7 billion, thus securing the UFC’s status as the leading combat sport in mainstream global media.
Cultural Alignment: Under Dana White, the UFC has presented itself as the open-minded cultural platform for hyper-masculine, neoconservative, and corporate-populist views. It achieves this by taking advantage of raw combat and combining it with high-tech production, sports-betting algorithms, and global sponsor brands, thus embodying the final form of the spectacle as a financialised machine which turns physical violence into pure, frictionless profit while at the same time diverting a fragmented global population from the continued deterioration of their physical environment.
I don’t think U.S. American culture is malevolent or utterly deluded; many pathologies underlie the myths that shape national identity, and it doesn’t hurt to examine one’s culture critically, especially when strong evidence suggests it may have been in collapse for decades. And Uncle Sam Inc. is a killer. Honest self-examination gives us more options for positive growth, robustness, and creativity in extremely challenging times.
I wonder if an NFL player who has spent a lifetime preparing for “the big show” has much time to think about societal collapse or overshoot when their business is so competitive, and their manager just negotiated an eight-figure contract? I’m just saying most people focus on the business at hand and don’t have the luxury or desire to delve into sweeping, complex issues across even more complex domains.
I want to make it clear what my thesis is about and what has been bothering me. I am not a cynic (maybe a little, like most people). I am not bitter or overly disappointed in our global culture. Humanity hasn’t broken my heart. There are many complex reasons we face the challenges of today and tomorrow, and to borrow from Nietzsche, we are human, all too human, yet we must understand that our current global culture is a destructive force.
None of us chose the time and place of our birth. At least, I don’t believe we do.
I am writing to my friends, and to North Americans and Europeans like me, who may be apprehensive about delving into our predicament and even more reluctant to do something about specific, dire political and socioeconomic issues that might threaten their sense of self-worth and comfort.
We continually make sacrifices, whether we understand them or not.
I have questions and worries about most things concerning our species. When I bring up my concerns in conversation, it’s not because I am a Danny Downer, a curmudgeonly, hypercritical, supercilious, disdainful defeatist. I am not. I am thoughtful, curious, intuitive, and ‘spiritual’. I’m goofy and funny. I’m deficient. I’m broken, like most people. And I have no idea what people think about me. At any given moment, I might describe myself differently. Knowing onself is not easy, and knowing others takes time and patience.
I want to see through things, and, like most people, I can discern patterns in nature, cultures, people’s personalities, groups, tribes, and human-driven systems. I can ferret out the theory of mind at work. I want to explore things, and one way to do so is to study how things work, understand them as best I can at any given moment, and articulate my thoughts through art, video, film, or writing. Like most people, I am hardly ever absolutely “right.” I err all the time. But I keep trying to be a better listener and learner, and to improve my interpersonal skills. I love connecting with people. I am also content being alone; I think moments of solitude are nourishing.
I’ve always known that a true friend is rare, and that being friendly doesn’t have to be difficult or inappropriate. We all have personal and cultural boundaries within which we can express ourselves individually. I have been told that I am a generous, entertaining, energetic, unusual person with high expectations, perhaps too high. I can be quick-tempered and demanding. I am not the smartest guy in the room; I want to find myself in rooms full of extraordinary people who are special because of who they are in relationship to others. And again, I have no idea how people see me, and sometimes I think it doesn’t matter. Certainly, most of us are concerned with what people think and our reputations. How these concerns are expressed matter more than we may think.
I am not a human supremacist.
In Abundant Earth, Eileen Crist not only documents the rising tide of biodiversity loss, but also lays out the drivers of this wholesale destruction and how we can push past them. Looking beyond the familiar litany of causes—a large and growing human population, rising livestock numbers, expanding economies and international trade, and spreading infrastructures and incursions upon wildlands—she asks the key question: if we know human expansionism is to blame for this ecological crisis, why are we not taking the needed steps to halt our expansionism?
Crist argues that to do so would require a two-pronged approach. Scaling down calls upon us to lower the global human population within a human-rights framework, deindustrialize food production, and localize economies and contract global trade. Pulling back calls upon us to free, restore, reconnect, and rewild vast terrestrial and marine ecosystems. However, the pervasive worldview of human supremacy—the conviction that humans are superior to all other life-forms and entitled to use these life-forms and their habitats—normalizes and promotes humanity’s ongoing expansion, undermining our ability to enact these linked strategies and preempt the mounting suffering and dislocation of both humans and nonhumans.
Abundant Earth urges us to confront the reality that humanity will not advance by entrenching its domination over the biosphere. On the contrary, we will stagnate in the identity of nature-colonizer and decline into conflict as we vie for natural resources. Instead, we must chart another course, choosing to live in fellowship within the vibrant ecologies of our wild and domestic cohorts, and enfolding human inhabitation within the rich expanse of a biodiverse, living planet.
In this “Frankly” episode, Nate Hagens shares some good ideas about small actions we could all take to make things a little better as we transition from our present world into an inevitably and radically different one. As I often say, regardless of what people believe, circumstances, by and large, determine how we react. To one degree or another, a thoughtful and considerate person’s freedom is shaped by their choices and by all kinds of things outside their conscious experience. Choice is a ‘chicken-is-the-egg’ conundrum, because people in different circumstances face different arrays of choices. People in Chad have different choices than affluent people in Manhattan, and we all tend to take our options for granted.
I first visited China in 1980 and lived there for 18 years. Chinese people have more choices now, but what kinds of choices do they have, and where do they come from? That’s a very interesting question.
Again, in this book, I am concerned about the worldview of people of relative privilege. People like me. People with a great deal of personal freedom, agency, and the opportunity to influence their world. Parents and grandparents. I hope to reach people who find these sections challenging, daunting, demanding, unsettling, or even distressing. I hope readers will take their time and work their way through it, pausing to engage with the information in the hyperlinks, books, videos, podcasts, and other content I refer to. I want you to ruminate on the bits and pieces I share here, even if the topic is uncomfortable or, at times, boring. This may be a lot to ask.
I think that most sincere people who work hard to share their ideas, thoughts, and feelings through various mediums do so hoping that their audience will benefit from the experience. Sharing is most often an act of generosity—it can be sacred. I am not seeking attention. I want a few friends to understand where I am coming from and not take it personally if I seem to constantly push back against a world they are mostly comfortable with. When I challenge a friend, it comes from love, not contempt. Many times, when we challenge someone to think recursively or a wee bit self-critically, we can lose goodwill or even friendship. That’s sad.
Nate talks about some ways we can do some good. That’s great. But we are still enmeshed in a social, political, and economic system that is extremely destructive, has momentum, and is deeply embedded in people’s consciousness. We have to fight against the mad, omnicidal, accelerationist frenzy. Don’t we? If we aren’t willing to fight the power, we risk making things worse through our very existence and our slavishness to habits as we make ourselves feel better about this mad rush toward ultimate catastrophe. I mean, it could very well be that it doesn’t get any better than this for a long, long time, or that a “better” way of life means something unimaginable to us today.
Are you prepared to imagine junk heap, poisoned Neo-Neolithica?
I started planning to move to Portugal in 2010; I was 13 when I first visited with family. I finally started living here in 2019 after spending decades in big cities: New York City, the Bay Area, Tokyo, Shanghai, and Hong Kong. I was a frequent business flyer and leisure traveler. My carbon footprint was elephantine. I knew I had to get out of the cluster-wreck life of big cities and surround myself with farmers if I were going to do anyone any good, especially myself. Living in cities, I always dreamed of living in the countryside.
My family started downsizing and simplifying years ago. I take cold showers. It’s not a big deal. I am not doing enough. I am learning hard things all the time, and I am getting older faster and faster. For me, time is running out, so when Nate says, “become a mentor,” I know what he means from experience.
Icaryana Neo-Neolithic Cooperative
I started the Icaryana project many years ago for various reasons. I won’t go into what that is here. After this book, I will focus exclusively on Icaryana across art, film, business, and community.
Virtue is still far off for me; I have to work harder and harder to keep the journey of becoming going. For me, it doesn’t get easier, and that’s ok. And the goalposts keep moving. Life is a journey; we hear that all the time. I have never quite had a clear destination. I only know that I love life. I don’t understand why people don’t value living systems more. Well, I kind of do, so I am writing this book.
So anyway, we can be positive skeptics, positive critics, and positive doomists. Are we able to imagine that degrowth, the controlled, caring pairing back of the human population, and the simplification of human enterprise as good things? Can we aspire to be good custodians, stewards, and co-creative collaborators of living systems? All we have to do to see our way through this predicament is to critically explore ourselves, our actions, beliefs, fears, hopes, dreams, and world honestly and courageously, knowing that what we discover, rather than being injurious, will make us more robust, able to meet the challenges we face together with our communities and loved ones.
***Listen to this podcast and come back to my essay when you are ready. Everything I share here adds to what I am trying to convey to you.
We have to fight, for living systems’ sake.
I don’t expect my opinions to affect the world much. Many friends and acquaintances will ignore me, some out of spite and some out of exasperation. That’s ok; as we improvise our new way of life, we will make new friends and acquaintances who will challenge us and engage with us in our endeavors. The difficulties of being together are what make ‘love’ loving and our accomplishments so valuable.
Content isn’t enough; building and creating something together is better.
"There is no alternative" is the story that keeps us trapped in a world in ruins. Jeremy Lent, author of Ecocivilization, imagines what becomes possible when we move away from competition, separation, and domination and trust grassroots democracy to build lives rooted in the collaboration, diversity, and mutualism found throughout nature and human history. As disenchantment with the dominant story grows, Jeremy discusses the alternatives already taking root that might provide the foundations for a future ecological civilization. Highlights include:
How the worldview of separation from nature, beginning with sedentary agriculture and accelerating in the modern era, leads humanity to see nature as both a machine and as ripe for exploitation;
How British and northern European elites enclosed and seized the commons, using law and force to dispossess people of their land and push them into wage labor; how this model of enclosure was exported around the world through colonialism; and how enclosure continues today through everything from patented seeds, state and corporate digital surveillance, and AI's enclosure of humanity's knowledge commons;
How cultural hegemony, the cultural conditioning of peoples' mindsets, shapes what people believe is possible - convincing the majority that capitalism, economic growth, and existing systems serve everyone's interests and that we live in 'the best of all possible worlds';
Why an ecological civilization would require moving from the primacy of capital to the recognition that people and other species have a right to flourish, and drawing its principles from life itself - including mutualistic symbiosis, heterogeneity, and diversity;
How governance in ecocivilization should be grounded in subsidiarity and genuine participatory democracy, pushing decisions to the lowest feasible level and replacing today’s electoral oligarchy with lottery-selected citizen juries and assemblies that have real-world power;
How the mainstream panic over declining fertility rates reveals the continued cultural hegemony of the 'growth is good' story;
Why, as dominant systems unravel, the emerging alternatives become 'islands of coherence' that attract increasing numbers of people, especially the young, who become disenchanted with the hollow promises of the dominant culture;
Why the ultimate message of the book is the dethronement of TINA - There Is No Alternative - and why the unraveling of the dominant system creates an opportunity to reweave the social tapestry and build alternatives based on how human beings evolved to live, in cooperation with each other and the natural world.
I don’t think individual petroleum engineers are bad people. Dana White is the CEO and president of the Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC), a major mixed martial arts promotion company owned by TKO Group Holdings. I became interested in MMA in Japan in the 80s and early 90s. Is Dana White a bad man? It depends on one’s criteria and point of view. I don't think he's a bad man. Are individual insurance professionals or U.S. Marines bad? I guess not; I guess most are “good.” Most people think they are good. And most of us are true believers in what I call the Great Game 21st Century, and ‘this thing of ours’ is omnicidal.
When I think of all the business ecosystems that provide good jobs and careers, allowing people to live relatively lavish lifestyles compared with most people around the world, I don’t blame them. I spent years chasing money. I think it’s perfectly rational to keep going down the path to personal wealth, achievement, and collective disaster. We are enculturated people, practically blind to what motivates us. So get on with it.
Also, why shouldn’t apathy be a good strategy when dealing with the metacrisis/polycrisis? I often say, “Apathy around and find out.” Enjoy yourself, don’t worry, be happy, and come what may. Not giving a shit about certain things sure can make the trials and tribulations of everyday life less emotionally taxing. Only weirdos feel good about delving into the world’s problems, or get mad at men who dress up as women.
“Problems, what problems? Me and mine are fine, and would be better if those other folks got the fuck out of our way and let us be.” —Joe Libertarian
How many books like “F**k It” have been published? When an American friend of mine was dying of cancer, he told me, “Everything is all about me, Steven. Proud and loud, it’s all about me.” He was a hard-working salaryman in the consulting trade who had a lovely family. Consultants are performers. He used to ask me out and mine me for ideas. I didn’t mind. As corporate consultants go, he was one of the good ones. Sitting with him that day, way before he was in any intense pain or close to death, I understood what he meant. I’ll keep what I understood to myself for the moment.
F**k It has taken the world by storm, helping countless people to relax, let go, stop struggling and finally do what they want; to ignore what everyone else is telling them and go their own way.
This now classic text has been updated with inspirational new material from John C. Parkin.
In this inspiring and humorous book, John suggests that saying F**k It is the perfect Western expression of the Eastern spiritual ideas of letting go, giving up and finding real freedom by realising that things don’t matter so much (if at all).
It’s a spiritual way that doesn’t require chanting, meditating, wearing sandals or eating pulses. And it’s the very power of this modern-day profanity that makes it perfect for shaking us Westerners out of the stress and anxiety that dominate our meaning-full lives.
So, find out how to say F**k It to all your problems and concerns. Say F**k It to all the ‘shoulds’ in your life and finally do what you want to do, no matter what other people think.
Another perspective I can’t ignore: We are losing our faith in sincere, committed, credentialed professionals with a calling. We’re losing our faith in what we consider a good education; perhaps we never knew what a good education is, perhaps we have yet to create it—we need different educations for different times and contexts.
Many studies suggest that our intelligence may have plateaued. Thinking clearly, evidence-based thinking, critical thinking, our ability to concentrate, much less have an original idea, to sit quietly in a dark room for five minutes is waning.
I wonder about the intelligence of Homo sapiens living in the earliest named period associated with the emergence of Homo sapiens: the Middle Stone Age (MSA) in African archaeology, which corresponds to the Middle Paleolithic period in global archaeology. Are we more “intelligent” than our ancestors were?
Blame our ignorance. Blame the microplastics in our brain and gut. Blame PFAS. Blame us. WTF?
The firehose of information, which includes purely ideological propaganda, misinformation, disinformation, public relations content, advertising, infotainment, the attention economy, spectacle, scams, bull shit, and lazy thinking, leads eventually to a global community where individuals are no longer incentivized to do the hard work required to be a scientist, medical doctor, honest political leader, professional, or truth seeker. It’s interesting to note how little we trust one another. Perhaps we intuitively know something is off about modernity.
***I love this podcast, and this episode is relevant. Listen to it and come back here and read on.
As the world heats up and habitats change radically, only stupid, soft, and lazy people will be left fighting in garbage heaps and over dwindling resources. But so what? A new kind of intelligence will evolve that will meet the evolutionary drive to adapt. There will be fewer TESCREAL fantasists and more people who can read the forest instead of the room, more people who know what to do with pits, mountains, and layers of junk.
My friend sent me the clip below, a clip you may have seen if you have read my essays, and said, “This is what will kill us.” Ex Machina is one of my favorite movies, but sexy ASI humanoid robots won’t kill us.
So you read myths, stories like The Iliad, history books, religious texts, and so on: who does all the killing on behalf of supernatural beings, the Gods, or God? Who wields killer tech? And who wrote those violent, fantastic stories? Who is the author of real violence and terror? It’s not the machine that’s killing us; it’s us. It’s time we took responsibility. Responsible people work hard to stop the killing and become loving.
Also, I think about Chimpanzees as pets. It’s not a good idea. I have often joked about the AGSI sexy humanoid robots treating me as well as I treat my cats. AGSI may be able to “think” circles around us in certain ways, but we may still have a few scary wild humans who can pull the plug. We are domesticated because we have domesticated ourselves, but still have a wildness in us.
“I am sorry to say that I must nuke the world to protect people from out-of-control AGSI.” —President Bob Bendix, Democrat from Connecticut.
Ex Machina
We all tend to parrot propaganda from time to time. Examining complex topics from multiple perspectives can go a long way toward helping us avoid echo chambers of motivated reasoning. We have to veer off our main algorithms sometimes if we want to keep maturing as adults. Enough of us must go beyond belief in belief if we are going to reduce harm, horror, and terror.
Are there things worth fighting for or against that would outweigh my overwhelming pride and my desire to feel good about myself? What am I prepared to sacrifice for others who live here, there, and everywhere? Can I acknowledge my dependence on living systems? Can I find help battling my conditioned addictions?
Most folks want to feel good and, more importantly, good about themselves. We are all the protagonists, marketers, and public relations professionals of our own unfolding story. We identify with different cliques. If you are a wealthy capitalist, you might feel more at home with wealthy capitalists. If you were a Jewish worker in Ukraine in 1909, you might identify with revolutionary workers either because you have been an oppressed worker your whole life, you don’t like pogroms, or you are a well-educated, well-off idealist. Perhaps you got caught up in historical materialism, the dialectic of it all. Oh dear.
We tend to avoid difficult subjects or topics that don’t necessarily make us feel good. It’s nicer to take shelter in like-minded groups than venture into uncomfortable territory. This is normal. Affluent North Americans can be delicate, sensitive, and insular even when they believe they are strong, open-minded, and progressive. That’s why it’s easier to be a “progressive” if you are “conservative,” or vice versa. Circumstances have been fairly good to affluent Northerners, so they don’t like it when people point out problems with the status quo.
“Democrats will save us.” (The lesser of two evils?) “Republicans will save us! (The self-rightious absolute truth?)
***Please read Rob’s article and come back here when you are ready.
2. Civilization, Culture, and the Great Fracture
The Architecture of Civilizational Presupposition
Civilization relies on a set of unspoken beliefs. In current corporate planning and financial modeling, analysts routinely make the basic assumptions underlying projected balance sheets, discount rates, operating margins, and capitalization figures explicit. If these original assumptions prove flawed, the business must restructure or go bankrupt. At the level of civilization, however, people never examine, write down, or stress-test such fundamental assumptions; instead, they sink into the cultural subconscious and are presented as absolute truths, natural laws, or predestined outcomes.
Modern industrial society—particularly as centered in the United States—rests on a complex system of unquestioned absolute assumptions. These mental frameworks suppose that progress is infinite and linear, that humans have the right to control an inactive natural world, that monetary wealth can be separated from physical matter, and that there is a moral basis for continuous geopolitical and economic expansion. Now, as the global industrial system clashes with the planet’s boundaries, biophysical overshoot, resource depletion, and systemic wars arranged by the military-industrial complex are causing these fundamental assumptions to fail catastrophically. If human freedom, creative agency, and the survival of communities are to be preserved within nature's limits, then we must rigorously examine these inherited beliefs to enable a deliberate and convivial decline.
Epistemic Architecture: The Mechanics and Pathology of Unexamined Assumptions
Assumptions act as heuristic devices, both cognitive and cultural, that reduce environmental complexity and convert deep-seated uncertainty about existence into operational clarity. In human epistemology, assumptions determine which evidence counts as legitimate, who has the authority to engage in discourse, and which questions can properly be asked.
The British philosopher and historian R. G. Collingwood set out the structural anatomy of conceptual frameworks in his 1940 book An Essay on Metaphysics, where he introduced a fundamental distinction between relative and absolute presuppositions. According to Collingwood’s logic of question and answer, thinking is not merely a list of fixed propositions but rather an active process guided by inquiry. A relative presupposition answers a previous question while also providing the presuppositional basis for a later inquiry.
A presupposition is an implicit, unstated background belief or assumption that must be true for an utterance or action to make sense in context.
On the other hand, an absolute presupposition forms the fundamental basis of a whole way of investigating things; it is not a reply to a previous question, but rather the basic axiom which makes questioning possible. Since absolute presuppositions are not propositions in the usual sense, they have no truth-values; they cannot be proven empirically true or false within the system they produce. Their validity rests entirely on their logical effectiveness—that is, their ability to organize and maintain a consistent field of human thought and social practice.
Collingwood noted that since absolute presuppositions remain mostly unconscious, individuals experience severe psychological distress and intellectual hostility when these presuppositions are brought to light and challenged, a response which he described as intellectually “ticklish.” (More on these kinds of psychological reactions later.) Examining an absolute presupposition disrupts the systemic order that rests on it.
In cognitive science and social psychology, this systemic obstinacy stems from mental models—cognitive frameworks that individuals internalize and use to simulate and interpret reality. When an assumption becomes part of a person’s identity or the strategy necessary for an institution’s survival, confirmation bias and motivated reasoning filter out signals that would disconfirm it. In his work on the epistemology of sociology, Thomas Kuhn noted that scientific communities do not abandon a paradigm merely because anomalies arise; rather, normal science actively defends its basic commitments until systemic crises render the whole structure no longer viable. More generally, within civilizations this leads to reification: treating historically specific and socially constructed arrangements—such as continuous compound GDP growth, fractional-reserve debt systems, and commodified property—as if they were permanent features of nature.
Methodologies of Epistemic Audit: Surfacing, Testing, and Dissolving Strategic Beliefs
To dismantle unviable dogmas before biophysical collapse forcibly enforces adaptation, strategic foresight, systems theory, and organizational design have developed explicit diagnostic methods to audit, stress-test, and dissolve obsolete assumptions.
Management theorist Peter F. Drucker analyzed the structural vulnerability of unexamined mental models in his work The Theory of the Business. Drucker argued that when major institutions encounter protracted paralysis, the crisis rarely stems from operational incompetence or negligent execution. Instead, institutions fail because the foundational assumptions on which the enterprise was built no longer match reality.
Drucker categorized these load-bearing assumptions into three interconnected domains: assumptions about the external environment (society, markets, customers, and technology); assumptions about the organization’s specific mission (what it defines as meaningful results); and assumptions about core competencies (the specialized capabilities required to fulfill that mission).
Because external environments continually mutate, Drucker demonstrated that every theory of business eventually becomes obsolete. Without systematic abandonment—the institutionalized practice of regularly auditing, stress-testing, and discarding obsolete premises—organizations redouble their commitment to operational patterns that accelerate their failure.
Building on the inquiring systems of C. West Churchman, Richard O. Mason and Ian I. Mitroff formulated Strategic Assumption Surfacing and Testing (SAST) as an explicit methodology for resolving wicked, ill-structured problems. Wicked problems are characterized by high interconnectedness, deep uncertainty, and conflicting interest groups whose strategic proposals rest on diametrically opposed, implicit premises. The SAST process executes four sequential phases:
Group formation gathers stakeholders and divides them into opposing cohorts to maximize ideological divergence and surface unstated biases.
Assumption surfacing requires each cohort to identify the underlying premises supporting its preferred strategy and rate them by systemic importance and degree of certainty.
Dialectical debate pits these cohorts against one another, compelling participants to cross-examine opposing premises and evaluate their vulnerabilities.
Synthesis and dissolution integrate surviving insights into a new systemic policy.
The Genealogy of Western Hubris: From Animate Cosmos to Mechanistic Imperium
The main assumptions of modern industrial civilization are not fixed biological characteristics or universal laws of human culture, but rather the particular results of an intellectual change that took place in Western Europe between the late Middle Ages and the Industrial Revolution.
Before the early modern era, the European view of the cosmos was mainly organic, teleological, and holistic. As environmental historian and philosopher Carolyn Merchant shows in The Death of Nature: Women, Ecology, and the Scientific Revolution, the main metaphor in pre-modern European thought was the cosmos as a single, interconnected living organism, with the Earth seen as a nurturing mother.
This conceptual framework set clear normative and ethical limits on human behavior: strip mining, clearing forests, or harming the living body of the Earth was not easy without first performing complex cultural rites of repentance, restitution, and moral approval. The society saw itself as a member deeply involved in a wider, sacred cosmic community.
The combination of early mercantile capitalism, the trans-oceanic colonial expansion of the Age of Discovery, and the Scientific Revolution caused this organic way of thinking to break down. Merchants showed how the early modern scientific and philosophical pioneers systematically removed these organic limitations by stripping the natural world of agency, subjectivity, and inherent life.
Francis Bacon introduced an instrumental and utilitarian theory of knowledge which regarded scientific knowledge as a means of gaining control over nature. Using the kind of language employed in witch trials and during inquisitorial interrogations, he claimed that nature had to be put to work, driven from its natural state, and made into a slave of human industry. The traditional ideal of natural philosophy, based on contemplation, gave way to a firm, interventionist requirement to discover nature's secrets through dissection and mechanical restraint.
René Descartes established the metaphysical basis for this mechanistic view by introducing the ontological distinction between res cogitans (the thinking, self-aware, immaterial human mind) and res extensa (extended, insentient, purely mechanical matter). By treating animals, plants, forests, and rivers as clockwork automata operating according to strict mathematical mechanics, Cartesianism stripped the non-human living world of moral status. Nature was then reduced, ontologically, to dead, inert, interchangeable matter, and existed merely as a tool for human calculation and control.
In the political economy of the Enlightenment, John Locke gave this mechanistic idea secular and legal status. In the Second Treatise of Government, he stated that the Earth had been placed at the disposal of humanity in common, although untended nature was still almost entirely ‘waste’. According to Locke, ninety-nine per cent of land's value came solely from human labor and the rationalization of agriculture. By claiming that uncultivated and non-commodified land was in fact valueless, Locke laid the philosophical and legal basis for dispossessing Indigenous peoples and for enclosing the communal commons.
At the same time, Enlightenment thinkers, including the Marquis de Condorcet, Adam Ferguson, and Adam Smith, abandoned earlier cyclical and eschatological views of history in favor of a firm belief in straightforward, open-ended progress. Human development was once again seen as an upward progression from savagery to a high degree of commercial sophistication, with progress judged by technological complexity and the extent of mastery over physical limits.
The Industrial Revolution reinforced this conceptual framework through the use of fossil fuels. When societies shifted their energy sources from surface-based forms such as solar power, wind, water, and draft animals to energy stored underground as coal and petroleum, they could escape the immediate constraints imposed by biological requirements. The high energy density of fossil fuels drove unprecedented economic output and gave rise to the cultural belief that human technology had permanently severed its ties to ecological limits. Modern macroeconomics adopted this belief, treating the living ecosystem as an unlimited resource to be extracted and an infinite place to dispose of waste.
The American Crucible: Frontier Mythology, Constitutional Mechanics, and Perpetual Expansion
In North America, the mechanistic ideas of the European Enlightenment were put into practice with great intensity, since the establishment of the United States combined Lockean property rights, political mechanics, and a mythology of unlimited continental space.
The basic idea behind the American republic rested on the principle of terra nullius, which assumed the continent was empty and wild and therefore needed to be put in order. The settlers used Locke’s theory of property based on labor to justify the destruction of the sovereign Indigenous nations, since their active, seasonal method of looking after the land was considered inadequate as a basis for legal ownership. Under the Doctrine of Discovery and related case law, the legal system regarded the continent as an open resource for commercial development.
In 1893, Frederick Jackson Turner laid out the conceptual basis of American exceptionalism in his speech, “The Significance of the Frontier in American History.” He argued that particular American virtues—such as democratic equality, strong individualism, inventive pragmatism, and social mobility—were not inherited from European parliaments but developed on the western frontier. He showed that the social stability of American democracy was directly dependent on continuous territorial expansion.
Free land served as an economic safety valve because it absorbed surplus labor, dispersed urban tensions, and reduced class conflict by giving displaced workers the opportunity to acquire private property.
Nevertheless, the property thesis reached a disturbing conclusion: the 1890 U.S. Census showed that the continental frontier had officially closed. He cautions that the expansive spirit which characterized American life would not simply vanish, but would inevitably look for new areas in which to assert dominance. Once no more land was available, the need for expansion shifted to overseas commercial dominance, greater industrial scale, and continuous economic growth. This is exactly what we see in the U.S. drive for hegemony today.
This imperative aligned with the constitutional structure Madison established. In Federalist No. 10, James Madison stated that the greatest danger to a stable republic was political faction, this faction arising from unequal distributions of property; he maintained that a large republic was the best way of overcoming factionalism since the extent of the territory and the variety of economic interests would stop any one group from bringing about an oppressive majority.
As a result, the American political system was designed to require an ever-widening economic sphere; its institutions' stability depended on constant economic growth, since if growth halted, the basic conflict between the extreme concentration of private wealth and the egalitarian rhetoric of democracy would reappear.
Global economic integration and military superiority kept this belief alive throughout the twentieth century and well into the twenty-first. As national security expert Michael Klare shows in his books Resource Wars and Rising Powers and Shrinking Planet, current geopolitical strategies and foreign interventions mainly aim to safeguard the essential supplies needed by an energy-dependent industrial system. The United States’ defense network—supported by the global military-industrial complex—functions as an armed guarantee of continued access to international oil reserves, vital minerals, and maritime trade routes. It is still assumed that the resource-heavy American way of life must remain, on the basis that biophysical limits can always be overcome through technological substitution, financialization, or military force.
The Biophysical Fracture: Full-World Thermodynamics and the Illusion of Decoupling
Today's main contradiction is the clash between the core beliefs of modern industrial civilization and the unchangeable laws of thermodynamics and ecology; the idea of infinite linear progress has collided with the planet's limits.
Herman Daly, an ecological economist, gave a rigorous critique of neoclassical macroeconomic theory by introducing the difference between an empty world and a full world. He demonstrated that classical and neoclassical economic models were developed within an empty world, that is, during a historical period when the human population was small, industrial technology was relatively weak, and natural resources were plentiful.
In that situation, manufactured capital—for example, fishing boats, sawmills and industrial refineries—was the limiting factor in economic production. Natural capital, such as the reproductive capacity of marine life, the regeneration of forests and the assimilative capacity of the atmosphere, was regarded as effectively infinite. On these assumptions, macroeconomics viewed the economy as a self-contained, isolated circular flow of exchange value, ignoring physical inputs and waste outputs.
Daly showed that the exponential growth of the global economy during the twentieth century turned the Earth into a global world. The human economy is not a separate, self-sustaining system; it is an open subsystem that grows physically and is completely incorporated within a finite, non-growing, materially closed ecosphere.
The laws of thermodynamics strictly control the economy as a whole. According to the First Law of Thermodynamics, it is impossible to create matter or energy out of nothing; any increase in the economy must involve drawing low-entropy resources from the natural environment and transforming them. The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that entropy increases irreversibly when these resources are used. Economic systems are what physicists call dissipative structures, in that they maintain their internal organization and complexity only by taking in low-entropy energy from their surroundings and releasing high-entropy waste and ambient heat back into the environment.
In a full world, the factor which limits economic prosperity has changed: it is no longer the number of fishing vessels, but the amount of wild fish still left; it is no longer the number of sawmills but the remaining area of undisturbed forests; it is no longer the number of combustion engines but the capacity of the atmosphere and the oceans to absorb greenhouse gases without causing catastrophic climate instability.
Because orthodox macroeconomics does not account for physical scale, it continues to aim to expand GDP even when the economy has exceeded its optimal biophysical limits. This situation, which Daly called uneconomic growth, involves physical expansion that causes environmental degradation, climate disruption, social alienation, and biodiversity collapse, all increasing faster than genuine human utility.
Uneven growth causes ill health to appear sooner than it brings wealth. Yet because indicators such as GDP measure total financial activity without discrimination—counting defensive and remedial expenses, such as cleaning up oil spills, providing cancer treatment, and funding military equipment, as positive economic output—societies take environmental deterioration as a sign of economic progress.
Daly divided this trajectory into three important thresholds: the point of futility, at which the additional utility from more production reaches zero; the economic limit, at which the marginal cost of physical growth exceeds its marginal benefit; and the ecological catastrophe limit, at which systemic overshoot overcomes the non-linear tipping points and leads to an irreversible ecological breakdown.
Mainstream efforts to combine growth with sustainability through the idea of “green growth” rest on the assumption of absolute decoupling—that economic output can keep increasing while material and energy use decline. Empirical research shows that although relative decoupling occurs temporarily due to local efficiencies, absolute global decoupling of GDP from total resource extraction and carbon emissions remains physically impossible because of thermodynamic minimums and rebound effects (the Jevons Paradox).
Convivial Descent: Dismantling Counterproductive Monopolies and Reconstructing Autonomy
As the basic premises of endless growth and technological mastery break down, modern societies now face a pressing strategic question: what adaptation can communities achieve when the large institutional machine fails? The way ahead involves giving up technocratic management and instead adopting what the social philosopher Ivan Illich called “conviviality”.
In the 1973 book Tools for Conviviality, Ivan Illich examined how modern industrial institutions systematically deprive human communities of the right to self-governance. He noted that industrial institutions develop through two clear historical stages:
The first turning point occurs when a new tool or institutional method is introduced that improves human capabilities, decreases suffering, and increases individual competence—for example, basic public sanitation, simple mechanics, or the bicycle.
The first watershed is passed when the industrial scale of that technology crosses a critical threshold, causing systemic counterproductivity and iatrogenesis; in the second stage, the tool no longer serves human agency but rather reshapes human life to meet the bureaucratic and logistical demands of the tool.
When an institution passes its second watershed, it sets up a radical monopoly; a radical monopoly is not the same as ordinary commercial market control, but arises when an industrial system removes the possibility of non-industrial, autonomous human living.
Automobile infrastructure achieves a radical monopoly in transportation by altering city design so that walking becomes either dangerous or illegal, thereby enforcing dependence on vehicles. Centralized modern medicine creates a radical monopoly by preventing families and communities from being able to look after their sick, offer comfort to the elderly, or die with dignity. Compulsory institutional education establishes a radical monopoly on learning by transforming genuine local curiosity into an artificial commodity supplied only by accredited bureaucracies.
To overcome these dependencies, Illich introduced the idea of convivial tools, describing them as devices and institutional arrangements that enable individuals and small groups to shape their own surroundings. He defined a convivial tool as transparent, repairable, and nonmanipulative; it can be incorporated into communal life without requiring an elite class of technocrats to control access. According to Illich, conviviality realizes individual freedom through personal interdependence and thus stands in direct opposition to the passive consumerism imposed by industrial infrastructure.
This critique aligns with the energy descent approach formulated by permaculture theorist David Holmgren and systems ecologist Howard Odum. Modern industrial infrastructure was founded on a unique historical excess of high-density fossil energy, characterized by an extremely high Energy Return on Investment (EROI). As accessible, high-yield reserves become fewer, society is moving down a thermodynamic slope towards lower net energy availability.
Although alternative energy systems are essential, they have lower power densities, involve intermittent generation, and rely heavily on global supply chains, which are in turn susceptible to depletion and geopolitical disruptions.
Energy descent is not a temporary engineering problem that some technical remedy can solve; it is a permanent transition for civilization that involves reducing societal throughput. Instead of maintaining the complex and fragile institutions established during the fossil-fuel surge, communities will have to navigate this descent by pursuing convivial alternatives.
The global, fragile ‘just-in-time’ logistics system should give way to regional food systems, local polycultures, and decentralized agrarian stewardship.
Centralized megastructures should be replaced with intermediate, suitable technologies which function below the second watershed, such as passive thermal architecture, open-source local tools, and repairable regional infrastructure.
Systems of private ownership that are based on commodification and debt should be replaced by commoning, cooperative trusts, mutual aid networks, and non-monetary communal care.
Convivial descent involves intentionally and actively shrinking overextended systems, provided the material, technical, and social resources needed to establish resilient local alternatives remain available.
Epistemic Emancipation and the Practice of Unlearning
The ecological, macroeconomic, and geopolitical problems we now face cannot be solved by applying the same kind of reasoning that caused them. As the systems theorist Russell Ackoff pointed out, human organizations frequently fail because they expend tremendous effort solving the wrong problem in the right way rather than eliminating the right problem. Suggesting that we tackle ecological overshoot through solar radiation geoengineering, harvesting minerals from the seabed, using carbon credit derivatives, or colonizing other planets merely reinforces the mechanistic idea that nature is an inert thing that can be managed for unlimited human consumption.
A lasting civilizational change requires a thorough examination of truth claims and cultural narratives. True claims must be separated from ideological generalizations and once again tied to ecological facts. If a culture’s basic assumptions conflict with the thermodynamic laws that govern life, then those assumptions must be abandoned, no matter how essential they may seem to national identity or economic theory.
The problem scholars, community leaders, and citizens face in a world coming apart is not to maintain unrealistic institutional optimism or sink into cynical paralysis. Both attitudes rest on the unexamined assumption that the course of our present civilization is inevitable.
Societies can begin unlearning obsolete doctrines through rigorous epistemic critique—such as examining Collingwood’s basic assumptions, dismantling Inayatullah’s unconscious myths, exposing Dewar’s unexamined ghost scenarios, assessing Drucker’s institutional assumptions, and applying Daly’s thermodynamic principles.
Convivial descent deliberately reduces civilizational hubris by retaining the valuable accomplishments of human history while reducing energy consumption to achieve lasting ecological balance. True freedom and a sense of agency within the constraints of the physical environment can only arise when communities surface, examine, and then discard the fatal assumptions that have led the modern world to the point of collapse.
As I circle back to these themes, it will become clear that I have deep concerns about whether humanity, under present conditions, can mobilize at sufficient scale to envision and implement alternative futures fit for posterity.
Understanding the Formation of the Republic
To understand the structural engineering of the American republic, we must reject the modern myth of its immaculate founding and address both the basic mechanics of its creation and the radical criticisms it originally received. The arguments, enmities, and struggles of the founders and the colonialists. How I wish every U.S. citizen would form a reading group for the book below.
This annotated edition includes:
The complete Declaration of Independence and the complete Constitution, with all twenty-seven amendments
Jefferson’s original, uncensored draft of the Declaration — including the paragraph on the slave trade that Congress struck out
The secret debates of the Constitutional Convention, from Madison’s own notes: the day-by-day record of the arguments that built, and nearly broke, the Constitution
A curated selection of The Federalist and the Anti-Federalist essays that opposed it
Book Six: the counter-archive — slave petitions, the Banneker–Jefferson exchange, Jefferson’s own writing on race, and Frederick Douglass’s 1852 oration, “What to the Slave Is the Fourth of July?”
A critical afterword of some 13,000 words, and full provenance notes for every document
Thomas Paine’s Common Sense
The most important sentence of the American founding is the one Congress deleted, and this is the edition that prints it back in.
Most editions of the founding documents are built to be admired, not read — a clean Constitution, a stirring Declaration, a wall calendar of dates. This one is built on the opposite premise: that the United States was not discovered or decreed but argued into being, by a few thousand men who disagreed about nearly everything and could not see the ending from where they stood. The record of that argument survives, and this edition assembles it whole — not just the finished documents everyone quotes, but the negotiations, the deletions, and the votes that could have gone the other way.
Start with the deletion that matters most. Jefferson’s original draft of the Declaration accused the King of waging “cruel war against human nature itself” through the slave trade. Congress cut the passage — to keep South Carolina and Georgia at the table — and the cut is, by any honest reckoning, the single most consequential edit in American history. This edition prints Jefferson’s uncensored paragraph beside the final text, so the reader can see exactly what the country chose not to say about slavery at the moment it announced its principles to the world, and follows the same wound forward through the three-fifths debate in the secret Convention, the Constitution’s studiously euphemistic slave-trade clause, and a full counter-archive in Book Six — slave petitions to the Massachusetts legislature, Abigail Adams telling her husband to “remember the ladies,” and Frederick Douglass, in 1852, asking a white audience what the Fourth of July had to do with him.
Between the founding documents and the founding wound stands the machinery most editions skip entirely: the day-by-day debate inside the locked room in Philadelphia, drawn from Madison’s own notes, where the size of a republic, the shape of a presidency, and the price of union were argued out by men who did not yet know they would succeed. This is the Constitution with the panels off — not a relic under glass, but the transcript of the argument that built it, kept, and never finally resolved.
Henry Bugalho
About the author
(A man after meown heart.)
Henry Bugalho is a Brazilian philosopher and writer who turned a degree in Philosophy into a lifelong obsession with language, power, and the strange ways people use both. He studied Literature and History to sharpen his tools, and holds a Master’s in Rhetoric and Oratory from Universidad Internacional de La Rioja — because arguing is an art form, not a hobby.
Since 2016, he has dedicated himself to investigating extremist discourse, producing thousands of hours of video content and several books analyzing how radical movements weaponize language to reshape reality. This book is part of that ongoing project.
A deliberate nomad, he has lived in New York, Buenos Aires, Perugia, Madrid, Lisbon, and Manchester, and currently resides in Spain. He has published novels, essays, travel guides, children’s books, and works of political and cultural criticism. He is also a Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts. Finalist for the Azorín Novel Prize 2026 (Spain).
He runs a YouTube channel with more than 700,000 subscribers, where he discusses politics, philosophy, and culture — always with the same mix of clarity, skepticism, and sharp edge that shapes his books.
The U.S.A. might be a more promising, less belligerent country if it knew itself better. Everyone in the U.S.A. seems to know the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, and that Freedom of speech is protected by the First Amendment, which bans the government from passing laws that limit what people say, write, or express. But how many contemplate the profound consequences of the Supreme Court ruling that is infamously linked to corporate free speech: the Citizens United v. FEC decision from 2010, and that corporate personhood itself originates largely from an 1886 court case involving the Fourteenth Amendment. We should know how tyranny starts with allowing powerful corporate interests to “get over on” us. We have a lot to learn from the people who struggled over the ideas and documents presented and commented on in Bugalho’s book.
Watch this film and continue; it provides shocking context to my thoughts above.
MURDERING 60 MINUTES — If 60 Minutes covered what happened to itself after Bari Weiss took over, this is what it would look like.
Murdering 60 Minutes examines the broader takeover of legacy media and what it means for journalism, democracy, and the public’s access to independent information when trusted journalism is reshaped by the people who can control it. Using 60 Minutes as its central case study, the film explores how corporate consolidation can weaken the most respected news institutions and what the public can do to defend a free press.
TAKE ACTION TO BLOCK THE PARAMOUNT/WARNER BROTHERS MERGER
So why are U.S. citizens so passive and ignorant? It can’t simply be bread and circuses, engineered culture wars, and addictions.
***As an aside, it annoys me to no end when I see what a fine career commentators on the Tubes and Platforms can have talking about DJT all day, whether promoting him or criticizing him. People lap it up. Perhaps we should turn off the tubes and do something.
Henry Bugalho’s Approach: Taking the Glass Bubble Off the Republic
In his annotated edition of The Invention of the United States of America, Henry Bugalho rejects the traditional idea of the founding as a moment of inspired unity. Instead, he treats the principal documents as a record of a high-stakes debate shaped by competing economic, regional, and class interests.
Bugalho presents the original version of the Declaration of Independence, including the paragraph that Thomas Jefferson had deleted, which accused the British Crown of conducting a “cruel war against human nature itself” through the transatlantic slave trade. The text explains that Congress removed this passage to placate delegates from Georgia and South Carolina, thereby establishing an initial compromise that prioritized economic unity among elites over human emancipation.
According to Madison’s Notes (the Closed-Door Debates), instead of viewing the Constitution as a sacred relic, Bugalho makes use of James Madison’s private notes from the Philadelphia Convention to show the negotiations that took place day by day. The account shows how the structure of the presidency, the Electoral College, and the Three-Fifths Compromise were worked out in secret by men concerned with protecting property, state power, and slaveholder dominance.
The volume shows a contrast between official documents from the state and the replies given by people from lower social classes—such as early petitions from enslaved people, the letters exchanged between the astronomer Benjamin Banneker and Thomas Jefferson concerning racial equality, and Frederick Douglass’s 1852 speech, “What to the Slave Is the Fourth of July?” This alternative archive shows that the promises of freedom were present from the start, even as those systematically excluded from them resisted.
The nature of statecraft is clarified by Bugalho’s critical approach, which views the founding not as a fixed gift left for future generations, but as a sequence of practical decisions that could have easily taken a different course, and thus urges modern readers to see the republic as a manufactured thing filled with serious flaws rather than as a state established by divine authority.
Thomas Paine’s Common Sense: Monarchy, Governance, and Security
In Common Sense, published in 1776, Thomas Paine launched a sharp critique of the political practices of European imperial states, setting out principles that contrast sharply with modern garrison-state politics. I have read Common Sense many times over the years, and each time, my perspectives and assumptions shift, broadening and deepening my experience with the text. We all come to great works laden with assumptions, stories, and beliefs. If we continually explore our experiences via a broad body of knowledge and literature, our appreciation for the voices and contexts of great writers grows. I read Common Sense a month ago, marveling at the eloquence and perceptiveness of Paine’s insights and arguments, and became more keenly aware of the worldviews and assumptions of the founders. All worldviews are constantly contested and changing. Nothing can be created without humility and compromise.
So, Curtis Yarvin, you have read Thomas Carlisle and know the history of Queen Elizabeth, but it sure seems to me that you haven’t read Thomas Paine.
The Historical Amnesia of the Modern Garrison State
A tragic irony of present-day American politics is that the warnings given by both the radical democrats (for example, Paine) and the conservative members who had been concerned about the power of the executive being left unchecked have now been completely forgotten by the ruling class; today’s corporate and political leaders act with great historical amnesia and regard the propaganda of ‘American Exceptionalism’ as if it were real civic history.
By abandoning Paine’s distinction between society and government, the modern state has evolved into an uncontrolled military-industrial oligarchy. The very institutions which Paine cautioned about—permanent standing armies, covert intelligence networks, involvement in foreign military affairs, and the executive branch’s practice of declaring war—have now become the main focus of government activity. If citizens do not take the time to examine how their republic was designed, altered, and undermined, they hand over their autonomy to a managerial elite whose main objective is the continuous expansion of capital and military power at the cost of real communities and the survival of living systems and culture.
If you look at the incentives, you can usually predict the results of this or that, as I have often heard and repeated in various contexts. The people in charge have little reason to address anything truly important. This is unlikely to change until tragic events force the system and its institutional structures to break down. What happens next will depend on circumstances, not on individual, social, or political action, because most people act more like consumers than citizens who take part in their own governance. Since the beginning of civilization, people have been trained to support those in power.
Are our leaders today of the same moral fiber and determination as the founders of the United States? Hardly.
The history of the word “civilization” goes back to ancient Latin, with words like civis and civitas that referred to the civic life, duties, and shared identity of Roman citizens. By the late Middle Ages, words like “civil” had entered English. By 1600, the French verb civilizer described making behavior less aggressive or helping a community move away from barbarism (outsideism). Still, the noun “civilization” did not appear in common language for over a century, except for a brief mention in 1704 as a legal term court clerks used to describe turning a criminal case into a civil one.
The word as we use it today took shape during the 18th-century French Enlightenment. In 1756, the Marquis de Mirabeau wrote his major work, L’Ami des hommes (The Friend of Mankind), and needed a word to describe society's collective progress. He coined the term “civilization,” turning an old legal term into a new philosophical idea. For Mirabeau, civilization meant the ongoing process of improving laws, manners, and knowledge, and moving away from brutality. To him and his peers, civilization was not a place or an empire, but a steady effort toward moral and intellectual growth—a certain type of progress we’ve been conditioned to believe in.
What moral code, what kind of intellectual growth?
This new idea soon spread to Britain, especially during the Scottish Enlightenment. In 1767, philosopher Adam Ferguson helped popularize the word in English in his Essay on the History of Civil Society, where he wrote that humanity moves “from rudeness to civilization.” The word quickly entered a cultural debate, especially in 1772, when biographer James Boswell and dictionary writer Dr. Samuel Johnson disagreed. Boswell wanted Dr. Johnson to add “civilization” to his dictionary as the opposite of “barbarity.” Dr. Johnson refused, saying the older word “civility” was enough to describe good manners and social order, and tried to keep the new word out of English.
In the end, Boswell’s choice won, and Dr. Johnson’s objections were left behind as the 19th century changed the meaning of civilization again. As European empires grew and historians studied ancient societies, the word shifted from describing a general process of moral improvement to referring to specific groups. By the mid-1800s, scholars discussed different “civilizations,” such as Egyptian, Chinese, and Roman. What started as a legal term and became an Enlightenment idea of progress ultimately became a way to compare the rise and fall of different human societies.
The word “culture” did not start in fancy salons or museums, but in the countryside. It comes from the Latin verb colere, which means to till, tend, inhabit, worship, and care for the earth. From this, the word cultura referred to agriculture, farming, and the hard work of growing crops and raising animals. When “culture” entered Middle English in the late fourteenth century, it kept its original meaning: the cultivation of land or the care of soil. For many years, talking about “culture” meant talking about farming and working the land to produce a harvest.
Quick detour: Where has all the soil gone?
To understand how topsoil loss fits into the story of human culture, we need to look back at its roots. Before “culture” came to mean art, politics, or digital media, it was about basic biology. The word comes from the Latin colere, which means to till, tend, inhabit, and care for the earth. Originally, human culture was a two-way relationship between people and the land, the biosphere. For thousands of years, communities judged their culture's strength by the health of their fields and the richness of their topsoil. Practicing culture meant knowing that our lives depended on a thin layer of living earth—a delicate mix of fungi, organic carbon, and microbes that can take up to a thousand years to form just a few centimeters of fertile soil.
When modern industrial capitalism arrived, it broke the connection between the idea of culture and its real, physical roots. In the rush for quick profits, industrial agriculture turned living soil into a lifeless base for crops. Heavy machinery and deep plowing reduced the soil to dust, while chemical fertilizers and pesticides killed the microbes that hold it together. Without deep roots and natural cover, the soil could no longer hold water or protect itself from the weather. What used to be a healthy, self-renewing system became a fragile powder, easily washed or blown away.
This shift to industrial farming has led to a global ecological crisis. In the past 150 years, people have removed about half of the world’s topsoil, causing erosion that far outpaces the rate at which nature can replace it. Each year, around 75 billion tonnes of fertile soil are lost from farms, carried by water into rivers and eventually the sea. This soil, saturated with artificial fertilizers, pollutes coastal waters and harms marine life, creating large dead zones in places like the Gulf of Mexico and the Baltic Sea. The UN Food and Agriculture Organization warns that if we keep farming this way, 90 percent of the world’s topsoil could be badly damaged by 2050.
Oh, so we still have time to ‘have the conversation’. Shall we talk about the Metacrisis, or the war?
This soil damage reveals a major problem with modern industrial society. We have created a fast-paced culture focused on digital entertainment, financial gain, and constant consumption, while ignoring the natural foundation we depend on. By breaking our connection to the land and failing to care for it, we have built a system that confuses using up natural resources with real progress. As Matthew Arnold warned, intellect without moral purpose leads to chaos. When society treats living soil as something to be used up, it shows a deep lack of awareness. If we do not care for the earth, we risk destroying the very ground our civilization stands on.
“Stanzas in Memory of the Author of ‘Obermann’” Matthew Arnold (1849):
Like children bathing on the shore
Buried a wave beneath,
The second wave succeeds before
We have had time to breathe.
The word “culture” took on a new meaning during the Renaissance, when European thinkers revisited classical Roman texts. They found that the Roman statesman Cicero had written about cultura animi, or the “cultivation of the soul.” Writers like Thomas More and Francis Bacon in the sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries began using the word to describe the careful development of the human mind. Just as a farmer works the land to grow crops, a person could improve their mind through education, philosophy, and discipline. By the eighteenth century, the French Enlightenment used culture along with civilization to describe the refinement of mind, taste, and manners that set educated people apart from those considered uneducated.
A major change in the meaning of “culture” happened in late eighteenth-century Germany, led by philosopher Johann Gottfried von Herder. Herder strongly disagreed with the French idea that “Culture” was a single, universal standard of European sophistication used to judge other societies as less advanced. In his book Ideas on the Philosophy of the History of Mankind, Herder argued that we should talk about “cultures” in the plural. He believed that each group, nation, and historical period has its own unique traditions, language, and way of seeing the world. Herder changed the word from a term that described elite intellectual achievement to one that recognized the diversity of human life.
By the nineteenth century, the word “culture” split into two main meanings that still influence us today. On one side was Victorian critic Matthew Arnold, who in his 1869 book Culture and Anarchy saw culture as an elite moral goal, calling it “the pursuit of our total perfection” through “the best that has been thought and said in the world.” Just two years later, in 1871, anthropologist Edward Burnett Tylor gave a very different, scientific definition in his book Primitive Culture. Tylor described culture broadly as “that complex whole which includes knowledge, belief, art, morals, law, custom, and any other capabilities and habits acquired by man as a member of society.”
***This is a great series on The Value of Culture.
In the twentieth century, Tylor’s anthropological view became widely adopted, leading to concepts such as subcultures, pop culture, corporate culture, and the “culture wars.” Literary critic Raymond Williams noted in 1976 that “culture” had become one of the most complicated words in English. The word changed from meaning the physical work of farming to the moral development of the soul to the many ways of life across nations and, finally, to the complex web of shared symbols, beliefs, and behaviors that help people understand their world. What started as a simple word for farming became a key way for people to try to understand themselves.
Current Events Detour
Rob Urie’s work clarifies and makes me think about things in new ways.
Rob Urie’s sharp look at capital, political centrism, and media manipulation highlights a central problem of our time: modern industrial civilization cannot solve the many crises it faces because its basic incentives are the same forces causing the damage. When Enlightenment thinkers like Mirabeau and Ferguson first used the word “civilization,” they imagined it as a path toward moral growth and human improvement. Over time, though, civilization became an all-consuming system focused on endless capital accumulation. Urie shows, in his critique of “green capitalism” and policy experts like Robert Pollin, that our current institutions treat every major threat as just another opportunity for profit. Instead of tackling the real causes of ecological collapse by cutting fossil fuel use or slowing the energy demands of new technologies like AI, the system prefers market-friendly fixes such as carbon capture and electric vehicles. These solutions keep capital in charge and move public wealth to wealthy donors. As Matthew Arnold put it, our civilization has split “light” (honest thinking about real limits) from “sweetness” (caring for people and our planet’s living systems), turning culture from something deep and meaningful into a shallow tool for corporate gain.
What makes our planet special are living systems.
We have a problem. This happened or that. OK, so what are the causes?
The main thing holding this failing system together is a media environment designed more to calm and distract than to inform. Urie notes that most corporate journalism serves as public relations for the alliance between the state and big business, constantly reporting on surface-level issues such as rising temperatures, political divides, or global conflicts, while carefully concealing the deeper structural causes. This matches Harry Frankfurt’s idea of bullshit, in which the speaker is not just lying but is completely indifferent to the truth, focusing only on pushing a particular story. When the corporate press and government agencies control what the public hears, they create what Guy Debord called the Society of the Spectacle, in which images and passive consumption replace real human action. Urie’s look at generative AI shows the newest version of this spectacle: AI systems trained on state-linked media like the New York Times, the Pentagon, and the CIA turn corporate messaging into what seems like reliable “truth.” Since 92% of people trust the first answer from a chatbot, even though only 28% trust mainstream news, AI becomes a tool for spreading propaganda and hiding the interests of capital, making it harder for people to think critically and organize politically.
This ongoing refusal to face structural problems allows what Carlo M. Cipolla called “bandits with overtones of stupidity” to thrive—leaders who cause huge harm to society to gain small personal rewards or donor money. Urie shows that forty years of “centrist” neoliberal policies from both major U.S. parties have steadily destroyed working-class jobs, all in the name of being practical about the environment or economy. By passing top-down laws that hurt industrial and rural areas while enriching urban elites and corporate donors, party leaders have created a deep class divide and a strong sense of justified anger among ordinary people. Dietrich Bonhoeffer described this pattern: when a small elite holds power, the political system becomes less thoughtful and more focused on status and dogma. The result is a kind of political “centrism” that does not reflect the true middle of society, but instead is a narrow echo chamber for a few billionaires. Stuck in a situation where no group wants to give up its own advantage, leaders push forward risky competitions—such as the AI-energy race or global conflicts over resources or hegemony—even as the entire global cultural system heads toward disaster.
In the end, Urie’s argument points to a clear conclusion: only a completely new global culture could solve the deep crisis we face, but it is very unlikely that such a culture will grow naturally from our current way of life. That’s what I get from his train of thought. A society shaped by centuries of extreme individualism, market dominance, and constant pleasure-seeking cannot simply become a wise, balanced culture without a major break. Biophysicist Olivier Hamant says that living systems last because they are strong, have backups, and move slowly, while our financial system is built for speed, moral weakness, and endless extraction. The current system is very good at absorbing and weakening any attempt at reform, turning even the most radical ideas into brands or PR campaigns. Real cultural change will not come from small policy changes, tax breaks, or expert advice. If a healthy human culture is to emerge after the coming social, economic, and environmental reckoning, it will not come from fixing the current system from within. People who have already left behind the spectacle, taken up the hard work of caring for their local communities, and accepted the responsibility to live within the Earth’s biophysical limits will create it.
Let’s take another culture break before we shift our focus back to North America.
Let’s recognize that the world has long been influenced by European “Western Civilization” and, more recently, the Anglosphere (UK, USA). Its lines of inquiry have drowned out other potential points of view and possibilities for thinking about alternative ways of life. Let’s again consider that too few of us question our beliefs and assumptions.
***If you will, please listen to the episode and come back.
The crisis facing modern industrial civilization is, at its core, a problem of how we understand knowledge. We are caught in a fast-moving cycle of resource wars, intellectual property battles, and arms races. One reason this trap exists is that Western thought was divided into two separate paths more than a century ago.
In the 1880s, Matthew Arnold and Thomas Henry Huxley had a debate that shaped how we think today. Arnold believed in ‘High Culture’ as a moral and spiritual guide, aiming for ‘sweetness and light’—beauty and reason—to improve society and prevent chaos. Huxley, known as ‘Darwin’s Bulldog,’ argued that old literary traditions were outdated. He thought that, in a world of industrial competition, nations needed scientific training to survive and succeed.
***I use Gemini for these graphic images. I rationalize the damage done by a common kind of ‘use it while you can’ logic. Very flawed. More on that later.
Technocratic Fragmentation:
• Science without Moral Direction (“Light” without “Sweetness”)
• Policy without Biophysical Grounding (“Sweetness” without Material Reality)
By 1959, when C.P. Snow gave his well-known ‘Two Cultures’ lecture, this split had become a serious problem. Western thinkers were divided into two groups: literary intellectuals and physical scientists, and neither side understood the other. The sad irony is that both lost what mattered most.
The humanities became isolated, focusing on aesthetics or administration, and lost touch with the physical realities of things like thermodynamics and ecological limits.
Science lost its philosophical and moral roots, becoming a tool for industry, military power, and profit.
Without Arnold’s moral focus, Huxley’s idea of ‘scientific training’ became a highly specialized, technocratic system. Our civilization gained huge technical power (‘light’) but lacked moral wisdom (‘sweetness’).
Modern philosophy of science became popular and widely regarded as a distinct, major academic discipline in the 1920s through the 1930s with Logical Positivism (the Vienna Circle), and later underwent a massive popular revolution in 1962 with the publication of Thomas Kuhn’s landmark book, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.
The Game-Theoretic Trap of Modernity
This split in how we understand knowledge set the stage for today’s problems. In game theory, when everyone competes to win in a zero-sum world, they choose short-term gains over long-term survival for everyone. It’s stupid.
Today, nation-states and transnational corporations are locked in a series of interconnected, self-reinforcing arms races:
The Resource & IP War: Corporations leverage patent law and intellectual property to monopolize life-saving technologies, seed stocks, energy grids, and science-based medicine, extracting short-term financial rents while destroying systemic resilience.
The AI and Technological Escalation: As tech conglomerates accelerate the development of energy-intensive AI models, no nation dares to pause. To disarm unilaterally is to risk geopolitical subjugation, even as data centers' global energy demands accelerate ecological breakdown. The machine will eventually be unplugged. But today, for a few Players, there are trillions of dollars to be made.
Financialized Short-Termism: Global capital markets demand infinite, quarter-over-quarter exponential growth. Any corporation or government that tries to respect biophysical limits is immediately underpriced, outcompeted, or overthrown by rivals willing to liquidate natural capital faster.
We live in a culture that accepts these incentives as normal, confusing market rules with the laws of nature. We often see corporate messaging, government propaganda, and online trends as ‘reality’ while overlooking real limits such as soil, water, energy, and power. Not to mention psycho/physical health.
Truth for Posterity: Reclaiming Critical Thinking
If our current beliefs are pushing us toward collapse, what makes a belief worth holding? How can we set standards for critical thinking that benefit living systems and future generations, rather than just serving short-term profits?
To find truths that support life, we need to move beyond both passive corporate media and narrow technocratic thinking. Real critical thinking depends on four main criteria:
1. Grounding in Biophysical Limits
Any political, economic, or social theory that assumes endless growth on a planet with limited resources is simply wrong. Real knowledge must fit with the laws of thermodynamics, ecological limits, and how nature renews itself. If an economic model ignores issues such as soil loss, ocean dead zones, or excessive carbon, it is not ‘pragmatic’—it is group self-deception. It’s stupid.
2. Structural Incentive Analysis
As media critics and systems thinkers suggest, we should look at the motives behind any message. When corporate media or government-linked groups talk about big problems, they often show the symptoms but hide the real causes. A critical thinker asks: Who gains from this story? What power does this belief support?
3. Consilience (Unifying the Two Cultures)
Biologist E.O. Wilson said we need to close the gap between science and the humanities. But this does not mean replacing human morality with cold logic. Real unity means combining Huxley’s focus on evidence with Arnold’s concern for morals. We need science guided by ethics, and moral thinking rooted in real-world limits.
4. Systemic Externality Auditing
A good way to judge the truth is to consider the full range of potential outcomes of any technology or policy, not just its short-term benefits. If an ‘innovation’ fixes one problem but causes greater harm elsewhere or later—like carbon capture, which requires continued fossil fuel use—it does not pass the reality test.
Criteria for Life-Affirming Truth:
Biophysical Compatibility: Does this claim respect physical laws and planetary limits?
Incentive Transparency: Does this narrative serve systemic extraction or genuine stewardship?
Consilient Integrity: Does this integrate empirical evidence with moral responsibility?
Long-Horizon Stewardship: Does this choice preserve or deplete the conditions for future life?
The Terminal Horizon: Collapse as the Only Circuit-Breaker
On a large scale, the sad truth is that our modern world cannot simply reform itself. The way things are set up means that any country trying to cut back on consumption or step away from competition will be overtaken by others. The system is stuck. It’s stupid.
Our culture lacks the tools to prioritize long-term survival over short-term competition, and as a result, our modern industrial world is collapsing. It will not fail because we lack technical skill, but because endless growth is impossible on a limited planet. We need to grow up.
A new, wiser global culture is almost impossible to build in time to fix this peacefully. Power is too concentrated, distractions are everywhere, and we depend too much on fragile supply chains.
So, our crisis will not be solved by easy technical fixes, treaties, or ‘green growth’ plans. Change will come through a rough, chaotic, and likely violent clash between human pride and the planet’s limits. The cycle will only end when our social systems break down under their own weight. This needs to be said again and again.
What survives after this turning point will depend on those who have quietly kept alive deeper, older wisdom—bringing together sweetness and light, science and morality, and returning human culture to its true purpose: caring for the living earth that supports us.
What did those old cultures do? What did they value? How did they live and survive for so long? How did we get here?
I loved this book, and I think it adds a lot to this discussion. We are all designed by what we design. The academicese and consultant speak does my head in a bit, but I love what Escobar is saying and the people’s work he highlights.
Escobar's main point rests on the principle of ontological design: although people design tools, spaces, and institutions, those creations, in turn, shape us. Modern design is by no means neutral since it systematically influences human habits, social relationships, and our fundamental way of perceiving reality; under modern capitalism, this results in the “One-World World” (OWW). This prevailing colonial framework demands a single, uniform route to global progress while privatizing common resources and suppressing alternative ways of living.
To free oneself from this way of thinking, Escobar proposes an autonomous form of design grounded in radical interdependence. Rather than depending on technocratic experts from above or corporate interests, autonomous design arises directly from the actions of Indigenous, Afro-descended, and local territorial movements that are determining their own futures. It is based on the idea that human and non-human life forms are inextricably linked and therefore calls for design practices which promote relationality, ecological stewardship, and communal survival rather than individual consumption.
Cross-Domain Perspectives and Commentary
Design & Interaction Practice
Designers and interaction theorists see the book as a strong criticism of the conventional approach known as “human-centered design” (HCD). Critics argue that traditional HCD tends to reduce the full range of human existence to consumer convenience, interface optimization, and commercial efficiency. Design professionals cite Escobar to argue that designers should go beyond superficial solutionism and address the political consequences of their work by considering whether a product or system promotes genuine community self-reliance or strengthens corporate control.
Anthropology & Cultural Studies
In anthropology, the text is seen as a key link between material culture and political theory. Anthropologists have praised Escobar for showing that physical infrastructures, technological platforms, and urban planning directly embed Eurocentric hierarchies into everyday life. The book is often cited as an example of how physical objects can either maintain imperial dominance or serve as a means of cultural resistance.
Political Ecology & Environmental Humanities
Environmental researchers value Escobar’s firm belief that the global ecological crisis is essentially a crisis of modern design. Rather than supporting greenwashing or geo-engineering solutions, political ecologists use the text to argue that achieving climate resilience requires epistemic justice: prioritizing local, land-based ecological knowledge and protecting physical territories from industrial extractivism.
Decolonial Movements & Grassroots Activism
The book provides a practical framework for social movement organizers when it comes to giving up Western ideas about development; activists and community leaders often cite Escobar’s concept of “a world where many worlds fit”—the pluriverse—as a reason for setting up their own autonomous and self-sustaining community projects outside both state and corporate structures.
3. Psychological Dynamics of Compliance & Denial
The American Ethos: Exceptionalism, Hedonism, and the Cult of Self-Optimization
Middle and upper-middle-class American culture is shaped by a powerful story that blends Calvinist predestination, Manifest Destiny, and consumer capitalism. It’s such a fine and pious mix. In this view, material success and personal comfort are seen not just as lucky outcomes, but as proof of personal virtue. This mindset encourages strong, outward optimism and a required “feel-good” attitude, where personal branding, status symbols, and the pursuit of peak experiences replace civic responsibility and awareness of larger issues. Beneath this surface of friendliness, however, there is a foundation marked by militarism, Western supremacy, a fascination with guns, hidden racial hierarchies, and a near-religious devotion to free-market ideals. In this culture, being asked to face uncomfortable truths feels like a personal attack, and anything that disrupts emotional comfort is treated as a serious offense. The status quo is a comfort zone.
The Utility of Hate
In society, hate is not just an irrational flaw but a surprisingly effective way to organize people. Building unity through love and shared values takes time and trust, but hatred can quickly bring groups together. When a society finds a common enemy, it can quickly set aside internal differences, ease collective worries, and create a strong sense of belonging among people who might otherwise compete with each other.
Eric Hoffer and the Engine of Mass Movements
In his 1951 book The True Believer, Eric Hoffer argued that hatred is the strongest force holding political and religious movements together. He noticed that positive ideas rarely have enough emotional power to unite millions of people, but having an enemy makes things simple and gives people a clear focus for their anger. As Hoffer wrote, “Mass movements can rise and spread without belief in a God, but never without belief in a devil.” He believed that hate helps people avoid personal responsibility by turning their own struggles and fears into a shared fight against an outside threat.
René Girard and the Scapegoat Mechanism
René Girard, an anthropologist and philosopher, saw collective hatred as an early way societies managed internal conflict. In books like Violence and the Sacred, he explained that people naturally compete for the same things, which can lead to dangerous tension. To avoid falling apart, societies often focus their anger on one person or group—the scapegoat. Girard said, “The scapegoat mechanism transforms a war of all against all into a war of all against one.” By coming together against a common target, the group feels relief and temporary peace. Hence, this pattern of shared hatred keeps showing up as a way to maintain order—pogroms, rational but stupid.
Friedrich Nietzsche and the Creativity of Ressentiment
In On the Genealogy of Morals, Friedrich Nietzsche showed that hatred, especially in the form of ressentiment, can actually drive moral and cultural change. He believed that groups without power, who cannot fight back directly, turn their hidden anger into new ways of thinking about right and wrong. As Nietzsche put it, “The slave revolt in morality begins when ressentiment itself becomes creative and gives birth to values.” This kind of hatred can flip old ideas, making what was once seen as strong or noble look bad, and turning weakness into a moral good. In this way, hate becomes a tool that can reshape the values of entire societies.
Ressentiment is a deep-seated psychological state of rivalry, hostility, and frustration. It happens when a person feels weak, inferior, or unable to change their low status in life. Because they cannot act out their anger or win against what they hate, they turn that pain inward and create new moral values that make their weakness look like a virtue. [1, 2, 3, 4]
Powerlessness: The person feels totally stuck and unable to fight back or fix their social standing.
Revaluation of Values: Instead of admitting envy, they claim that the strong and successful are “evil,” while the weak and humble are “good”.
Chronic Repression: Normal feelings like jealousy and anger build up over a long time without ever finding a healthy release. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
Hannah Arendt and Totalitarian Mobilization
Political thinker Hannah Arendt studied how modern leaders use hatred to break down community bonds and take total control. In The Origins of Totalitarianism, she showed that these regimes do not just use existing hatreds—they actively create enemies to turn isolated people into obedient crowds. By inventing a constant, threatening enemy, the government can take away freedoms, force everyone to think the same way, and demand complete loyalty. Arendt believed that state-driven hatred works because it stops people from thinking for themselves, making it so that “the ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the convinced Communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction… and the distinction between true and false… no longer exist.”
And after you read Arendt, read this to understand how public intellectuals are often used by Empires.
During the Cold War, freedom of expression was vaunted as liberal democracy’s most cherished possession—but such freedom was put in service of a hidden agenda. In The Cultural Cold War, Frances Stonor Saunders reveals the extraordinary efforts of a secret campaign in which some of the most vocal exponents of intellectual freedom in the West were working for or subsidized by the CIA—whether they knew it or not.
Called “the most comprehensive account yet of the [CIA’s] activities between 1947 and 1967” by the New York Times, the book presents shocking evidence of the CIA’s undercover program of cultural interventions in Western Europe and at home, drawing together declassified documents and exclusive interviews to expose the CIA’s astonishing campaign to deploy the likes of Hannah Arendt, Isaiah Berlin, Leonard Bernstein, Robert Lowell, George Orwell, and Jackson Pollock as weapons in the Cold War. Translated into ten languages, this classic work—now with a new preface by the author—is “a real contribution to popular understanding of the postwar period” (The Wall Street Journal), and its story of covert cultural efforts to win hearts and minds continues to be relevant today.
When public conversations are filled with fear and hate, it’s usually not random chaos. Instead, it is a deliberate strategy used by weak institutions, oligarchs, and political leaders to make people obey, stop them from thinking critically, and hold onto power during times of crisis.
Joy and Happiness
Wise practitioners in psychology, philosophy, and spiritual traditions point out that happiness and joy are different. Happiness is a temporary, reactive feeling. It is a pleasant boost that comes from good situations, reaching goals, or outside excitement, but it fades as soon as things change. We gulp down neurohormonal happiness cocktails. Joy, on the other hand, is a deeper, longer-lasting state that doesn’t depend on whether things are going well or badly. Happiness relies on everything going right, but joy is rooted in meaning, gratitude, and strong connections, helping people feel at peace even in hard times or in times of loss. Joy is calm, quiet, loving.
Yongye Mingyur Rinpoche became known worldwide as one of the “happiest” people ever studied. This reputation comes from both pioneering brain research and his own ability to overcome severe psychological distress.
Keep the following section in mind as you consider the research below.
Both fMRI and EEG are reliable, peer-reviewed methods, but they do not read minds or directly capture thoughts. Functional MRI tracks changes in blood oxygen levels, which helps identify brain activity at a few millimeters, though it responds slowly, over several seconds. In contrast, EEG records electrical signals from groups of neurons on the scalp, allowing for very fast, millisecond-level tracking of brain activity, but it cannot pinpoint the exact location as precisely as other methods, instead covering larger areas.
In real-world use, these tools help show how the brain organizes and coordinates its networks during different tasks or mental states. Researchers use fMRI to map brain networks, for example, by watching how the Default Mode Network becomes less active during focused thinking. EEG measures overall brain-wave patterns, such as alpha and gamma waves, and tracks rapid responses to sensory input. It is also a key clinical tool for diagnosing epilepsy, checking for sleep disorders, and mapping important motor areas before brain surgery.
The Indirect Proxy Problem: Functional MRI measures blood flow in specific brain areas, not direct nerve cell activity. Since blood flow changes occur a few seconds after neurons fire, fMRI captures a combined metabolic signal rather than real-time thoughts.
The Reverse Inference Fallacy: Early neuroimaging studies often assumed that each brain region corresponded to a single emotion. Today, scientists know that brain areas have many overlapping roles, so seeing activity in places like the amygdala or prefrontal cortex does not clearly show a specific feeling such as fear or happiness.
Statistical Noise and Data Volume: Examining thousands of 3D data points simultaneously can easily lead to false positives. In 2009, researchers showed this problem by scanning a dead Atlantic salmon, showing it pictures, and still finding ‘significant’ brain activity because they did not adjust for multiple comparisons.
Correlation, Not Causation: Neither method can prove that a certain biological change causes a mental state. Both fMRI and EEG record changes that happen at the same time as a behavior or feeling, but they do not show which one causes the other.
Neuroscientific Evidence of Exceptional Plasticity
In the early 2000s, Mingyur Rinpoche took part in brain research led by Dr. Richard Davidson at the University of Wisconsin–Madison. During meditation on compassion, his fMRI and EEG scans showed remarkable results:
Gamma Wave Spikes: His brain showed gamma-wave activity, which is linked to greater awareness, improved coordination, and positive feelings. During compassion meditation, this activity increased by 700%-800%, far above normal levels.
Prefrontal Cortex Dominance: The scans also showed much higher activity in his left prefrontal cortex compared to the right. This brain pattern is closely linked to strong emotional resilience, calmness, and greater everyday happiness/Joy.
“Making Friends” with Severe Childhood Anxiety
Rinpoche’s happiness did not come naturally. He achieved it through profound personal change. As a child, he struggled with severe panic attacks and social anxiety. Rather than trying to avoid his fear, his father, the master Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche, encouraged him to treat panic as a teacher. By learning to observe his anxiety with curiosity and without judgment, a process he calls “making friends with panic,” he turned his main source of suffering into a path to inner peace.
An Accessible View of Mind
In his books (The Joy of Living, Joyful Wisdom), Rinpoche explains happiness in simple terms. He believes that basic awareness and contentment are natural parts of the mind, like the sun shining behind clouds, not things we have to create or buy. His main teaching is to practice short, regular moments of open awareness each day, so that building resilience becomes a flexible habit rather than a strict routine.
Testing Practice Against Real-World Extremes
In 2011, Rinpoche quietly left his monastery to begin a four-and-a-half-year wandering retreat. He lived as an unknown, penniless yogi in India and Nepal. Early on, he became seriously ill while waiting at a train station. As his body and sense of self weakened, he used his meditation training to face his fear of dying. He came through this experience with a deep sense of joy and freedom, which he describes in his memoir, In Love with the World.
“Joy is much bigger than happiness. While happiness is often seen as dependent on external circumstances, joy is not.” — Archbishop Desmond Tutu
“While happiness is dependent on external conditions, joy is the experience of knowing that we are unconditionally loved, even in the midst of sorrow.” — Henri J.M. Nouwen
“Happiness is tied to circumstances, but joy is tied to spirit and gratitude... Joy is a way of seeing the world, an attitude of the heart.” — Brené Brown
“Joy is distinct from pleasure; it must have the stab, the pang, the longing... I doubt whether anyone who has ever tasted it would, if the power were given him, have exchanged it for all the pleasures in the world.” — C.S. Lewis
Wisdom
Wisdom often seems ordinary because it avoids abstraction, jargon, and big promises. The analytical mind breaks the world into parts, mastering systems, feedback loops, and mechanical causes. In contrast, wisdom stays grounded and connects with reality as it is. Understanding how an economic engine or a neural network works requires a specialized mindset that can map complex relationships. But knowing how to live within human limits, handle loss, and know when to stop pushing requires wisdom. Analytical thinking aims to control complex systems, while wisdom asks whether that control supports human well-being, emotional balance, and common sense.
Researchers who study wisdom clearly distinguish practical, reality-based wisdom from technical expertise. Sociologist Monika Ardelt, who developed the Three-Dimensional Wisdom Scale, shows that wisdom does not come from accumulating technical information. Instead, it depends on clear thinking, self-reflection, and compassion. This combination helps people see reality without fooling themselves. Cognitive scientist John Vervaeke also separates “knowing that” from what he calls “participatory” and “perspectival” wisdom. For him, wisdom means handling daily life by constantly adjusting your perspective, avoiding self-deception, and focusing on what truly matters in the moment.
A wise person understands the difference between technical skill and practical living, but values both. They respect the hard work needed to master complex systems and know that scientific discipline takes real effort. They see that technical brilliance without wisdom can lead to arrogance and create systems that are impressive but harmful. Wise people do not mistake models or shortcuts for reality. They know that nothing can replace the steady, everyday effort of managing emotions and making good moral choices.
In the end, wisdom shows its strength not through big heroic actions, but by staying calm and steady in everyday life. It turns ordinary moments into opportunities for personal growth. A wise person finds real peace in daily routines, handling life's simple demands with patience, presence, and a sense of humor. They do not expect life to always be exciting or extraordinary. Instead, they meet daily reality with steady, practical grace.
I asked my first father-in-law once what kept him going (he was a hardcore salaryman), and he said, “Obligation.” He drank a lot after work. I don’t know if he was joyous or wise. Obligation is a powerful motivator and can be healthy, joyous, and wise if we can find our obligations meaningful and connected to fulfilling relationships.
“The most beautiful lives are, in my opinion, those that conform to the common human pattern, with order, but without miracle and without eccentricity.” — Michel de Montaigne
“Before enlightenment, chop wood, carry water. After enlightenment, chop wood, carry water.” — Zen Proverb
“Wisdom is expert knowledge in the fundamental pragmatics of life—the knowledge of how to conduct oneself when facing the most critical, ambiguous, and inescapable problems of human existence.” — Paul Baltes, pioneer of the Berlin Wisdom Paradigm
“Manifest plainness, embrace simplicity, reduce selfishness, have few desires.” — Lao Tzu
Extreme Individualism
Writers, philosophers, and critics worldwide have examined the unique problems of the highly individualistic mindset in the United States. In The Culture of Narcissism, Christopher Lasch argued that modern American life replaced political change with a focus on personal therapy, leading people to seek emotional comfort and quick rewards instead of real democratic involvement. James Baldwin also pointed out that Americans often lack self-awareness, holding tightly to an idea of “innocence” to hide deeper issues like violence, racism, and imperialism.
I noticed some of these traits as a child. In high school, reading books like “Black Like Me” by John Howard Griffin, The Robber Barons: A Definitive History of the Gilded Age Titans Who Transformed the American Economy by Matthew Josephson, Africa Must Unite by Kwame Nkrumah (1909- 1972), and The Autobiography of Malcolm X—no joke, these books were assigned—I became more aware of my own and other cultures. We studied Watergate in great detail as events unfolded in Current Events class, and discussed the Vietnam War from various critical perspectives. These experiences go back to middle school. I had also traveled extensively before middle school; the first time I visited Japan, I was seven years old. I spent part of my childhood in County Clare, Ireland. I toured East Africa with my family when I was twelve. All of my experiences led me away from blind patriotism or a sense of supremacy. I was never afraid to visit friends on the other side of town. Lucky me.
Philosopher Byung-Chul Han argues that Western hyper-individualism turns people into “projects” who push themselves too hard, focusing on positivity and high performance while treating big problems as personal issues to manage with wellness habits. Neil Postman also warned that American culture keeps people passive not by force, but by constant pleasure, turning serious discussions and real dangers into entertainment until people can no longer take meaningful political action. Think of our ubiquitous, always-on internet infotainment. Most of what you see in your Samsung, Apple, or Microsoft news feeds is trash meant to sell you garbage—a form of selling shit to the sewer. After a while, infotainment consumers start to feel like everything stinks.
JOY: Erich Fromm and the Radical Humanism of Being
I read Erich Fromm in my early 20s; many people had read him before me, and here we are. It seems no amount of wisdom and insight can stop the juggernaut of our desire to explore, exploit, extract, produce, own, and dominate, no matter what it ultimately costs us.
Real joy cannot exist in a culture that confuses possession with existence. Erich Fromm combined Marxist sociology with Freudian psychoanalysis to identify the fundamental illness of advanced capitalism: a condition of deep alienation in which people see themselves as separated off as commodities rather than as living individuals. In a modern society characterized by a “marketing orientation”, people do not just sell their physical labor but also their personalities, tastes, and inner lives, turning human existence into an asset packaged to achieve social status and market value. This results in a “socially patterned defect,” since society regards “automaton conformity”—that is, becoming part of the machine to avoid being unusual—as psychologically normal. Genuine joy is not simply a passive neurochemical surge or a reward for conforming to consumerism; it is the spontaneous and active manifestation of the “Being mode” of existence, in which a person connects with the world through love, reason, and productive work without giving up their individuality.
To explain why modern consumerism does not lead to lasting well-being, Fromm identified seven basic existential needs that every human being must fulfill to avoid neurosis and social isolation. If a socio-economic system directs these needs towards commodification, the outcome is psychological disintegration.
To regain joy, it is necessary to make an emancipatory shift from the “Having mode” to the “Being mode”, a process that relies on what Fromm called “Critical Pedagogy”. In the context of late capitalism, education serves to prepare obedient servants, whereas a more humanized form of education should teach what Fromm referred to as a “structuralized worldview” – that is, the ability to link one’s own psychological suffering directly to the wider socioeconomic structures. Critical theorists across various fields have agreed with Fromm’s emphasis on overcoming ideological confusion. The Brazilian educator Paulo Freire made extensive use of Fromm’s Escape from Freedom in his fundamental work Pedagogy of the Oppressed, maintaining that liberation involves getting rid of the “banking concept of education” (in which students are seen as passive recipients of fixed data) and replacing it with a dialogic approach based on posing problems, thereby restoring human agency. Similarly, Herbert Marcuse, Freire’s colleague at the Frankfurt School, noted in One-Dimensional Man that industrial society produces “false needs” that tie people to consumerism, supporting Fromm’s warning that people give up their freedom because genuine autonomy appears to be an unbearable burden.
The realization of Radical Humanism requires a political structure that Fromm called “communitarian socialism”—a Sane Society based on participatory democracy and humanized technology. Instead of organizing economic activity to maximize production and capital accumulation, society should judge its success by how much it promotes optimal human development. Fromm imagined decentralized, face-to-face meetings of about 500 citizens in which people take part in dialogic discussion so local government remains directly attuned to human needs rather than being influenced by corporate lobbying. This degree of political decentralization corresponds to Ivan Illich’s idea of “convivial tools”—technologies and institutions intended to strengthen personal autonomy and community interdependence rather than impose technocratic control.
Fromm shows clearly that unless there is a fundamental inner transformation, neither a political revolution nor technical progress can cure our social pathology. Joy should be the highest moral and psychological test a culture can pass; a society that turns every relationship, every resource, and every emotion into a market transaction will certainly end up with widespread anxiety and despair. This is exactly what Fromm stated in The Sane Society: “The Age of Man... can only come into being if a New Man comes into being. Inner transformation is therefore a necessary precondition for the transformation of society.”
4. Comparative Ontologies & Secular Metaphysics
Comparative Cultural Frameworks
Although we have visited this above, there are many ways to approach the process. To understand why North Americans often feel stuck when facing multiple crises, it helps to compare their values with those from other cultures (as far as one can). While American middle-class culture values personal freedom, self-improvement, competition, and individual achievement, East Asian traditions in countries such as Japan, South Korea, and China emphasize social harmony (Wa), moral duty (Giri), and modesty (to a degree). (OKAY, they are MTI cultures too, but they differ.) Similarly, African philosophies like Ubuntu stress deep interdependence, believing that each person’s life is closely connected to the community. (How much Ubuntu remains on the high-growth, neo-colonized continent?)
Modern Techno-Industrial civilization is a global, growth-obsessed system powered by fossil fuels and high technology. It consumes resources faster than the Earth can renew them, driving humanity deep into ecological overshoot. [1, 2, 3]
These basic differences shape how societies respond to big challenges and suffering. In a crisis, American culture often turns to self-improvement, self-protection, and the pursuit of pleasure, viewing suffering as a personal problem to fix. (That’s the positive side; the negative side can be expressed in one word: gangsterism.) In contrast, East Asian cultures encourage collective endurance (Gaman) and civic duty, viewing hardship as something to face together with dignity. African traditions focus on community support and honoring ancestors, viewing suffering as a shared issue requiring everyone’s help. While Americans often see power as a competition to win, these other cultures connect authority to duty, respect for elders, and group agreement.
Cultures are shifting spectrums of values, concerns, expressions, creations, etc., so let’s not get too caught up in this-or-that take on various cultures. Still, let’s notice the differences so we might also find what we have in common. All cultures express gangsterism in unique ways.
I often refer to cultures I have had extensive experience with, but there are so many others.
Amazonian Multinaturalism and the Living Forest
In the Amazonian rainforest, Indigenous groups such as the Yanomami and Kichwa engage with an ontology that anthropologist Eduardo Viveiros de Castro identifies as “Amerindian Perspectivism.” In contrast to Western naturalism, which conceives of nature as an objective, passive backdrop to human culture, Amazonian cosmology regards plants, animals, and spirits as subjective beings with distinct cultural lives. In Cannibal Metaphysics, Viveiros de Castro notes that Western thought posits “one nature and many cultures,” whereas Amerindian thought recognizes “one spirit across many natures.” Anthropologist Eduardo Kohn, in How Forests Think, further shows that non-human life participates in complex forms of representation and communication, suggesting that human symbolic thought is only a subset of a broader living semiotics. Within this worldview, hunting or harvesting is understood not as resource extraction but as an act of diplomacy between equal subjects.
The Australian Dreaming and the Relational Everywhen
For Indigenous Australians, land is not an economic asset to be owned, but an eternal, living tapestry interwoven through the “Dreaming,” a spatial and temporal continuum that anthropologist W.E.H. Stanner described as the “Everywhen.” People navigate land through Songlines, oral maps that encode millennia of ecological knowledge, kinship obligations, and ethical duties into music and geography. Anthropologist Wade Davis, in The Wayfinders: Why Ancient Wisdom Matters in the Modern World, observes that Aboriginal peoples did not seek to alter or dominate their environment but instead devoted their intellectual efforts to maintaining the earth's spiritual and biophysical equilibrium. Davis further emphasizes that “other cultures are not failed attempts at being us; they are unique manifestations of the human spirit,” demonstrating that human civilization can persist for tens of thousands of years without reliance on extractive growth models.
“First Law.”
Tyson Yunkaporta, in his book Sand Talk, draws a clear link between Western physics, especially the First Law of Thermodynamics, and the core Aboriginal idea of ‘First Law’. In this view, creation is always happening, marked by constant movement and relationships rather than by fixed structures. Yunkaporta says people are meant to act as caretakers within this connected energy system. Our role is to move with the land’s natural cycles, sharing knowledge, energy, and resources through networks rather than hoarding wealth or trying to control nature. He argues that human suffering and environmental damage stem from breaking the First Law—the belief that humans are above the land and other living things. When modern society tries to control nature in a strict, linear way, it breaks the feedback loops that keep the planet balanced. By comparing this industrial mindset with Indigenous ways of seeing patterns, Yunkaporta shows that respecting the laws of conservation and mutual responsibility is crucial for life on a planet with limited resources and delicate ecosystems.
Andean Ayni and the Pluriverse
In the High Andes, Quechua and Aymara communities structure social and economic life around Ayni (sacred reciprocity) and Sumak Kawsay (Buen Vivir, or living well together). In this context, wealth is measured not by individual capital accumulation, but by the strength of mutual obligations among humans and Pachamama (Mother Earth). Anthropologist Arturo Escobar, in Designs for the Pluriverse, contends that these relational ontologies present a substantive alternative to modern globalized development, envisioning a “world where many worlds fit.” Indigenous botanist Robin Wall Kimmerer, in Braiding Sweetgrass, similarly notes that in Indigenous gift economies, “wealth is understood to be that which is given away,” thereby transforming the human role from consumer to active participant in an honorable harvest.
Southern African Ubuntu and Relational Personhood—mentioned above
Throughout Southern Africa, the philosophy of Ubuntu—expressed in the phrase Umuntu ngumuntu ngabantu (“A person is a person through other persons”)—serves as a significant counterpoint to Western hyper-individualism and Cartesian dualism. Theologian and philosopher John Mbiti articulated this perspective, stating, “I am because we are, and since we are, therefore I am.” Within this framework, human identity is constituted through moral community, empathy, and social interdependence. Archbishop Desmond Tutu also reflected on this ontology, noting that Ubuntu acknowledges that “my humanity is caught up, is inextricably bound up, in yours.” By characterizing solitary self-interest as a social pathology rather than a rational virtue, Ubuntu challenges the atomized consumer model foundational to late-capitalist alienation.
Oceanic Seascapes and Generative Interconnection
In Oceania, Pacific Islanders have historically rejected the Western colonial characterization of their home as small, isolated “island states” dispersed across an empty ocean. Tongan scholar Epeli Hau’ofa, in Our Sea of Islands, reconceptualized the region not as “islands in the sea,” but as a connected and expanding “sea of islands.” Hau’ofa demonstrated that Polynesian and Micronesian navigators perceived the Pacific Ocean as a vast, generative highway that unified communities through trade, mythology, and oceanic navigation. By defining worldviews through relationships and movement rather than static land ownership and borders, Oceanic cosmology shows that geographic isolation is an imperial construct and that human belonging can be rooted in dynamic, relational space.
Back to Comments About the Domain of Culture for a moment.
“Culture is then properly described not as having its origin in curiosity, but as having its origin in the love of perfection; it is a study of perfection. It moves by the force, not merely or primarily of the scientific passion for pure knowledge, but also of the moral and social passion for doing good... The pursuit of perfection, then, is the pursuit of sweetness and light. He who works for sweetness works, in the end, for light also; he who works for light works, in the end, for sweetness also. But he who works for sweetness and light united, works to make reason and the will of God prevail.” — Matthew Arnold (Culture and Anarchy, or Culture and its Enemies)
“I have been trying to show that culture is, or ought to be, the study and pursuit of perfection; and that of perfection as pursued by culture, beauty and intelligence, or, in other words, sweetness and light, are the main characters.”
Why Arnold? Well, you know, Anglophone, and I use “culture” a lot, perhaps without knowing exactly what I mean. The series above is a helpful introduction to various Western perspectives. I have shared it a lot over the years.
Travel if you can, even if only in your mind.
I encourage people to watch films by filmmakers from other cultures: China, Senegal, Algeria, Nigeria, South Africa, Japan, South Korea, Russia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka, and not always flicks from Europe and the Anglosphere. Read across cultures and think cross-culturally.
North Americana
Series like Lioness are pure, hardcore propaganda. I am writing another long piece on this form of propaganda. Sometimes I think Hegseth, Trump, Rubio, EU leaders, Japanese Uncle Sams, and their minions actually believe these kinds of TV shows are an absolute reflection of reality. “Based on a true story.” It may make these highly indoctrinated individuals feel more heroic about their stubborn stupidity.
The Pacified Citizen and Polycrisis Avoidance
When faced with multiple crises like climate change, failing diplomacy, growing authoritarianism, resurgent fascism, genocide, inequality, late-stage monopoly capitalism, and consumerism, the highly individualistic North American mindset can’t help but struggle with conflicting beliefs. Accepting that their way of life and economy contribute to global problems challenges their sense of being the best possible people. To avoid this, many turn even more to therapy, spirituality, shopping, work, substance use, gaming, or New Age ideas that make global issues seem like problems that can be solved just by thinking positively. (I’ve got THE Secret; join my Patreon for bonus content.) A weaponized positivity that dismisses systemic critique as “toxic negativity” or an unacceptable disruption of personal peace is dangerous in a complex world. Even well-informed individuals who express abstract sympathy for global suffering recoil aggressively from any proposal that demands personal inconvenience, reduced consumption, or disruptive civil action against corporate and political leaders. And no one wants to upset their wealthier friends. Having substituted personal feel-good metrics for civic duty, a depoliticized populace views the demand for meaningful sacrifice not as a moral imperative, but as an intolerable offense to their personal flow state.
“Boycott and divest? Who, me? Why?”
Armchair revolutionaries and socialists are equally inept.
Scapegoats: keep it simple, stupid—it’s their fault.
The constant search for scapegoats acts as a psychological shield for North Americans. (I am not saying South Americans don’t scapegoat.)
Cultures south of the U.S. border differ from North American culture. American culture also encompasses countries in South and Central America, Mexico, and many islands and regions south and southeast of Florida. Anyone who has been to Argentina and Brazil knows how different those cultures are. Keep that in mind, which is why I often say ‘U.S. Americans’. I could, of course, break down U.S. American culture into regional and local microcultures. I don’t want to generalize U.S. culture. However, we can consider certain traits when thinking about U.S. cultural character.
When disaster strikes, like a wildfire in Spokane, reports in the media may say that someone saw someone suspicious and later report that the prime suspect for setting the fire had a criminal record. OK, then, a bad guy did it. One will find very little reporting in the corporate media about how climate change makes these fires much worse, whether caused by a lightning strike or an arsonist, much less the causes of global heating and how it relates to modern imperialism and colonialism. “Why the bad guy started the fire, in the next 48 hours.” After a mass shooting at a strip mall, we’ll find out that the shooter was a random person with mental health issues, and a good guy with a gun put the shooter down. One might like to see a follow-up interview with the good guy focused on how the experience of killing someone has affected his life. We hardly ever hear about the sociocultural causes of these mental health issues, or why so many people feel like they can’t be safe without an EDC blade, assault rifle, tactical shotgun, or a handgun.
What makes ‘Bad Guys’ bad?
What preconditions and structural reasons are driving sailors to attempt to jump off the USS Abraham Lincoln?
We hear all the time that a good guy with a gun saved lives without wondering why people need guns in the first place, and I am not talking about hunting rifles. When there is a major cyberattack, corporate media immediately speculates that it must be China, the Russians, or the Iranians. Countries that thwart the Washington Agenda. Those who speak of a multipolar world. Bad guys did it. Why? Because they are bad. Why are they bad? Because they are bad. They are not like us. We always look for someone to blame instead of grappling with deeper issues. Calling someone an arsonist, a “mentally ill” lone gunman, or blaming a foreign enemy in Moscow, Beijing, or Tehran helps the public see these events as isolated acts of malice. This habit keeps alive the belief that Uncle Sam Inc. is basically good and only needs to get rid of a few bad actors, rather than facing the need for real change.
Trump. Biden. Putin. Xi. Muslims. Immigrants. Catholics. Protestants. Transexuals. Socialists. On and on it goes. We need larger militarized federal, state, and local police forces to keep up with all of our enemies. Why don’t they fall in line?
After the U.S. assassinates foreign leaders, we get stories in the USA from the corporate media that the bad guys are planning to kill someone in the West.
Blaming others shows up everywhere in American life, both personally and politically. When the middle class loses economic security, people rarely question things like free-market neoliberalism, monopoly capitalism, or corporate greed. Instead, they often blame undocumented immigrants. (Our way of life produces migration and undocumented immigrants. Why?) When people feel more isolated and relationships break down, some blame feminism or lefty university courses instead of looking at how suburban life and technology weaken real community.
“We have justifications and good reasons for having killed those people. Oh, and by the way, we have information that they are planning to kill one of our leaders, or his son. We had better get busy. Workers in America demand security.”
“When my girl came back from University for Thanksgiving this year, she had some pretty crazy ideas. I’m worried the University of Texas is brainwashing her. I saw something on Fox News…”
Whether it’s blaming leaders like Biden or Trump for bigger problems, or targeting groups like communists, atheists, or other minorities, the culture always finds new scapegoats. Blaming an “Other” provides quick emotional relief and leads people to believe someone else causes their problems rather than deeper issues in society and culture.
In the end, scapegoating makes it easier for Americans to avoid real political action. By blaming problems on a few bad people, the culture protects its need to feel good and innocent. Scapegoating never solves problems. This attitude ignores the real causes of today’s many crises—like environmental damage, violence, unchecked capitalism, inequality, and national hubris. As long as people choose the comfort of blaming others rather than facing hard systemic or personal truths, they will remain stuck in a cycle of anger and inaction, unable to come together to prevent even greater hardships and catastrophes.
The Mechanics of Psychic Intrusion and State-Sanctioned Gaslighting
Today’s psychological operations (psyops) and social engineering do not depend just on obvious censorship or basic wartime propaganda. In the context of late-stage financialized capitalism and imperial statecraft, psychological warfare operates through what psychoanalyst and decolonial scholar Lara Sheehi calls “psychic intrusion.” Rather than simply controlling information, powerful state and corporate organizations aim at the fundamental structure of how people assess reality. They achieve this by subjecting the population to constant and contradictory narratives—in which live-streamed state violence, ecological destruction, and economic extraction are at the same time broadcast and officially denied—thus producing a psychological atmosphere similar to that of interpersonal abuse.
This kind of gaslighting causes people to enter a state of cognitive disorientation in which they start to question their own senses, their bodily reactions, and their moral instincts. If citizens see systematic atrocities or a biophysical collapse but are continually told by the media and political institutions that “nothing out of the ordinary is happening” or that their worries are “exaggerated”, the resulting psychological tension is directed inward. The individual then suffers emotional exhaustion, persistent self-doubt, and a state of helplessness. As Sheehi points out in her analysis of psychological warfare, the clear aim of such campaigns is not merely to cause external destruction but to take control of the mind—making people feel as if they are “going crazy” even though they can clearly identify the source of the institutional violence.
The Domestication of Mental Health and the Radical Work of Lara Sheehi
A key aspect of this conditioning process is the way in which mainstream Western psychology and psychiatry are put to use as tools of control. As shown in their pioneering book Psychoanalysis Under Occupation: Practicing Resistance in Palestine, Lara Sheehi and Stephen Sheehi illustrate that liberal mental health approaches generally act as mechanisms for assimilating individuals into the state’s worldview. Rather than addressing the root causes, mainstream Western clinical psychology tends to depoliticize human suffering by interpreting rational reactions to structural violence as personal psychological disorders. It does this by employing abstract “suitcase terms” such as trauma, burnout, or PTSD, thereby focusing on the individual and presenting their distress as a private chemical malfunction or as a deficiency in coping mechanisms that can be dealt with by means of medication, mindfulness, or behavioral changes.
Sheehi maintains that this insistence on “clinical neutrality” and on individual adjustment has a deeply political purpose: it turns political grief into a private matter and wipes out the desire to resist. The mental health industry achieves this by treating emotional suffering as a personal flaw rather than as a normal and reasonable response to an intolerable socio-political situation, thus forcing people who are suffering to accept structural violence as a reality that cannot be changed.
Sheehi argues that, based on Frantz Fanon’s key idea of disalienation, genuine psychological healing is impossible if it is separated from political struggle. The aim of radical psychoanalysis is not to enable people to get used to a sick world, but rather to remove the pathologization of “the will to live, the will to be liberated, and the will to resist.” In her forthcoming book From the Clinic to the Street: Psychoanalysis for Revolutionary Futures, Sheehi advocates “psychic militancy”—a total rejection of liberal harmony in favor of an active and ethical dedication to destroying oppressive power structures. Psychological vitality is recovered not when a person learns to endure oppression, but when they turn their inward pain once again into outward, collective political action.
The United States’ weakness lies in the consumer being the ideal subject of imperial rule.
American citizens are in a position that makes them especially susceptible to these methods of psychological domestication. From early childhood, Americans are not brought up to be active, engaged members of civic life; instead, they are taught to see themselves as isolated consumers and providers of services for the Great Game. Over many decades, neoliberal financialization has systematically destroyed communal social spaces, replacing natural networks of mutual care with market-based interactions. As philosopher Charles Taylor described it, this results in what he called the “buffered self”—an individual who is isolated and has been taught to view all aspects of life through the lens of private competition, personal branding, and the accumulation of material goods.
If a population has grown up with this consumer ideology and comes up against the global polycrisis—namely ecological overshoot, endless imperial wars, economic stratification, and algorithmic manipulation—the reaction they have developed is one of hyper-individualized helplessness. Since their self-worth has been conditioned to depend on personal consumption, they see the system’s breakdown as the result of their own decisions or the productivity of their way of life. This kind of structural atomization stops any form of horizontal, class-aware solidarity from emerging. American citizens are led to turn their moral anxieties into harmless, performative consumer choices (for example, by purchasing eco-friendly products or adopting carefully selected media diets) while remaining completely obedient to the high-energy, militarized state machinery that supports global extraction and ecocide.
Reclaiming Critical Agency and Dismantling the Matrix of Docility
To counter this kind of deep psychic colonization, we must make a conscious, collective effort to free ourselves from privatized enclosures designed to keep populations in a state of domesticity. Researchers and liberation activists across fields point out several essential measures for restoring critical agency.
To counter state gaslighting, people need to form deliberate, in-person communities dedicated to inquiry so they can identify and accept material reality without going through corporate or institutional interference. By refusing to treat political grief as a private matter, one can recognize that exhaustion is not a sign of personal weakness but a common structural condition.
Following the ideas of Ignacio Martín-Baró and Frantz Fanon, we should oppose the privatization of mental health and view mental well-being as something that emerges from communal solidarity and resistance. By establishing a “psychotherapeutic commons”—in which care is decentralized, relationship-based, and clearly politicized—communities can maintain their psychological well-being in situations of continuous crisis.
To move beyond the spectacle: critical agency requires overcoming our addiction to media environments based on algorithms and designed to provoke “emotion cascades,” which hinder critical reflection. One way to replace passive media consumption with practical activities in the real world—like producing food locally, keeping physical skills, and engaging in direct community organization—is to reconnect the mind with biophysical reality.
To forge decolonial global solidarity, U.S. citizens need to deliberately shed the imperial arrogance that sees them as either detached observers or privileged managers of global suffering. True agency comes when people give up loyalty to the imperial nation-state and instead join subaltern groups worldwide in active, practical solidarity as they struggle for survival and self-determination.
In the end, authorities can keep control not because their ideology is convincing, but because their psychological operations have made ordinary people believe they are isolated, helpless, and all by themselves. We break the spell of state-approved docility and regain our ability to shape a living future by restoring our interpersonal connections, stopping the pathologization of our tendency to resist, and establishing local networks of truth-telling and care.
If you want to find out more about how psychoanalysis can go beyond liberal neutrality and become a tool for political liberation, then you should listen to the discussion featuring Dr. Lara Sheehi's argument in favor of psychic militancy. In this interview, decolonial mental health practitioners examine the psychological violence that is sanctioned by the state and withdraw the pathological label from political resistance.
The Demonic Deflection: The Courtier-Populist Archetype and the Epistemic Evasion of Late Capital
The current media environment has given rise to a specific kind of sociopolitical figure: the Courtier-Populist, who wields great influence among the masses while also serving as an ideological buffer for the established class. Tucker Carlson, a political entertainer and commentator, is a clear example of this type of person, who is not guided by sound philosophical principles, institutional accountability, or empirical accuracy, but instead possesses an intuitive ability to manipulate emotions, is close to concentrated wealth, and consistently serves the culture wars as managed by Uncle Sam Inc. Faced with the complex, systemic problems of late-stage capitalism—such as monopolistic extraction, industrial collapse, financialization, inequality, the ravaging of the commons, and ecological destruction—the Courtier-Populist quickly retreats from responsible epistemic rigor. Instead of addressing the issues through the mechanisms of established, evidence-based institutions, he responds with vivid, theatrical gestures, accompanied by the self-justifying statement: “I don’t know. It’s a mystery. I suspect that there must be a spiritual element to it. How else can we explain our hilarious leader’s U-turn while in office?”
Versions of “The Courtier” cover the full spectrum of political entertainers and their fans. I’m picking on dear Tucker because the video below is a great example of what I mean here. There are fine examples in the “liberal” camps, from radical libertarians to nouvel communists, and mild bottle socialists; even those so characterized by me, the common sensicals, could be made examples of
Whenever sovereign leaders, large corporations, or state organizations introduce policies that worsen their citizens’ conditions, this pattern consistently avoids materialist or systemic/structural criticism. Instead, the Courtier-Populist invokes metaphysical, supernatural, or demonological forces, claiming that institutional failure and political treachery express cosmic evil. By making this rhetorical shift, what is in reality a deliberate drain of public wealth by corporate and political elites becomes an obscure spiritual conflict. The Courtier-Populist service provider thus offers the public a highly appealing mix of emotional relief and political helplessness: an aesthetic of rebellious criticism that systematically prevents people from examining the mechanisms of power.
The courtier-populist holds a profitable position within the ‘cultural apparatus’ as described by C. Wright Mills, functioning as a go-between for the ruling class and a dispersed public. Through algorithmic audience capture, performative sprezzatura, and the deliberate exploitation of moral panics, this figure alters its appearance to suit changing media environments. To identify this archetype, we need a multidisciplinary approach that examines how political sociology, critical theory, Renaissance court dynamics, and media ecology come together to create a system of mass confusion.
“The only guardrail AI needs is a high IQ president.” President Donald J. Trump
The Epistemology of Evaporated Cause: Transmuting Class Contradiction into Cosmic Demonology
The Courtier-Populist’s main ideological defense is to replace structural analysis with theological demonology. If political and economic elites carry out policies which seem contradictory or self-destructive—for example, austerity measures which weaken the domestic labor force or military involvements which undermine domestic security—a careful materialist investigation would attribute these results to the need for capital accumulation, corporate lobbying, geopolitical hegemony, and the incentives held by elite institutions. The Courtier-Populist, instead of addressing the ordinary, highly rational pursuit of private capital and the need for institutional self-preservation, describes the outcome as the work of an enigmatic, supra-human malevolence.
“Trump’s a good guy, I know him well. The princes of the Gulf States are gracious; what could possibly explain why a dark tetrad real estate mogul and Gulf Oil oligarchs could make so many geopolitical mistakes?”
This abandonment of intellectual standards echoes Theodor Adorno’s criticisms in his 1953 book The Stars Down to Earth, a thorough analysis of the astrology column in the Los Angeles Times. Adorno argued that occultism, astrology, and other forms of secondary superstition are examples of what he famously called the “metaphysic of dunces” (Metaphysik der dummen Kerle). According to Adorno, a fascination with the occult is a case of “pseudo-rationality”—a defensive psychological attitude which arises when people living in a society characterized by opacity and highly rationalized capitalism try to understand the forces that affect their lives without examining the social relations of production. When most people were illiterate, local tradition and religion satisfied common people’s need for psychological security. Only elites and their service providers grappled with philosophy and theology, domains that served them.
Adorno observed:
“Occultism is a reflex-action to the subjectification of all meaning, the counterpart to the abstract sense of powerlessness which overcomes modern men in the face of the monumentalized machinery of the social process.”
The individual is freed from understanding the actual mechanisms of modern society because social, economic, and institutional pressures are transferred onto astral constellations or other esoteric beings. In the present day, the Courtier-Populist adapts this ‘metaphysic of dunces’ for use on prime-time television, streaming services, and podcast networks. When the severe negative consequences of deregulation, military expenditure, and corporate misconduct can no longer be ignored, this figure comes forward not to lay bare the balance sheet but to present the situation as an inexplicable, supernatural event.
This tendency became clear during Carlson’s keynote speech at the Heritage Foundation’s 50th Anniversary Gala in April 2023, a speech delivered a few days before his dismissal from Fox News. Abandoning conventional policy discussion, he said:
“I don’t believe we are seeing a discussion about how to achieve the best possible result... It doesn’t fit with ordinary political concepts. If political leaders embrace destruction merely for its own sake... then all you are witnessing is not a political movement but rather evil. The ideas involved will not lead to outcomes a reasonable person would want in any situation. They are manifestations of some greater force affecting us.”
By describing the decisions of corporations and states as “manifestations of some larger force,” the role of human actors as agents is eliminated. Historical accountability disappears, replaced by theological absolutism. The commentator frequently makes use of demonological ideas: stating on popular podcasts that unidentified aerial phenomena (UAPs) and technological disruptions are “demonic” spiritual manifestations, asserting in the documentary Christianities? that he was physically attacked and scratched in bed by a real demon, or saying that current sociopolitical disputes are controlled by ancient entities which are looking for “Aztec child sacrifice.”
This approach is a modern version of what historian Richard Hofstadter identified in his book The Paranoid Style in American Politics (1964). He pointed out that the main feature of the paranoid style is not merely a state of clinical delusion, but rather the way in which the social world is transformed into an existential and millenarian phase:
“The paranoid spokesman views the fate of the conspiracy in apocalyptic terms, dealing with the birth and death of entire worlds, entire political systems, and entire systems of human values. He is always stationed at the barricades of civilization... For since the issue is always one of absolute good versus absolute evil, what is required is not compromise but rather the determination to carry on the struggle until it has been settled.”
The Courtier-Populist achieves an important administrative objective for established power by portraying political disagreements as a struggle between cosmic purity and demonic wickedness: thus he converts the systematic and procedural character of class rule into a spiritual conflict. You don’t audit, regulate, or expropriate a demon; instead, you watch the performance, gripped by sensationalistic dread and paralyzed by moral panic.
Sprezzatura and the Patrician Demagogue: Performing Humility in Proximity to Sovereign Power
The Courtier-Populist operates through deliberate duplicity: although it adopts the appearance of identifying with the working class and showing a rustic anti-elitist attitude, it remains closely connected to elite circles. Because it comes from the upper classes—take, for example, Carlson, who was brought up as the heir to the Swanson frozen food business and educated in exclusive boarding schools and private colleges—this type knows the cultural customs of the American establishment. But this political entertainer’s special ability is to turn that background into an insurgent image by offering a modern interpretation of Renaissance courtcraft.
In Baldassare Castiglione’s classic Renaissance manual Il libro del cortegiano (1528), he lays out how elite flattery and palace survival work, using the basic idea of sprezzatura. Castiglione defined sprezzatura as:
"A certain nonchalance, so as to conceal all art and make whatever one does or says appear to be without effort and almost without any thought about it."
A courtier must learn to appear easy, hiding his strategic thinking behind a show of natural grace, humility, and self-deprecatory remarks. Castiglione directly tells ambitious courtiers to avoid showing off, advising them to turn down compliments, emphasize neither their learning nor their knowledge, and behave modestly. This helps him break the power of aristocratic rivals, please the Prince, and secure his place in the palace hierarchy.
The modern-day Courtier-Populist uses sprezzatura not only to amuse sovereigns but also to win over a mass of uncritical supporters. The way Carlson presents himself on television and in podcast form—marked by boyish laughter, furrowed brows, open-collared shirts, and his constant claim that he is an intellectual lightweight who merely asks basic questions—deliberately applies this Renaissance tradition. Whenever he finds himself in deep analytical contradictions, makes incorrect political predictions, or is revealed to have factual errors, this commentator defuses criticism by carrying out a performance of surrender, such as saying “I hope I’m wrong,” a cliché by now, or stating that if he is shown to be wrong he will be happy to “grovel at the feet” of his critics.
This humble approach offers significant strategic and operational advantages. When the commentator loudly states an intellectual lack—“I’m just a talk-show host” or “I don’t know anything, it’s a mystery”—they automatically protect their statements from having to meet the empirical requirements of falsifiability, from being subject to academic scrutiny, and from being examined for logical consistency. Meanwhile, this self-deprecation signals to the audience that the commentator does not belong to the elite group of coastal technocrats, helping him connect with viewers, listeners, and readers through humble, unpretentious common sense. Additionally, because the digital media environment is fast-paced, by the time a claim is disproved, the narrative cycle has already moved on. Hence, the commentator’s reputation remains undamaged among an audience that remembers the host’s modesty rather than the erroneous statement.
This rhetorical position is directly linked to C. Wright Mills’s sociological critique in The Power Elite (1956). Mills showed that American governance in the mid-twentieth century had developed into a trio of institutions: corporate boardrooms, executive governance, and the military establishment. From this institutional center, Mills described the “higher immorality”—a systemic attitude in which structural irresponsibility, institutional corruption, and opportunistic posturing become the standard way of operating within elite hierarchies.
Reflecting in his later years on the “cultural apparatus,” Mills realized that the power elite depends on specialized culture producers—people who do not control the economy or the state, but instead convert the elite’s demands into public folklore. The Courtier-Populist functions as an ideological functionary within this system. By aiming to gain access to global billionaires, top heads of state, and influential executives—taking care to address them with respect while reserving his rhetorical sharpness for lower-ranking bureaucrats, foreign targets, or cultural dissidents—he can obtain social capital and commercial wealth from being in close contact with people in power, all the while pretending to be an outsider who is opposing elite dominance. I can’t help but think of Curtis Yarvin.
The Algorithmic Colonization of Character: Cybernetics of Audience Capture
The traditional models used to explain the ideological malleability of the Courtier-Populist are inadequate. Commentators in this category frequently undergo radical ideological shifts: they start as typical neoliberal supporters of free enterprise, military intervention, and low taxation, only to later reappear as Buchananite paleoconservatives, economic nationalists, and finally as millenarian apocalyptic mystics. People often ask whether these changes reflect a real intellectual conversion or instead result from calculated opportunism.
The media phenomenon that has emerged is called audience capture, and it offers a more plausible and mechanically sound approach. Cultural critics like Gurwinder Bhogal have promoted it, and C. Thi Nguyen’s epistemic theories assess audience capture as an escalating, self-reinforcing cybernetic loop. Rather than deliberately crafting a cynical strategy or shaping public opinion, the creator is systematically disciplined, reshaped, and psychologically guided by their audience’s behavioral signals. Indeed, I would say Sam Harris, the poor soul, is also a victim.
In his essay The Perils of Audience Capture: How Influencers Become Brainwashed by Their Audiences, Bhogal details the psychological and algorithmic dynamics of this trap:
“Audience capture is the phenomenon where an influencer is affected by their audience, catering to it with what they believe it wants to hear or is willing to pay for... This involves the gradual and unwitting replacement of a person’s identity with one custom-made for the audience... This is the ultimate trapdoor in the hall of fame; to become a prisoner of one’s own persona. The desire for recognition in an increasingly atomized world lures us to be who strangers wish us to be.”
The Courtier-Populist process unfolds on an industrial scale. Digital distribution platforms, subscription income, viewer-retention curves, and social media engagement algorithms function as immediate reward systems that provide strong sensory feedback. When a commentator gives a detailed, nuanced analysis of macroeconomic factors—such as international supply networks, regulatory balance sheets, energy and power dynamics, material flows, total lifecycle assessment, or structural trade dynamics—audience engagement figures tend to stay the same or decline.
On the other hand, when that same host presents a segment in which they show outrage at cultural grievances, label a public figure as “evil,” or claim that unseen people are organizing sinister rituals, the algorithmic platforms see increased viewer engagement, digital subscriptions, and online comments.
As stated in his study of value capture and gamified environments, philosopher C. Thi Nguyen points out that when people enter digital communication systems which are designed around explicit metrics—such as likes, retweets, subscriber counts, and views—the various quantitative indicators gradually take the place of their natural values, objectives, and personal epistemic principles. The media personality’s way of thinking changes to meet the requirements of these metrics. This involves no simple external commercial concession; rather, it amounts to an internal shift in identity.
The Courtier-Populist is therefore forced to keep raising the rhetorical stakes continuously. The host must take on ever more dramatic versions of the persona the audience has rewarded. Yesterday’s partisan disagreements must now become today’s institutional persecutions; administrative failures must become grand spiritual confrontations.
The commentator is not in charge of the base but acts as its tool, outsourcing their public identity to stay relevant in a harsh, rapidly changing attention economy. Even when the host’s stance changes—from traditional country-club Republicanism to working-class populist talk and then on to paranormal paranoia—the audience fails to see any contradiction. Because of the parasocial intimacy between them, the audience identifies with the host’s emotional tone rather than with any coherent, consistent ideological belief system.
The Epistemology of Disconnected Shock: Postman’s “Now... This” and the Sincerity Aesthetic
The Courtier-Populist’s operational success depends on the technological and cognitive basis of broadcast television, social media and podcast platforms, and digital streaming services. In his 1985 book Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business, media theorist Neil Postman described how the shift from a print-based public sphere to an image-based media environment destroyed the cognitive conditions needed for ongoing, rational public discussion. At the heart of Postman’s criticism is the expression “Now... this”, a typical transitional phrase in broadcast journalism which he regarded as an epistemological danger:
“Now... this’ is usually employed on radio and television in order to show that the thing which has just been heard or seen has no bearing on whatever is about to be heard or seen, or indeed on anything that one is ever likely to hear or see. It functions as a conjunction which doesn’t link one thing to another but rather separates all things from one another. It acts as a concise metaphor for the discontinuities found in a great deal of what passes for public discourse in present-day America... No murder, however brutal, no earthquake, however devastating, no political blunder, however costly... can escape being wiped from our minds by a newscaster using the phrase, ‘Now... this.”
Postman claimed this format results in complete decontextualization. Because of how the television screen operates, information is cut off from historical memory, logical coherence, and real-world consequences. He pointed out that the main product of this information ecosystem is not simple falsehood but something even more damaging—disinformation. In this case, disinformation doesn’t just mean misleading information; it describes information that creates the strong impression of knowing something, even when the viewer has been led away from any true understanding or context.
I’ll present this information again and again from multiple angles until it sinks in. We all need to understand how our worldviews and understanding of events are formed.
The Courtier-Populist is well suited to this fragmented environment since electronic and digital media place a greater emphasis on appearance than on substantial content, leading ‘truth’ to be seen as an assessment of sincerity. Postman described this situation:
“The television advertisement has led the American public to believe that the truth of a story is now determined by the appearance of the person who is telling it... credibility has taken the place of reality as the standard by which truth is judged. It is possible for someone to seem like a liar even though they are in fact telling the truth; or even worse, to appear to be a truth-teller when in reality they are lying.”
Carlson’s collection of rhetorical techniques places great emphasis on the aesthetic presentation of credibility. To suggest he is urgently seeking the truth, the performer uses dramatic, exaggerated facial expressions—such as furrowing his eyebrows in surprise, adopting a high-pitched tone of incredulity, and tilting his head as if curious.
But no systemic causes are ever discovered. Reports of economic hardship, corporate wrongdoing, or deteriorating infrastructure are given a frantic sense of urgency, only to be immediately followed by a swift shift toward commercial activity or a sudden turn to a trivial cultural dispute.
Postman showed that this system breaks down what he called the information-to-action ratio. In a well-functioning political society, getting information is linked to civic engagement, collective mobilization, and substantial democratic participation. In the present-day entertainment system, however, consumers are given alarming updates about distant, complicated crises over which they have no control, along with pre-prepared, emotionally charged responses meant for passive consumption.
When someone watches shows produced by the Courtier-Populist, they don’t end an episode intending to organize labor, check regional banks, rein in monopoly capitalism, safeguard the commons, protect ecosystems, or reform regulatory commissions. Instead, the viewer finishes the program feeling morally justified, comforted by a warm sense of parasocial belonging, and convinced they are part of a righteous minority that sees the world as run by incomprehensible demonic forces.
The Culture War Diversion: Weaponizing Affect to Deflect Capitalist Externalities
The courtier-populist’s main role is to channel the working class’s economic frustrations away from institutional capital and into ongoing, unwinnable culture wars. Thomas Frank, in his 2004 work What’s the Matter with Kansas? How Conservatives Won the Heart of America, a cultural historian, analyzed the political economy behind this phenomenon:
“The trick never ages; the illusion never wears off. Vote to stop abortion; receive a rollback in capital gains taxes.”
Frank has identified the reason behind the current political backlash: a political movement rooted in working-class grievances that defines the elite solely in terms of culture, taste, and language. The ‘elite’ is never described as meaning the boards of multinational corporations, private equity executives, or the people who buy up single-family residential homes; rather, the elite is defined as university professors, cultural commentators, Hollywood screenwriters, and urban consumers who drink specialty coffee.
Every night the Courtier-Populist uses this distraction tactic. Instead of addressing the real issues, he treats corporate-backed public relations campaigns and institutions’ insubstantial posturing as the main dangers to civilization, directing populist outrage into harmless consumer boycotts and online discussions. Because Carlson often makes shallow criticisms of corporate greed, financial institutions, and the housing crisis, some political observers have described his method as economically heterodox working-class populism.
But this rhetorical display is essentially empty. The structural causes of these economic crises—unregulated capital flows, predatory debt structures, and the decline of labor power—never lead to any concrete, systemic solutions.
And, one more time, it’s the overshoot, stupid.
When an economic contradiction arises to the point of exposing the realities of class power, the Courtier-Populist redirects the discussion to the safer ground of the culture war. The systemic extraction of public wealth is then presented as a moral failing of individual actors or as the result of a coordinated spiritual attack.
The actual physical harms caused by late-stage capitalism are real—such as the closure of rural hospitals, wage stagnation, the elimination of jobs through algorithms, and the breakdown of families. The Courtier-Populist acknowledges the emotional suffering these difficulties cause, winning the audience’s trust. However, rather than directing that anger at the underlying structure of capitalism, the commentator channels it instead towards cultural scapegoats. By doing so, the commentator keeps the existing order unchallenged and protects the ruling class from the very public anger it provokes.
The Archetype in Art and Literature: The Pious Fraud, The Confidence Man, and The Grand Inquisitor
The digital age has not seen the emergence of the Courtier-Populist, but rather the latest stage in a long series of individuals who exploit the public’s vulnerability by combining moral certainty with performative humility. Literature and theatre have thoroughly examined the psychological and narrative mechanisms that account for the lasting presence of this type.
In his 1857 satirical work The Confidence-Man: His Masquerade, Herman Melville uses the deck of the Mississippi steamboat Fidèle as an allegory for American commercial democracy. The main character, the confidence man, joins the boat in various forms and does not threaten passengers; instead, he asks for their trust, charity, and confidence. Melville reveals a fundamental weakness of the American character: the public’s intense desire to believe comforting illusions, persuasive operators, and charismatic individuals who flatter their own virtues while taking their money. The confidence man’s greatest tool is an attractive display of Christian charity, simple goodness, and carefully exercised humility—a facade which overcomes suspicion and leads to exploitation.
This tradition can be traced to Molière’s seventeenth-century theatrical satire Tartuffe (1664). Tartuffe is the classic example of the pious fraud: a hypocrite who covers himself with apparent religious devotion, self-effacing modesty, and moral posturing to gain the trust of, and win his way into the home and confidence of, the wealthy patriarch Orgon. Instead of disarming his accusers by angrily denying the allegations, Tartuffe does so through a calculated display of self-punishment.
“Yes, brother, I’m a wicked man, I fear,
A wretched sinner, all made up of crime,
The greatest rascal that has lived in time.
Each moment of my life is grimy and foul;
My life is just a heap of dirt and bile...
Believe their charges, do not spare my name;
Cast me away, heaped high with righteous shame.” (Act III, Scene 6)
Tartuffe turns humility to advantage by outdoing his critics in his self-criticism. So impressed by this show of apparent repentance that he at once acts against his own family, supporting Tartuffe’s holiness and giving up his rights to his family’s estate. This is comparable to the modern Courtier-Populist’s automatic tendency to say things like “I’m probably wrong”, “I’m just an ignorant observer”, or “I will grovel at the feet of my critics”. This kind of strategic humility is intended to allay criticism, win over the audience, and secure a loyal following.
In Fyodor Dostoevsky’s story The Grand Inquisitor in The Brothers Karamazov (1880), the Grand Inquisitor meets Christ after Christ returns to a dungeon in Seville in the sixteenth century, exposing the psychological mechanisms by which an authoritarian society manages its people. He argues that humanity is unable to carry the weight of true moral and intellectual freedom:
“Thou didst not come down from the cross... because Thou didst not desire to enslave man through a miracle, and didst crave for free faith and not for a miracle. But Thou didst know that no sooner would man reject a miracle than he would reject God likewise: for man seeketh not so much for God as for miracles. And since man cannot bear to be without miracles, he will create new miracles of his own, and will bow down to the wizard’s miracle and the witch’s sham.”
The Inquisitor identifies three main forces that can take hold of and calm the human conscience: Miracle, Mystery, and Authority. When faced with the terrifying complexity of existence, the general population does not long for hard-earned, empirical truths; instead, they ask for relief from the anxiety caused by having to think for themselves. They seek the comforting security of an inscrutable Mystery, looked after by an Authority that promises to think and feel for them.
The modern-day Courtier-Populist immediately takes on this role. When economic disruptions, social fragmentation, and geopolitical instability threaten the public’s sense of security, this figure does not propose the rigorous, collective route of intellectual effort and political organization. Instead, they promote Mystery (“It’s a mystery, nobody knows”), Miracle (through demonic narratives and supernatural interventions), and Authority (through the reassuring presence of a prominent media figure).
The literary tradition mentioned above continues in Thorstein Veblen’s The Theory of the Leisure Class (1899), in which he sets out the social mechanism of ‘pecuniary emulation.’ Veblen showed that in capitalist societies, the lower and middle classes seldom try to overthrow the leisure class; instead, they admire it, revere it, and indirectly enjoy its way of life, manners, and social status. The Courtier-Populist makes full use of this phenomenon by displaying his connections with billionaires, political powerbrokers, and global oligarchs, thus not alienating the audience but instead fulfilling their desire for vicarious access to sovereign power. People turn to this kind of service provider because the performance meets a deep-rooted desire to feel morally respectable without doing the hard work of studying the system, and to find simple, universal, evidence-based explanations for the anxieties of a civilization in decline.
The Courtier-Populist persists as the final media figure in civilizational decline because the archetype addresses a key structural issue for late capitalism: how to manage public disillusionment without letting it spark systematic resistance. By turning the objective contradictions of an extractive economic system—such as deindustrialization, monopolization, and infrastructure neglect—into a sensationalistic metaphysical spectacle of demonic corruption, this figure channels the working class’s legitimate anger. It disperses it into moralistic, paralyzing panic. The closely linked system of modern data center algorithms, corporate sponsorships, and parasocial intimacy means that both the service provider and the audience are locked in a continuous and profitable interaction: the consumer is freed from the need to carry out empirical investigation, the entertainer gains an unprecedented amount of cultural capital and a sense of sovereign closeness, and the institutional structures responsible for extraction go on working undisturbed behind the veil of an obscure and mysterious cosmic mystery.
Mental and Spiritual Health
Although American culture often turns “wellness” into a lucrative form of self-centered escape, caring for our mental and spiritual health is still essential for survival. If we give up on inner growth just because self-improvement trends have become shallow, we risk falling into cynicism, paralysis, and despair. Real psychological stability is not about always feeling good or avoiding hard truths. Instead, it means building the strength to face a troubled world without falling apart. Keeping a clear mind and steady spirit helps us stay strong, so that our awareness of problems does not turn into hopelessness.
True mental and spiritual strength is the foundation for making good choices and forming real connections with others. When someone is emotionally drained, bullied, exploited, and always on edge, they become helpless. They cannot help build strong communities or stand up to injustice, even if it is killing them. By working on real inner clarity and letting go of blame, status-seeking, and shallow comforts, people can find empathy, integrity, and a sense of shared responsibility again. Taking care of our inner lives is not about escaping reality. It is a way to stay grounded and act wisely and bravely, even when society encourages us to tune out.
“There is no need to pay attention to how we are privatizing city services, siphoning off the rents for ourselves. We know what we’re doing. Stay engaged with your screens and keyboards. Go to the Seahawks training camp and get an autograph from your favorite player. Have fun.”
Cultivating true spiritual hygiene does not require swearing allegiance to a single, rigid dogma; instead, it demands a flexible, imaginative relationship with the mysteries of existence. Secular and mystical metaphysics are often framed as irreconcilable foes, yet when approached with intellectual curiosity, they serve as complementary frameworks that enrich our overall well-being. Secular metaphysics explores the fundamental nature of reality, space, time, causality, and being purely within a natural, empirical, and rational worldview, stripping away supernatural claims, divine intervention, and religious dogma. I have often referred to Jim Rutt’s Minimum Viable Metaphysics in my essays. By allowing the mind to move freely between the poetic awe of mystical traditions and the rigorous grounding of secular thought, we liberate the human imagination, transforming spiritual practice from an insistence on literal belief (belief in belief) into an expansive, creative contemplation of our world and the cosmos.
At its core, secular metaphysics rests upon the principles of naturalism, physicalism, and empirical grounding. It asserts that reality consists entirely of physical elements, natural forces, and universal laws, positioning matter and energy as the foundational baseline of everything that exists. Within this framework, any claims regarding ontology—the study of being and existence—must continuously align with and be informed by scientific discovery rather than divine revelation. What tools have we used for millennia to describe our experience with our world and the “divine”?
Language is a trip.
Crucially, this perspective champions immanence over transcendence. Meaning, order, and value are not handed down from an exalted, supernatural realm; we discover, feel, and construct them directly within the living, material world. Ethics, objective truth, and human purpose derive organically from human nature, social interdependence, and our shared evolutionary history, not from divine decree.
The way secular metaphysics grapples with consciousness offers a particularly fascinating bridge to mystical wonder. Where traditional religious ontology posits a top-down cosmos—viewing reality through a transcendent creator deity who bestows immortal, non-physical souls governed by divine purpose or cosmic fate—secular ontology approaches the mind from the ground up.
In this naturalistic view, consciousness is not a supernatural spark injected into a physical vessel, but an astonishing emergent property of matter organizing itself into breathtaking complexity. Alternatively, many secular thinkers adopt a naturalistic or pantheistic view akin to Baruch Spinoza’s philosophy, in which nature itself serves as the ultimate, self-contained ground of being. Under this lens, subjective awareness is simply the felt, internal experience of the physical universe becoming conscious of itself through biological systems.
Comparing these frameworks reveals that secular naturalism does not drain existence of Mystery; it simply grounds that Mystery in the physical world. Replacing a transcendent divine script with physical causality and probability does not render life meaningless; rather, it highlights the extraordinary improbability of our existence.
Focus More on Compassion
Compassion comes from the Latin roots com-, meaning “with,” and pati or passus, meaning “to suffer” or “to bear.” It literally means “to suffer together” or “to suffer along with” someone else. Instead of just watching someone’s pain from afar, compassion means recognizing another person’s distress and choosing to stand with them. Unlike passive pity or simple empathy, which only reflect what someone else feels, real compassion adds a genuine desire and sense of responsibility to help ease that suffering.
Realizing that human awareness, love, and creativity are emergent flowers growing out of atomic interactions fosters a profound sense of sacred responsibility toward the living world. By integrating secular metaphysics into our spiritual hygiene, we can engage the aesthetic, symbolic richness of mystical thought without forfeiting empirical integrity, using our imagination to find deep, grounded wonder in the living reality of the universe.
Friend: “No dude, it’s all about God loves ME.”
Me: “When we die, we may indeed find out. But until then, God loves the living.”
I have had, and still have, friends who won’t explore these kinds of thought processes with me, as it’s too great a threat to their worldview and therefore too vexing and painful to contemplate. They sometimes get angry, or more often, ignore me altogether.
Conviviality—it’s good and good for you
The social critic Ivan Illich set out the basic structure of conviviality as a radical alternative to industrial enslavement in his important 1973 book, Tools for Conviviality. Illich described conviviality as “individual freedom achieved through personal interdependence and as such an inherent ethical value”, making a clear contrast with the coercive nature of industrial productivity. According to Illich, a “convivial tool” is any instrument, technology, or institution that enhances human agency, community bonding, and creative expression without requiring a class of technocratic managers to run it. He cautions that when tools go beyond a certain level of scale and complexity—when they become what he calls “manipulative tools”—they stop serving humanity and instead turn people into cogs serving the machine. As Illich put it: “I use the term ‘conviviality’ to mean the opposite of industrial productivity. I intend that it should signify autonomous, creative interaction between people and between people and their environment... I regard conviviality as individual freedom realized in personal interdependence.”
Lewis Mumford, an urban philosopher, and E.F. Schumacher, an ecological economist, both criticized large-scale technology, each believing that real conviviality can be achieved only through technology on a human scale. In Technics and Civilization and in his later essays on “Democratic versus Authoritarian Technics”, Mumford argued that democratic technics are human-scaled, depend on local skills, and are, by nature, convivial because they enable decentralized self-governance. By contrast, authoritarian techniques require vast centralized power, involve militarised logistics, and rely on submissive labor forces. Schumacher applied this idea to economics in his book Small Is Beautiful: A Study of Economics As If People Mattered by advocating for “intermediate technology”—that is, tools which are cheap enough for everybody to afford, appropriate for use on a small scale, and in harmony with man’s need for creativity. He firmly believed that “technology must be brought back into a state of harmony with human nature”. He claimed that an economic system based on conviviality does not judge success by the rapid depletion of natural capital but rather by the extent to which work contributes to dignity, community, and joy.
In current pluriversal and ecological thinking, scholars such as Arturo Escobar and botanist Robin Wall Kimmerer go beyond applying conviviality to human societies and include our way of relating to the living biosphere—what Latin American thinkers call convivialidad. In his book Designs for the Pluriverse: Radical Interdependence, Autonomy, and the Making of Worlds, Escobar shows that living convivially requires overcoming the modern idea that humans are separate from nature. He advocates relational ontologies in which human communities develop their tools, farming methods, and social systems through deep, reciprocal dialogue with their local ecosystems. Kimmerer also supports this view in Braiding Sweetgrass, describing conviviality as a “grammar of animacy” and an “honorable harvest,” and viewing technology and culture as guardians of life rather than tools for extraction. From this point of view, conviviality is an ecological necessity: human flourishing can occur only through shared, respectful coexistence with the network of non-human life, not in isolation.
In the end, the international movement associated with The Second Convivialist Manifesto—a document co-authored by figures such as Edgar Morin, Alain Caillé, and Chantal Mouffe—sees conviviality as the essential political philosophy for coping with the Polycrisis. The manifesto describes convivialism as “the art of living together”, offering a framework by which human beings can both compete and cooperate without destroying one another and also learn to care for each other and the Earth. The authors claim that hyper-capitalism, market fundamentalism, and uncontrolled technological acceleration have broken down social ties and pushed the biosphere beyond its sustainable limits. To prevent collapse, convivialism puts forward four fundamental principles: a principle of common humanity, a principle of common sociality (according to which the greatest wealth of human beings consists in the quality of their social relationships), a principle of legitimate opposition, and a principle of hubris-control (a-mesura) which establishes strict upper limits on both wealth and power. In a world moving rapidly toward biophysical breakdown, conviviality is not a gentle, nostalgic ideal but a strict, life-affirming discipline for creating resilient communities from the ruins of industrial hubris.
5. Radical Theology & The Imperative of Action
What Did Jesus Want?
I have a lot of Christian friends who I hope won’t be threatened by exploring the broader implications of the “greatest story ever told.” But, well, you know, sectarian violence, competition, and conflict are still a thing. The Seven Deadly Sins are still with us. We are all vulnerable. People still talk about evil.
I also notice, as a sports fan, that many disciplined athletes often mention that they could not have performed so well or achieved so much without their Lord and Savior. Of course, some athletes appreciate the support of other gods, and even those who, like secular metaphysicians, are quite happy to be thankful for other, more terrestrial forces and serendipity.
“I’d like to thank my team, coaches, and my family for allowing me to do what I love and become a champion. I could not have done it without all the support I’ve had from many communities I’ve known throughout my life.” —Secular Gold Medal Winner
Still, I like to wonder.
I think that to understand what Jesus Christ wanted, one must strip away centuries of imperial theology and look directly at a first-century “Homeland” Jew confronting the brutal realities of Roman occupation and religious elitism. We must also confront people’s stories (literary criticism) of a first-century “Homeland” Jew and the cultural motivations of the storytellers (who they may have been).
The Jesus I interact with is a guy named Joshua. I wonder what I might have thought if I had been there in his time.
Where did Joshua live?
In the first century CE, Jews living in their ancestral homeland probably did not call the region “Palestine” in everyday life. Instead, they used Hebrew and Aramaic names, referring to the area as Eretz Yisrael (the Land of Israel) or by specific regions like Yehudah (Judea), Ha-Galil (Galilee), and Peraea (Perea). After Herod Archelaus was removed from power in 6 CE, the Romans designated the main southern region as the province of Iudaea, which a Roman prefect or procurator administered under the Syrian legate. The Greek term Palaistinē, derived from the ancient Philistines, was sometimes used by Hellenistic Jewish writers such as Philo and Josephus when writing in Greek for wider audiences. Still, it was a regional label rather than an official or local name. (Like the label America.) Thus, for a long time, many referred to people living in the region as Palatinians. The Romans did not rename the province Syria Palaestina until 135 CE, during Emperor Hadrian’s rule, more than a century after Jesus lived. This change was intended to sever the administrative link between the land and Jewish identity after the Bar Kokhba Revolt.
In the first century, Jews lived in many places around the world, with historians estimating their total population at about four to six million. The global population in the first century CE (around the year 1 CE) was approximately 170 million to 300 million people. Approximately 3.53% of 170 million. Of these, only one to two million lived in their ancestral homeland, mainly in Judea and Galilee. Judea was the center of Jewish religious, political, and social life, focused on Jerusalem and the Second Temple. Galilee was mostly rural and agricultural. Perea and Idumea also had large Jewish communities, creating a network of local groups across the Southern Levant, connected by shared religious duties, Temple taxes, and traditions.
Most Jews in the first century lived outside their homeland, spread across the Roman and Parthian Empires. In the east, a long-standing Jewish community lived in Babylonia under Parthian rule, descended from exiles in the sixth century BCE and known for its scholarship, independent of Roman influence. In the west, Egypt had one of the largest Jewish populations, especially in Alexandria, where Jews made up about a third of the city’s people and where the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible (the Septuagint) was created. Large Jewish communities also existed in Syria and Asia Minor, with cities like Antioch, Damascus, and Ephesus home to important synagogue networks. In Southern Europe, Rome itself had an estimated 30,000 to 50,000 Jews, spread across at least a dozen synagogues.
We have so many more tools to parse this kind of information than people had a couple of hundred years ago. Arguably, Jesus did not seek to establish a global bureaucratic religion, nor did he offer a passive, otherworldly escape from human suffering. Instead, he proclaimed the immediate, lived inauguration of the “Kingdom of God”—a radical, subversive vision of what human society would look like if God, rather than Caesar or corrupt local elites, were directly in charge. As theologian Howard Thurman observed in Jesus and the Disinherited, “Jesus was a poor Jew, an insider to a group that was an outsider to the Roman Empire,” and his entire ministry operated as an ethical handbook for those living with their backs against the wall. He was a radical Jew precisely because he operated within the fierce tradition of the Hebrew prophets, aiming at a culture that had substituted rigid purity codes, institutional commerce, and legalistic piety for basic mercy and social justice. In the words of historical Jesus scholar John Dominic Crossan, Jesus offered a “radical egalitarianism” that challenged the entire imperial order, weaponizing table fellowship with tax collectors, prostitutes, and outcasts to dismantle a socio-religious system that treated the poor as religiously unclean and economically disposable.
“Daddy, what does Amalek mean?”
The ethics Jesus championed were fundamentally revolutionary, rooted in a non-violent inversion of worldly power that demanded the total transformation of human relationships. In the Sermon on the Mount, he did not preach submission to tyranny; he outlined a sophisticated strategy of moral resistance that disarmed oppressors by exposing their cruelty. As Leo Tolstoy argued in The Kingdom of God Is Within You, Jesus's core ethics—loving one’s enemies, forgiving debts, rejecting retaliation, and serving the marginalized—were not impractical ideals but mandatory commands designed to break the endless cycle of human violence. Scholar Marcus Borg noted that Jesus perceived a profound sickness in his culture’s “purity system,” which used religious law to categorize people into clean and unclean, rich and blessed, poor and cursed. Jesus replaced this exclusionary purity system with a “compassion system,” asserting that holiness is measured not by ritual washings or temple sacrifices, but by how a society feeds the hungry, clothes the naked, and cares for the sick.
Joseph Henrich (Human Evolutionary Biologist & Author)
“Our secret is not our individual intelligence, but our collective brains. We are a cultural species... We survive and thrive not because of our raw innate brainpower, but because we can incrementally learn from others across generations, accumulating tools, concepts, and practices that no single individual could invent in a lifetime.” — The Secret of Our Success: How Culture Is Driving Human Evolution
Michael Tomasello (Developmental & Comparative Psychologist)
“To an extent unprecedented in the animal kingdom, human beings are adapted for culture... Human cognition is a collective enterprise. Individual humans are not smart enough to invent language, math, science, or complex technology on their own; we inherit these tools from the collective wisdom of generations through shared intentionality.” — A Natural History of Human Thinking
Yuval Noah Harari (Historian & Author)
“Homo sapiens rules the world because we are the only animal that can cooperate flexibly in large numbers. You can’t convince a monkey to give you a banana by promising him limitess bananas after death in monkey heaven. But humans can build massive cooperative structures—cities, armies, empires—because we construct and share stories.” — Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind
Sarah Blaffer Hrdy (Evolutionary Anthropologist & Primatologist)
“Cooperative breeding—where mothers rely on alloparents (grandmothers, fathers, siblings, and non-relatives) to help care for and feed infants—was the initial evolutionary step that set early human ancestors on a unique trajectory. It forced us to become hyper-sensitive to the intentions and emotions of others, birthing human empathy and mind-reading.” — Mothers and Others: The Evolutionary Origins of Mutual Understanding
E.O. Wilson (Sociobiologist & Evolutionary Theorist)
“In a group, selfish individuals beat altruistic individuals. But groups of altruistic individuals beat groups of selfish individuals. Our species’ evolutionary history is a constant tension between individual self-interest and the group-level cohesion required to conquer hostile environments.” — The Social Conquest of Earth
Robert Boyd and Peter J. Richerson (Anthropologists & Cultural Evolutionists)
“Culture is as much a part of human biology as our bones or our bipedal locomotion. Humans are uniquely adapted to rely on culturally acquired information. We do not survive by instinct or solitary problem-solving; we survive because our species evolved the capacity to copy, teach, and refine group knowledge over time.” — Not By Genes Alone: How Culture Transformed Human Evolution
The profound surprise and persistent doubt of the disciples following the resurrection—despite having witnessed numerous miracles—reveals a deep historical and psychological truth about first-century Jewish worldview and human cognition. In ancient Judea, as New Testament historian N.T. Wright points out that “miracles,” such as healings or driving out spirits, were understood as signs of prophetic power. Still, no Jew expected a single individual to rise permanently from the dead in the middle of ongoing history. In Jewish apocalyptic theology, resurrection (anastasis) was understood exclusively as a collective, end-of-time event when God would judge the entire world and restore creation all at once. When Jesus was brutally executed on a Roman cross—a public humiliation meant to prove his failure as a messianic figure—one can imagine that his followers suffered profound trauma and cognitive dissonance. An individual resurrecting while the Roman Empire remained firmly in power was so far outside their conceptual framework that witnessing the empty tomb or encountering the risen Christ produced shock, fear, and intellectual paralysis rather than immediate, easy belief.
This call to moral transformation and cosmic accountability is not unique to Jesus, but resonates deeply across global wisdom traditions. In comparative religious study, the ethical frameworks of Jesus, the Buddha, Lao Tzu, and Socrates converge on a singular realization: humanity cannot survive without moral stewardship, mutual compassion, and the dismantling of the selfish ego. In Living Buddha, Living Christ, Zen master Thich Nhat Hanh observed that both Jesus and the Buddha recognized that suffering springs from ignorance and self-centeredness, and both insisted that true enlightenment or salvation manifests as active, loving engagement with the world. Karen Armstrong, in her study of the “Axial Age” in The Great Transformation, demonstrated that ancient spiritual figures independently arrived at the Golden Rule not as a mystical abstraction, but as an urgent evolutionary imperative. Whether expressed through the Buddhist concept of Ahimsa (non-harming) or Jesus’s commandment to love one’s neighbor, these teachers understood that we are fundamentally bound to one another and that an unbridled pursuit of power and greed inevitably leads to societal self-destruction.
From the article:
As Hannah Hartley writes this month for the Rumi Forum’s Center for Faith Identity & Globalization, “Christianity is not growing among Gen Z in any meaningful aggregate sense. It is consolidating, becoming smaller in total membership, more male, more politically conservative, and more legible as a vehicle for political identity.” The clickbait mirage of religious revival has obscured these very real trends for years, forestalling a more relevant and important conversation about the role Christianity plays in American politics and culture. And that conversation is worth having for several reasons, not least of which is that it underscores the deep ambivalence and ambiguity of Jesus as a figure in our cultural history. Hartley’s claim that Christianity has become a way of communicating one’s political identity tracks recent conversations on the “casinofication of the church” in the United States. To discuss this phenomenon, The Atlantic’s McKay Coppins recently interviewed theologian Russell Moore, the editor of Christianity Today and formerly president of the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission. After reading Coppins’s story on gambling’s socially disastrous takeover of sports, Moore applied this idea of casinofication to the church, arguing that just as “the love of the sport itself was transformed by it becoming a vehicle for gambling,” the church and the gospel of Jesus have become instrumental means to some other end:
The gospel and the church become carriers for what we already care about on our own individual or tribal terms. When the gospel becomes a tool—for culture war, institutional survival, partisan politics, and personal brand—its relevance feels sharp and immediate. The things I already care about are being addressed. But the slow formation of intuitions, instincts, and affections is being hollowed out.
But during the interview, Moore drew an inapt comparison between current dynamics within the evangelical movement and the mainline Protestant churches during the civil rights era. The words of Jesus clearly carry a revolutionary social, political and economic message, just not in the sense of violent revolution. Sociologist and pastor Ryan Burge hit much closer to the mark in a recent interview when he remarked that “mainline churches have ‘long been a great mixing of American life,’ noting that in the postwar era Republicans and Democrats, liberals and conservatives, could be found sharing a pew on Sundays.” Burge also argues that popular reports of a spiritual revival in the country are based largely on vibes: “American Christianity is losing ground, with older and whiter congregations—heavily skewed towards conservative politics—often closer to dying than experiencing long-term growth.” He says that if there is a religious upswell to be found in America, then “it’s not a blue-collar revival,” “with church attendance skewed towards upwardly mobile professionals with a conservative bent.” The interview observes that “[t]he 19th-century reform movement sparked by Protestant clergy who proclaimed the social Gospel is now labeled as heresy in many evangelical pulpits.” The ideas of that movement became integral to the causes of peace and slavery abolition.
Americans are perpetually obsessed with the connection between Christianity and political and popular culture. Even among the secular, atheists, and agnostics, there seems to be a deep and enduring sense that the political and economic system requires some kind of spiritual validation or rationalization. But our ongoing obsession with reading Christianity and Jesus himself through the lens of our country’s toxic, superficial culture functions as an impediment to encountering the more radical traditions that are far more faithful to Jesus’s teachings. This cultural overlay (of, for example, figures like John Wayne, even of Trump depicting himself as Jesus) obscures the historical Jesus. It isn’t that American Jesus is a slight twist on the real, historical one; this American Jesus functions structurally as a total replacement, a cultural and political proxy representing and serving the very systems of power and injustice opposed by the real Jesus. The real Jesus implored people to give away their wealth, to reject even self-defense, and to live in open, active love and solidarity with social outcasts, a moral system that completely inverts the religious, social, and political system of purity, power, and prestige.
America and the Two Jesuses
What is perhaps most striking about the discourse on Christianity in our country is how little any of it has to do with the actual teachings of Jesus himself. His words have arguably been the ultimate casualty of our country’s obsession with Christianity’s place in culture and politics. When we talk about Christianity in our culture and politics, Americans want to talk about everything but what Jesus taught, perhaps because what he taught is so inconvenient for mainstream political narratives. Indeed, America’s current relationship with Christianity seems to discard the real Jesus almost entirely in its fixation on purity, rules, revenge, and ritualized political violence. American evangelicals in particular seem to have created a convoluted, identity culture-driven worldview that is actively hostile to the historical and philosophical Jesus.
American culture has preserved the name of Jesus as a brand identity even as it forgets his values. The truth is that the real Jesus cannot be made compatible with either our culture or its social, economic, and political system. But the casinofication of Christianity in the U.S. has meant that the cultural proxy version of Jesus, American Jesus, is fully integrated into the political-economic system and the authoritarian state apparatus. We have Jesus as a thin marketing cover for the status quo. Americans today cannot encounter the real Jesus because our social mainstream, including the church, constantly erects barriers to any genuine confrontation with what is a deeply challenging and revolutionary message. If the church is actually emptying out, not in a period of revival, then it is due to its saturation with an American culture that worships concentrated wealth, size and speed for their own sake, and the grotesque mass-violence of the modern imperial state. It’s hard to imagine anything but a hollowing out of communal spiritual life when Jesus’s subversive, counter-cultural demands are swapped out for a transactional and casinofied religion that serves to sacralize the power and greed of a tiny ruling class. No one will come to American Jesus, to thin blue line Jesus, to MAGA Jesus. Why would they? What is the lasting appeal of hate-your-neighborism? If American Jesus is the god of the privileged and powerful, where is the god of the poor and powerless today?
My kind of Christian
Wendell Berry and the Sacred Stewardship of Creation
Wendell Berry believes the Earth is a “conditional gift” and therefore humans ought to care for it through stewardship, love, and local knowledge rather than subject it to industrial exploitation. In a worldview in which all of creation is regarded as holy, environmental destruction is not merely an error from an administrative or economic standpoint, but is in fact ‘desecration’ and ‘blasphemy’ against a world which must be treated as a sacrament.
Right Action Over Success
Rather than judge our actions by the standards of the industrial world or ask whether humanity will some day ‘succeed’ in saving the planet, Berry believes that the only proper question is: “What is the right thing to do? What does this Earth need from us if we are to go on living upon it?” Acting upon this fundamental duty, Berry takes on the role of the “mad farmer”—a determined, contrary sort of person filled with “fits and furies” who opposes technocratic “experts” and who tills the land “by incantation and by singing.” Although collective action and influence are necessary to stop those who exploit the world for profit, his radicalism is clearly non-violent: such stopping must never be carried out by violence.
Critique of Industrial Capitalism and Corporate “Persons”
Berry offers an uncompromising indictment of industrial capitalism and corporate governance:
Technology’s purpose is to substitute human labor with technology, so Berry regards it as contemptible that politicians are surprised by present-day unemployment.
The notion of treating corporations as persons—something which he terms “fictitious persons”—is wrong. It is fundamentally unnatural that a group of people should come together to form a single moral human person. These organizations frequently gain influence in state governments (for example, coal interests in Kentucky), which means the institutions can no longer engage in genuine dialogue.
The logic of extraction: modern capitalism has a natural logic which gives it the right to take as much as it wants by means already at its disposal. This attitude naturally results in soil erosion, biodiversity loss, the wasteful use of fossil fuels, and a greater "profitability of war."
Ecological Crisis and Civil Disobedience
After sacred systems are ruined, gentle advocacy is not enough. In 2011, when the traditional methods of addressing the problem—such as dialogue, writing, and legal action—had failed to curb pollution in eastern Kentucky watersheds, Berry took part in a four-day sit-in at the Kentucky Governor's office to oppose mountaintop-removal coal mining. Because of environmental signs such as the disappearance of the native black willows along the Kentucky River, Berry warns that the ecological decline is so severe that the land will soon be unable to support human life.
The Resettling of America and Sustainable Farming
To counter the unsettling effects of industrial agriculture, Berry and Wes Jackson proposed a “50-Year Farm Bill.” This scheme aims to remedy the "destructive ratio" that arises when too few people are responsible for large areas of land; this imbalance leads to reliance on toxic chemicals, heavy machinery, and the confinement of animals.
True sustainability lies in returning to small-scale, diverse farming so enough people can work the land and care for it properly; the author offers practical, ethical alternatives to industrial monoculture, such as local farmers Jonas Hurley and Arthur Young.
Rather than using synthetic fertilizers, use worm castings and animal manures.
Use movable fencing so the animals can graze on new pasture frequently.
Use as little violence as possible when raising the animals.
We are moving towards a range of agricultural systems which offer local employment and supply the community with food.
Place-Based Hope, Love, and Grace
To Berry, love is a “sacrament”. It entails a strict obligation to take personal responsibility—a principle he has practiced for 50 years on his farm in Kentucky and over 57 years of marriage. True hope cannot be derived from abstract optimism, political promises, or official grants; on the contrary, real hope is disciplined and firmly grounded ‘in the soil beneath your feet’, arising out of a feeling of belonging to, knowing, and caring for a specific place in a way that ‘can never be taken away from you by power or by wealth’. Lastly, leadership arises from the bottom up when people see what needs to be done and begin to carry it out. Spiritual freedom is attained by coming to the “peace of the wild things” and by understanding that the Earth is maintained by a grace far greater than any human foresight.
Arthur Schopenhauer’s Metaphysical Critique of Religion, Empire, and Human Agency
Arthur Schopenhauer’s philosophical critique of the Judeo-Christian worldview broadens our examination of human narrative, imperial ideology, and moral responsibility. Schopenhauer did not merely reject Abrahamic theology as wrong metaphysics, but saw it as an anthropocentric system designed to alleviate the terror of existence and to justify human dominance. Because primitive nature is indifferent, human self-deception turns natural suffering into deliberate cruelty. Through ideas such as Manifest Destiny, the Monroe Doctrine, and the “City upon a Hill,” Uncle Sam Inc.’s governing oligarchic institutions instill a unique religious populism to carry out and excuse systemic violence. Genuine moral maturity consists in giving up comfortable dogmas, facing the cold indifference of physics, and accepting full responsibility for human cruelty in a fragile and improbable cosmos. How we interpret stories says a lot about how we have been conditioned and who we think we are.
The Metaphysical Foundation: The Question of Free Will and Representation
Schopenhauer’s criticism is based on his epistemological distinction between the world as it appears to human perception (phenomena) and the world as it exists in itself (noumenon). The world as a collection of individual objects, people, and events is an illusion regulated by space, time, and causality—what Schopenhauer calls the Principium Individuationis. Underlying this illusory appearance is reality’s true nature: a single, undifferentiated, insatiable force known as the Universal Will to Live. This Will is not rational and not benevolent; it is a blind, continuous striving with no higher purpose that appears as an infinite, self-consuming conflict among all living beings. That’s one way to describe reality, facets that reflect particular values, quite different from the man above.
The sovereignty of pain and the illusion of joy
Instead of the theological view of optimism, Schopenhauer maintains that suffering is the fundamental reality of existence, whereas joy is only an illusion. Since pleasure is essentially negative, it consists merely in the temporary elimination of a painful lack or desire. When a craving is fulfilled, consciousness does not achieve lasting peace; instead, it is instantly replaced by a new desire or sinks into deep, paralyzing boredom. Pain, on the other hand, is positive and real, demanding immediate attention and revealing the complete vulnerability of biological life. The physical universe operates on a very narrow margin, constructed just sufficiently to survive, so any slight increase in the system’s fragility would result in total collapse. You can’t ignore a toothache or a volcanic eruption, and we can’t ignore anthropogenic global heating that will, year after year, cause more pain and suffering to more people while it devastates ecosystems.
The Liturgy of the Slaughterhouse: Nature as Evidence
To understand the true character of the cosmic order, Schopenhauer encourages us to move away from incense-filled cathedrals and instead look at the intense horror inherent in the biological state. Nature functions as a self-consuming nightmare in which the survival of one conscious being necessarily involves the violent destruction and consumption of another. The imbalance in experience within this system is deeply upsetting: the brief and temporary pleasure enjoyed by the predator is far outdone by the long-lasting, inexpressible suffering of the prey as it is torn apart alive. Moreover, the human body itself proves that the universe was not designed by a benevolent creator, since it was constructed as a weak arena in which disease, cancer, and systemic failure can thrive—something that would cause any reasonable designer to be judged as having acted with gross negligence.
“My Kind of Christian”: The Heretical Ethic of Compassion
Before tearing down religious institutions, Schopenhauer identifies a key element in early Christian thought that corresponds to his pessimistic philosophy: the ascetic image of Jesus of Nazareth. In Schopenhauer’s view, Christ does not signify an incarnation of an imperial god, but rather stands as a powerful symbol of the denial of the Will to Live—a heroic individual who willingly gives up self-interest and attachment to the material world. This radical ethic is evident among the early Christian ascetics, the Desert Fathers, and the mystics such as Meister Eckhart, who, in keeping with Eastern traditions, rejected power, wealth, and egoism. Yet Schopenhauer noted that this genuine spiritual insight was fundamentally undermined when Christianity became a state religion supported by the empire, replacing the radical, self-sacrificing empathy with a focus on institutional control and political, military, and economic pressure. Uncle Sam Inc. is a cruel man of God, wrathful, jealous, megalomaniacal, hubristic, vainglorious, and greedy. He will not stop his predatory, parasitic conquering of people and living systems until the world is a dead machine. Even the Christian Zionist Players within the Empire and its vassal states and global corporations relish mass death and violent judgment. They have no patience for life.
Ideological justification, the myth of empire, and the monopoly on cruelty
The human mind can create complex narratives that turn self-serving biological instincts into sacred obligations. As the anthropologist Ernest Becker pointed out in his book The Denial of Death, cultural mythologies act as a means of coping with the fear of death. Schopenhauer had already reached this conclusion, showing that the human intellect is nothing but an instrument used by the blind Will, producing moral excuses after the impulse has already taken place.
When Abrahamic beliefs are applied to statecraft, they become powerful tools for imperial control. Doctrines like Manifest Destiny and the idea of the ‘City upon a Hill’ give governing oligarchies a divine right to control both resources and populations. By presenting conquest and economic exploitation as sacred duties aimed at achieving freedom or establishing divine order, the ruling elite cause citizens to carry out systemic violence without making them question the moral aspect of the empire. This human-centered view of the world assigns no intrinsic value to nature or non-human life, providing an ideological justification for uncontrolled environmental destruction.
We must clearly distinguish between natural suffering and moral evil: physics is not cruel, lions are not cruel, but humans deliberately choose to be, or are forced to be, cruel. Gravity, disease, and predators operate by physical laws or biological necessity. Homo sapiens have the capacity for conscious action, imagination, and moral judgment that enables true cruelty—namely, intentionally causing suffering while being aware of the pain the victim is experiencing. As Mark Twain famously stated in The Lowest Animal, Homo sapiens is the only animal that inflicts pain simply for the sake of pleasure or because of ideological conformity, regularly justifying its most terrible actions through the use of religious faith, bigotry, and exceptionalism. Europeans seeking opportunity and religious freedom migrated to the American continent and established a powerful culture of invention and cruelty. Its system of government, a constitutional federal republic, is a marvel in how it has allowed peaceful coexistence among States across a vast, resource-rich continent and beyond. After WWII, the United States adeptly consolidated its global hegemony and let its cruelty fully express itself. Its leaders are convinced that the millions of deaths caused by its military interventions across the globe since WWII are completely justified.
The masses remain enthusiastic patriots regardless of their hardships, and those who benefit from The Great Game 21st Century would rather see the end of life on Earth than stop playing their cruel status games.
A critique of the Old Testament and tribalism
Schopenhauer attributes the origins of Western anthropocentrism directly to the tribal beliefs set out in the Old Testament. He does not see the biblical God Yahweh as a universal spirit of love, but as a volatile monarch with human defects such as jealousy, anger, and a demand for sacrificial obedience. Because God is placed completely outside of nature and humans are given absolute control over the Earth, this view removes the sacred character from the natural environment. It breaks the intuitive connection that exists between human beings and the rest of the living world. The covenants in these ancient scriptures were mostly materialistic and transactional, offering worldly wealth, agricultural prosperity, and victory over tribal enemies rather than spiritual enlightenment or universal compassion.
DJT is not an anomaly; he is a perfect example of the culture’s ancient values. Those who loathe him are mostly influenced by style over substance, as their heroes, though more subtle in their behavior, are no less destructive.
The Paradox Involving Sin, Free Will, and Divine Judgment
A key aspect of Schopenhauer’s criticism is the logical impossibility of human guilt in a created world, as expressed in the scholastic saying that action follows being—operari sequitur esse. An entity acts in accordance with its essential nature; a wolf kills because it is a wolf, and a faulty mechanism breaks down because of its design. To protect the creator from responsibility, theologians developed the idea of free will, but Schopenhauer rejects this escape by pointing out that although a person can carry out what they wish, they cannot choose what they wish. Human actions are therefore the necessary outcome of an internal character which is not chosen and which reacts to external motives. It thus amounts to a serious logical and moral contradiction to have created fragile beings, placed them in a dangerous world designed to bring out their weaknesses, and then sent them to eternal punishment. It’s patently absurd. Thank God for the Theory of Evolution.
The transformation of myth into metaphysics
Even though he rejected dogmatic theology, Schopenhauer did not regard religious stories as completely without value, preferring to convert them into metaphysical truths. He saw the Fall of Man as an allegory illustrating the assertion of the Will to Live—that is, the point at which conscious life decided on self-preservation and sexual reproduction, thus continuing the cycle of existential suffering. Original Sin expresses an instinctive realization that human existence is from the beginning flawed and encumbered. Salvation is instead understood not as living eternally in a heavenly paradise, but as the simple rejection of the Will, meaning the stopping of personal desire, the ego, and striving, which leads to a state of peaceful tranquility similar to the Buddhist idea of Nirvana. We can all learn from Great Nature and gracefully accept our place within it as loving stewards of living systems.
The Awakening: A transition from mythical comfort to fragile agency
The key step towards true human maturity is to break down the protective religious myths. By letting go of the false idea of a benevolent cosmic guardian, people must face a vast, indifferent universe that operates by physical laws alone. Instead of falling into nihilism, realizing how rare, fragile, and unlikely our existence is leads to deep amazement and a sense of responsibility. In a universe with no divine interference, humans must understand that no heavenly power will alleviate human suffering. As political theorist Hannah Arendt noted about personal responsibility, when people can no longer rely on institutional excuses, they are fully responsible for their actions.
Today we can look to Bernardo Kastrup, David Benatar, Thomas Ligotti, Karim Akerma, David Bather Woods, Christopher Janaway, and Sandra Shapshay for thoughts and ideas along these lines.
The theme of removing institutional excuses to reveal personal responsibility is fundamental in existential philosophy, political ethics, and literature.
Jean-Paul Sartre and the Agony of Radical Freedom
In Being and Nothingness, Sartre stated that human beings are “condemned to be free,” implying that no external authority, whether divine or based on institutional hierarchy, can take away an individual’s responsibility. He called mauvaise foi (bad faith) the self-deception of hiding behind social roles, bureaucratic arrangements, or deterministic excuses—for example, by saying one was “only carrying out orders” or “simply playing one’s assigned part”. According to Sartre, using institutional expectations as a defense evades existential truth, since each individual can always refuse; therefore, obeying an institution is a deliberate personal choice for which the individual must be fully accountable.
Karl Jaspers on the Primacy of Individual Guilt
In The Question of German Guilt, the psychiatrist and philosopher Karl Jaspers clearly rejected the argument that obedience to state authority or the law releases the individual from responsibility. When looking at the moral situation after World War II, Jaspers distinguished between political liability and moral and metaphysical guilt. He maintained that although the state is answerable in a political sense, the individual’s conscience cannot pass on its moral duty to the government. Because an order cannot excuse an action that breaches fundamental ethical principles, Jaspers asserted that bureaucratic instructions do not eliminate personal responsibility; if the state demands cruelty, the person who carries it out is fully responsible.
Václav Havel and the Architecture of Compliance
In The Power of the Powerless, the political philosopher and dissident Václav Havel showed that oppressive institutions depend on the passive acceptance of ordinary people who act as if they have no power. To illustrate this point, he described a greengrocer who regularly puts a state-imposed ideological slogan in his shop window. Rather than remaining a simple onlooker, the greengrocer actively reproduces and legitimizes the oppressive system by complying with its rituals. Havel maintained that institutional power is an illusion sustained by individual decisions, and that personal responsibility arises when one chooses to “live in truth” by refusing to act as an instrument of systemic deceit.
Simone de Beauvoir’s Critique of the “Serious Man”
In The Ethics of Ambiguity, Simone de Beauvoir focused on what she called “the serious man”—a person who avoids the anxiety of making personal choices by giving up his autonomy for an external doctrine, a nation, or an institution. He treats institutional aims as absolute values and thus hands over his moral judgment to a cause, becoming an unconcerned instrument of violence. Beauvoir presents this way of thinking as a cowardly form of defense; when the sacred belief in an institution’s moral correctness is removed, the individual remains personally responsible for every harm done in the organization’s name.
Leo Tolstoy and the Deception of State Hypnosis
In The Kingdom of God Is Within You, Leolaunchedy launched a strong critique of how state, military, and religious organizations manipulate an individual’s moral conscience. He maintained that complex hierarchies are deliberately set up to divide people and spread out the sense of responsibility so that no single bureaucrat, judge, or soldier ends up personally liable for the systemic violence. Tolstoy claimed that no uniform, statute, oath, or flag can disconnect a human being from moral responsibility and therefore concluded that once the excuses of institutional duty are removed, each person becomes directly accountable for the harm they cause to another living being.
We are the only ones who can bestow mercy in this cold universe and therefore have the duty to comfort each other and to control our own powerful capacity for cruelty.
Ultimately, these narratives of transcendence cannot be detached from real-world culture, historical context, and biological reality. Human beings are social primates evolved for cooperation, empathy, and collective meaning, yet our innate capacities for tribalism, dominance, and resource hoarding constantly threaten us. The revolutionary genius of figures like Jesus and the Buddha was their ability to frame biological (of course they didn’t have the vocabulary we do today) and social necessity in the language of the sacred (what other language?), transforming the basic requirement of human cooperation into a divine mandate. Transcendence, in this light, is not an escape from our physical bodies or the planetary ecosystem, but an awakening to our deepest responsibilities within them. By insisting that we act as morally accountable stewards of life, these ancient traditions remind us that our survival has always depended on our willingness to see the sacred in the mundane, to care for the vulnerable, and to ground our loftiest spiritual ideals in the daily, practical work of being good to one another.
Of course, who really knows how people thought back then. I often wonder how my closest friends think. Joshua didn’t have a Substack.
What troubles me most, and the reason I keep bringing these things up everywhere all the time, is my sense that even with all the information and tools at our disposal, people don’t have ‘the right stuff,’ if you will, to take political action and put our world on track for a less destructive and tragic future. And, to use a cute cliché, the future is now. We need to strengthen our connections to our local and global communities. One more: act locally, think globally (in every sense). We need more than education; we need civic-mindedness and political action to fight the inertia of accelerationist oligarchs.
All spiritual teachers are active, and they all teach social responsibility and love of life.
Apathy around and find out.
I have a good friend who is very focused on spirituality and recently sent me the mandala below along with some bible verses. I believe it’s important to maintain one’s spiritual hygiene, especially when life feels uncertain, and things are complicated and exacerbated by complex, almost incomprehensible systems. I’m grateful for people who care about mental health and spiritual well-being. I often reflect on mandalas as part of my own ‘spiritual’ routine, and I find the ones my friend makes especially inspiring.
Developed by “SDS”
What is Secular Spirituality?
Secular spirituality is about finding inner peace, meaning, and connection without turning to religion or supernatural beliefs. It centers on how people relate to themselves, others, nature, and the universe, rather than seeking a bond with a higher power. This approach draws on philosophy, psychology, empathy, imagination, creativity, and science to understand meaning and ethics rather than relying on sacred texts. It aligns well with scientific thinking and rejects magical or otherworldly explanations. Instead of traditional prayer, people often use mindfulness and meditation to support emotional balance and focus. They also find awe and grounding through art, quiet reflection, and spending time in nature. Practitioners aim to live by humanistic values like compassion, patience, and social responsibility, helping others and seeking a fulfilling life.
Buckle up, we’re going to need that mandala—more musings on existential risk.
Kevin Anderson, once a petroleum engineer and now a climate scientist, stands out for his willingness to face existential risks head-on. He left a comfortable career designing fossil fuel infrastructure to lead climate research at the Tyndall Center. Anderson regularly challenges the comforting myths about global climate solutions. He openly criticizes academic and political leaders who rely on unproven negative-emission technologies and questionable carbon accounting, arguing that these approaches lead people to believe we can avoid disaster without changing how economies grow. Anderson says, “nature cannot be fooled,” and believes that wealthy countries must initiate an immediate emergency energy transition rather than relying on market-friendly solutions. He warns, “Either we organize a rapid, fair transformation of society, or climate change forces chaotic, violent change upon us instead.” For me, energy transition means a radical new way of living and organizing large communities.
I have said the same things for twenty years, and I am not an expert. From my reading and limited understanding of how civilization and nature work, it seems intuitively obvious. For years, people looked at me like I was crazy to be so concerned; many still do.
“Just get on with it, there’s nothing you can do about it.”
Anderson’s direct approach stands out against the common tendency to seek comfort, certainty, and self-importance. While he calls on wealthy, high-emitting groups to shoulder their larger share of responsibility and reduce their consumption, most people instead choose to protect their own comfort. The reality of ecological collapse is hard to accept and creates strong inner conflict, as it challenges people’s need to feel good and see themselves as innocent. Sorry if I sound repetitive, but this observation frustrates me. As a result, many affluent individuals ignore troubling facts and turn to consumer distractions, wellness trends, or technological hopes to maintain their current way of life. By focusing on personal comfort rather than broader issues, the public often treats a serious crisis as just another minor science and engineering problem to ignore.
Many experts and policymakers have known for a long time, and we have done nothing. People believe the narratives they want to believe and ignore those that make them uncomfortable.
This widespread psychological paralysis helps explain why many top climate experts and “doomers” feel deeply pessimistic about the chances for large-scale action or real change. Scholars like Anderson argue that thirty years of climate talks have become, in his words, “a grand unifying delusion,” in which institutions prioritize public image and economic convenience over careful analysis and honest discussion. This is why I often comment on videos like the one below: knowing what’s what is not enough. When scientific models show that staying within safe carbon limits requires immediate, dramatic lifestyle changes for the world’s wealthy, the mainstream climate community often softens its findings to fit current economic systems. This ongoing refusal to give up comfort, question market dominance, or accept personal sacrifice leads many analysts to believe that people will not willingly change their way of life. As a result, chaotic collapse may become the likely outcome if humanity keeps avoiding hard choices.
From the article:
“I feel like we are working out here on the marginalized fringe, and we’re sort of pushed more to work with grassroots groups, local communities, scientists, and people who aren’t beholden to their big climate donors [like other environmental groups],” Cunningham of Basin and Range Watch said. “[Energy developers] call this a wasteland, like there’s no biodiversity, and we push back against that. We support photovoltaic solar panels, first on rooftops, parking lot canopies, or on really disturbed ground. But this desert has life. The very, very bottom of the list [for solar development] should be public lands. Ecosystems built on utility-scale solar projects are the last thing we should support in the fight against climate change.”
Action, no action
Before addressing my friend’s questions, I want to explore why it’s so hard for people to take action when they know what the problems are and what to do about them, and when they consider themselves morally responsible, scientifically literate, with evidence-based opinions, critically minded, and spiritually connected to the divine.
The Psychology of Inaction
People usually do not ignore existential threats just because they are lazy or uninformed. More often, inaction comes from a complex set of psychological defense mechanisms. When faced with large-scale dangers such as climate change, habitat destruction, economic precarity, or uncontrolled, unregulated, undemocratic artificial intelligence that emerges from energy-power-and-resource-intensive industrial data centers, our minds use these defenses to protect our sense of control, moral values, and emotional balance.
People are naturally driven to seek pleasure and avoid psychological pain. We tend to prefer stories that make us feel capable, positive, and morally good. When we face frightening or complex information that we cannot easily resolve, dealing with it can feel like a threat to our emotional well-being. As a result, ignoring uncomfortable truths is not a sign of intellectual weakness, but a way to protect ourselves emotionally.
Psychological tension is strongest when people see that their own culture, lifestyle, and economic systems contribute to the “polycrisis.” Realizing that our comfort, progress, and daily routines lead to ecological damage or technological risks creates deep cognitive dissonance. This is the conflict between believing “I am a good person” and knowing “my way of life causes harm.” Instead of changing their minds and behaviors, or accepting a modicum of responsibility, many people cope by minimizing the crisis, blaming others, or ignoring the science.
“I don’t like you. What an idiot! I don’t like your worldview.”
Today, political attacks on science are clear in deep research budget cuts, censorship of climate and health data, and replacing unbiased peer review with loyalty to ideology. Even as leaders dismantle the country’s scientific foundations, most people seem not to care. Many now see facts as just another opinion and are distracted by constant consumer entertainment, so they often ignore these attacks on science, treating them as minor political arguments instead of real threats to public health and the environment. More than one person has told me that the truth is what they believe, with a disdainful, confidently proud tone. When people choose comfort over staying alert and prefer stories that make them fit in or feel good, they give up on the truth. In the end, politicians do not have to destroy science by force; a society that avoids hard truths gives it up willingly, showing that when we refuse to face reality, we help cause our own decline.
When global problems seem overwhelming and make individual efforts feel pointless, too many people turn to escapism to cope. Watching streaming series for hours, playing computer and video games, getting lost in shopping, or seeking quick pleasures are more than just ways to pass the time. These habits help people handle stress by creating a simpler world where they can feel in control and happier, shielding themselves from the constant worry that lingers in the background. I like my hobbies; I have habits, but at some point they will become luxuries I can’t afford.
I look forward to new hobbies and habits.
“What’s wrong with you, man? Have you no addictions? Indulge. Relax.”
The Social and Sensory Mechanics of Paralysis
The human nervous system evolved to respond to clear, immediate dangers, such as a nearby predator, not multigenerational or abstract global issues. (We’ve all heard this.) When people hear constant warnings from the media but do not receive clear guidance on what to do, they can develop alarm fatigue. Over time, the brain pays less attention to these warnings. Being exposed to seemingly unsolvable threats can also lead to learned helplessness, in which someone believes their actions will not make a difference and stops trying.
Deep time. Geological timescales. Cosmic dimensions. Consciousness. Intelligence. Counterfactuals. Radical imagination. Creativity. WOW!
People often watch how others react to danger to decide what to do themselves. This can lead to a problem called pluralistic ignorance. If everyone hides their worry to keep things normal, others may wrongly think there is no real emergency. If no one around us is shocked, taking action, or changing their behavior, we tend to stay calm and do nothing too. Speaking up or acting differently can make someone seem like an alarmist, blackpiller, collapsenik, decel, fatalist, catastrophist, declinist, defeatist, chicken little, which most people want to avoid because, let’s face it, it’s not sexy, and it doesn’t make you smell like money.
“I ignore what bums me out. It’s as simple as that, and it works for me.”
Denial vs. Inaction
People sometimes confuse inaction with denial, but they come from different psychological places. Denial means refusing to accept the facts, like not admitting there is a fire. Inaction is more emotional. It is like seeing the fire, feeling overwhelmed by its size, and freezing because escape feels impossible.
Inaction does not mean we stop thinking. Instead, it is like being in a crowded room where different needs—like comfort, belonging, keeping our identity, and staying sane—quietly persuade us that doing nothing feels safest.
A few words about spiritual egotism.
In a hyper-individualistic culture obsessed with personal branding, performance, and status, spirituality rarely escapes the ego's pull. The appeal of feeling “holier-than-thou” stems from its ability to offer the ultimate status symbol: moral and existential invulnerability. When culture equates personal comfort with virtue, adopting a spiritual persona becomes a high-level self-enhancement strategy. Dismissing real-world crises—such as climate collapse, war, or systemic decay—as mere “earthly distractions” lets the practitioner reframe apathy as advanced enlightenment. It transforms civic indifference into a badge of honor, enabling the individual to gaze down at those who worry as spiritually primitive beings trapped in lower consciousness.
“Poor guy, he’s thinking about things again. I will remain unmoved, in transcendent equilibrium, and let his thoughts pass like a spring breeze. When he pauses, I will change the subject to happier things and help him avoid the misery of his thoughts”
Spiritual teachers and psychologists have long warned against this precise corruption. Tibetan Buddhist master Chögyam Trungpa famously coined the term “spiritual materialism” to describe how the ego hijacks spiritual practices, turning meditation, mindfulness, and sacred concepts into mere accessories used to inflate self-importance. Instead of dismantling the ego, the mind uses spiritual achievements to build a fortress of superiority. Building on this concept, psychologist John Welwood identified spiritual bypassing—the tendency to use spiritual ideas and practices to sidestep or avoid facing uncomfortable emotions, unresolved psychological wounds, and pressing societal realities. Telling someone to “chew cud like a cow” while the living world burns is not detachment; it is an elaborate emotional defense mechanism disguised as transcendental wisdom.
Stephen Batchelor, a contemporary secular Buddhist author and scholar, points out that if we think meditation is just about stopping our thoughts, we become “no different from a cow sitting in a field.” In his critique of modern mindfulness, Batchelor challenges the common idea that meditation is mainly about emptying the mind or shutting down our thoughts. He argues that this view strips meditation of its critical and reflective power, turning what should be an active exploration of reality into a passive, dull state.
This idea is not new. In classical Chan and Zen traditions, teachers often warned students about falling into “dead-tree Zen” or becoming too quiet and passive. Stories like Master Huairang joking about Mazu’s endless sitting by pretending to polish a clay roof tile into a mirror remind us that just sitting still with an empty mind does not bring wisdom, any more than a stone or a cow becomes enlightened by staying still. Real contemplative practice, as both old teachers and modern scholars say, is not about escaping thought. Instead, it questions how the mind works, how suffering starts, and how we connect with the world.
If we use meditation to turn off our thoughts, it can become a way of avoiding difficult truths about ourselves and the world. This approach can create a pleasant numbness that looks like inner peace but actually helps us ignore real moral, ecological, and social problems. When spiritual practices are used to escape uncomfortable realities by pretending to “rise above thought,” they become just another way to comfort ourselves. True spiritual growth means using our attention to see reality clearly, question common beliefs, and make thoughtful, ethical choices.
This video features Stephen Batchelor exploring how the active, questioning approaches of the Buddha and Socrates guide us toward engaged ethical living rather than passive spiritual retreat.
Modern psychological research confirms that spiritual practice frequently breeds a stealthy form of narcissism. In a landmark study on “spiritual superiority,” social psychologists Roos Vonk and Anouk Visser showed that people who practice spiritual disciplines often develop a heightened sense of personal uniqueness and hidden elitism. The researchers observed that many practitioners subvert spirituality’s core purpose, turning tools meant to dissolve the self into a scale for comparing themselves favorably to others. The illusion of being a “spiritual adept” provides an unassailable high ground, shielding the individual from self-doubt while permitting them to judge the uninitiated as less evolved.
“Even I get deluded sometimes.”—Mr. Enlightened
Ultimately, spiritual condescension serves as the ultimate shield against vulnerability and accountability. Caring deeply about planetary collapse, human suffering, or geopolitical crisis risks leaving you heartbroken, powerless, and terrified. By retreating into a grandiose identity as an “unfazed, enlightened soul,” the individual insulates themselves from the painful grief of being an interdependent human in a fragile world. As spiritual teacher Ram Dass frequently noted, the “spiritual ego” is the subtlest and most dangerous trap of all because it wears the cloak of holiness. It lets people walk past suffering with a serene smile, convincing themselves that their refusal to engage is not cowardice but divine wisdom.
***Now please listen to this.
I enjoy talking through open questions.
Question from my friend:
“Do we really assume that our generation is destined to be the last, the ones who will witness the Apocalypse?”
“People have been predicting the “End times” ever since the Bible was first written and later edited by elders in mysterious councils lost to history.”
Were these rhetorical questions, or did my friend want my opinion? Well, here we go…
A backhanded mic drop?
To start, look at the upside-down, backward wild rationalizations of Peter Thiel and his odd, self-serving beliefs about Armageddon and the Apocalypse.
6. Technofeudalism, Algorithmic Control, & Academic Apologetics
Rationalizing Delusions Leave Elites Alone: Antichrist or Armageddon
I don’t know anyone who is predicting exactly how the polycrisis will play out or how long it will take for our current global civilization to collapse. People interested in collapse, overshoot, and the limits to growth know how complex these domains are. I only know that it is collapsing. We are in the midst of it. According to Theil, if you cite the evidence and suggest something might be done about our predicament, you are the Antichrist. Theil doesn’t live in my world, and he wants you to die in his. Wealthy and powerful players can believe anything if it serves their purpose. Hunter-gatherers are anarchists, and our institutions stop memesis. WOW! If you inherit money and abuse your brain, it’s OK; Jesus is on your side, and you can afford not to listen to anything that doesn’t support your thinking. Why? Because you say so. Money can make people sick, like Andrew Tate and Tate fans who think saying fuck you on a private jet or misogyny is the height of righteous manliness.
Many people I know are too comfortable to care about anything that threatens their sense of security and pride. Sadly, false security and false pride, which are mostly based on stories we tell ourselves, are ringfenced by a lack of context and an intense need to feel good about ourselves. That kind of childish insecurity never brings the love we crave.
I have mentioned René Girard before. He’s an interesting thinker. How does Peter Thiel use his ideas to support his philosophical views, reactionary politics, and investments?
Peter Thiel takes René Girard’s mimetic theory and turns it into a guide for technocratic power, business strategy, and reactionary politics. Girard’s main idea is that people imitate each other’s desires, which leads to envy, rivalry, and chaos. Thiel applies this idea to economics, claiming that market competition is a kind of collective madness in which companies copy one another until no one wins. His main business argument is that “competition is for losers” and only monopolies can create real value. This follows Girard’s thinking: to succeed, entrepreneurs must avoid mimetic rivalry by making something truly unique. Thiel thinks he is an intellectual genius, and that his investment success validates his belief.
Amputating the Gospel for Technocratic Sovereignty
Thiel takes a very different approach from Girard in solving the problem of potential disaster. Girard believed that the Judeo-Christian tradition revealed the old “scapegoat mechanism,” where communities would unite by sacrificing an innocent person, which used to help control violence. Once this mechanism was exposed, Girard said society had to choose between Christian non-violence and facing growing destruction. Thiel agrees with Girard’s warning about possible disaster but rejects the Christian answer of spiritual change. Instead, he puts his faith in technology and political power as the katechon, or the force that holds back chaos. Most accelerationist reactionaries would agree.
The Antichrist and the Justification for Monopolistic Control
Thiel’s view of global politics centers on the “counterfeit peace,” which he connects to Girard’s idea of the Antichrist. He claims that global organizations, regulators, and efforts to slow down technology are really about control, driven by envy and fear. By calling state regulation a false peace, Thiel defends his investments in border surveillance, defense technology, and companies like Palantir as necessary tools. In his view, building surveillance systems is not about authoritarian control but is a heroic act needed to prevent disaster—the disaster of not being in charge. Peter thinks progress, modernity, and all that makes us Homo sapiens need him, and that his ilk protect all that is inevitable.
The Elite Exemption
Girard believed mimetic desire affects everyone, with no one—no matter how powerful—immune. Thiel, by contrast, makes an exception for himself and a select group of visionary founders. He presents venture capitalists as leaders above the crowd, able to shape history. By removing Girard’s focus on humility and turning his ideas into a plan for corporate control, Thiel uses the fear of disaster to present his power projects not as aggressive capitalism, but as the only thing standing between society and collapse.
What is the Gig Economy?
The gig economy runs on algorithms that turn people’s work into something that can be bought and sold. Instead of acting like a free market, it works more like a group of digital kingdoms. That’s why people like Curtis Yarvis, the loquacious, common-senseless, court jester, talk about corporate monarchs. Rather than giving workers real independence, these platforms use algorithms to control labor, take a cut from workers’ earnings, and push all the risks onto individuals. Yarvin would say, or at least when I knew him, that it’s for our own good. Pitch in and follow.
Erosion of Democracy and Private Sovereignty
The gig economy weakens democracy by removing public oversight and concentrating power in private tech giants. Sociologist Alex Rosenblat, in Uberland, shows that these companies design systems that can change rules, pay, and working conditions without warning, using hidden code. This lets them control public services like transport and labor behind closed doors. By making workers independent contractors, platforms break up unions and weaken community ties, turning citizens into customers. Shoshana Zuboff, in The Age of Surveillance Capitalism, points out that this system treats people’s experiences as free resources. Algorithms shape daily life, use subtle prompts to influence choices, and make constant surveillance seem like a helpful feature, hiding the real power these companies have.
Is this what we want?
Psychological Alienation and Precarity
This system takes a heavy psychological toll, leaving workers feeling insecure and isolated. Without healthcare, steady pay, or job protections, gig workers often face constant financial stress that harms their mental health. Sociologist James Muldoon (below) says that working under “impersonal digital managers”—algorithms that track every move—takes away workers’ sense of control and leaves them feeling powerless. This kind of exploitation is even worse in the global supply chains behind digital platforms. As Mark Graham and Callum Cant show in Feeding the Machine, low-paid micro-taskers and content moderators can suffer serious trauma from handling harmful content in digital sweatshops. The easy convenience of on-demand platforms comes at the cost of widespread psychological harm, and the destruction of democratic, empowering communities with shared values and goals.
Systemic Extraction and Environmental Exhaustion
The gig economy acts as a main driver of what some call the “Moloch” machine, more on this later, treating people’s energy and the environment as resources to be used up for profit. By turning things like personal cars, extra rooms, and free time into products, platforms slowly wear down people’s mental and physical reserves. Think of all the extras you have to tick off and buy when booking a flight or hotel room.
“Do I really need a meal? Maybe it’s best to go without a suitcase and buy stuff when I get there.” It’s all so exhausting. Do you really want this? Who asked us?
When profit-driven systems have no limits, they harm natural ecosystems. The reality behind on-demand services is far from the idea of a simple “cloud.” Fast deliveries, endless instant choices requiring micropayments, ride-hailing, and reservation systems rely on large server farms, data centers, and constant transport, all of which consume natural, finite resources to make instant service possible.
Gig Economy Jobs That Are the Butt of Humor on Mainstream Streaming Shows—haha, hehe
OnlyFans: Subscription & On-Demand Content
OnlyFans works like a premium social media feed you can access only by paying. Creators set their own monthly subscription prices for their profiles, where they share pre-recorded videos, photo sets, and text updates. In addition to subscriptions, creators earn money by sending pay-per-view (PPV) messages, which means certain photos or videos cost extra to unlock, and by making custom content for individual fans. Although the platform became well known for adult performers, it was originally designed for all kinds of creators, such as fitness trainers, musicians, and chefs.
Stripchat: Real-Time Live Broadcasting
Stripchat is a live adult webcam site focused on real-time interactive shows. Performers stream live video, and viewers can join public chatrooms for free. Viewers buy digital tokens to tip performers during the show. Tips can trigger certain actions, help reach tipping goals, or control interactive devices connected to the stream. Viewers can also use tokens to start a private one-on-one session with a performer, paying a set price per minute for exclusive time.
Substack. Irony.
Is the commodification of everyone healthy? Have we all been reduced to products and consumers? What happened to community? Maybe my friend, whose questions I regard below, has some answers he’d like to share. I’d rather hear what people think than pontificate, even though listening carefully to people’s thoughts and ideas often leads me to bouts of pontification.
I’d rather buy from a local craftsperson than order something from Etsy. I like personal, face-to-face relationships. This uncontrolled social experiment (this thing of ours) is corrosive to the human soul and mind. As we keep accelerating down this track, the outcomes of this way of life could become horrific beyond imagination.
The Secular Soul
A secular view defines the soul as a person’s core identity, consciousness, emotional depth, and moral character, without involving anything supernatural or immortal. In secular philosophy, the soul is reinterpreted through everyday human experience. Here, the mind and soul are often seen as the same, reflecting our ability to think, be aware, and reason.
In this secular view, the “soul” refers to a person’s ability to feel empathy, experience emotions, and hold personal values, rather than being an invisible substance. The word comes from older roots, such as the Greek psyche, and refers to a person’s living personality and unique character.
Modern secular thinkers continue to develop these ideas. Some follow Aristotle, viewing the soul not as something separate, but as the process that organizes and sustains a living, conscious person. People also use the word “soul” metaphorically. For example, saying something is “good for the soul” means it brings deep personal fulfillment, like art, charity, connecting with others, or spending time in nature.
What do you think the soul is?
Techno Feudalism
Modern economic life is now shaped by a confusing mix of buying and renting, with the line between the two almost disappearing. We are forced to subscribe. Today, someone might think they own a car, only to find out that features like heated seats require a monthly subscription. Or they might buy a digital library, only to lose access if a server goes offline. This steady loss of private property gained wider attention after Ida Auken’s 2016 World Economic Forum essay, which predicted that by 2030, “you’ll own nothing and be happy.” While Auken imagined a positive future of shared resources, the reality is proving much darker. We are seeing a major shift away from traditional capitalism toward what some call Technofeudalism or “Platform Power Capitalism.” Debate continues over whether this is a completely new system or just the last stage of “Hyper-capitalism.” Critics like Evgeny Morozov argue that the idea of Technofeudalism overlooks that predatory behavior and rent-seeking have always been part of capitalism. Still, whether it is a new system or not, the result is the same: digital empires are taking over productive markets.
In traditional capitalism, profit was seen as a reward for productivity, innovation, and exchanging goods. Now, rent is pushing profit aside, acting more like a parasite. Companies like Apple and Amazon are no longer just players in the market—they have become the market itself. By controlling the digital infrastructure where most economic activity occurs, these companies use tools such as code and intellectual property to create a legal monopoly. As Yanis Varoufakis put it, profit is what drives capitalism, but rent was the main force in feudalism. Today, when a developer sells an app or a merchant ships a product, these new “Cloudalists” take a “Cloud Rent,” often about 30% of someone else’s work, just for letting them use the platform. This is a step backward. In this system, big corporations do not need to be productive; their power comes from taking rather than making. Instead of investing in new ways of producing, they focus on maintaining control and locking others in.
My work isn’t promoted on this platform by its algorithms because I don’t have any paid subscribers, so the platform isn’t earning from my work.
The emergence of Cloud Capital marks an existential rupture in the economic order. According to Pascal Stiefenhofer, Cloud Capital is unique because it acts as both worker and owner, producing value while simultaneously concentrating power in the hands of those who run the infrastructure. The rise of Cloud Capital is a major break from the old economic system. Pascal Stiefenhofer says Cloud Capital is different because it acts as both worker and owner, creating value while giving more power to those who run the infrastructure. In this system, work is split into two groups, both controlled by algorithms that act like distant managers. The first group is the “Cloud Proles,” such as Uber drivers or Amazon couriers, who have no benefits or real control, and the platform pushes them to their limits. The second group is the general public, who become unpaid “Cloud Serfs.” Every time someone scrolls, likes, or clicks, they are doing unpaid work that helps train algorithms and adds value to the Cloudalist’s platform. This change turns markets, where people once traded goods for profit and had some freedom, into Cloud Fiefs. In these new fiefs, user freedom is just an illusion; people are dependents whose actions and data are taken as rent to strengthen monopoly power without ever producing a new commodity. This shift has profound psychological consequences, moving society from capitalism's “independent self” to subservient agents in a hierarchy of fealty. This society of tech-dependent servants is defined by catastrophic anxiety, born of broken shared norms and the absence of a mediating locus of authority, replaced by obsessive attachments to parasocial identity and hyper-stimulating conspiracy stories. In the social manor, an individual’s ability to navigate the world is truncated by the whims of powerful lords who can unilaterally withdraw access to the essential infrastructure of this mad way of life.
Support Militarized First Responders, The Only Job For “Real Men”
The 2027 Line of Techno Fascist Fashion
Technofeudalism replaces human oversight with algorithmic control, using hidden, manipulative power. By calling surveillance “user convenience,” platforms make their control seem normal and uncontroversial. Algorithms shape what people see, highlight certain choices, and make other options harder or more expensive, all to serve corporate interests. As gatekeepers to the digital world, platforms hold significant power over what people know and experience. It is also wrong to think of Big Tech as separate from the government. The roots of Technofeudalism date back to the 2008 financial crisis, when central banks used quantitative easing to build digital infrastructure such as fiber lines and server farms, which now give private companies control over the public. This public investment ultimately benefited private tech giants. As a result, tech companies now have powers similar to those of states. Peter Thiel once said that technology is a powerful alternative to politics because it lets people change the world without needing others’ approval. This shows a dangerous shift toward Techno-fascism, where control over data allows for surveillance and behavior control without any democratic input.
Why do people put up with it? It’s the narrative, stupid.
Looking ahead, Technofeudalism is less stable than the capitalism that came before it. Capitalism kept social order by promising future wealth, but Technofeudalism offers no such hope. Instead, it openly extracts value and returns only what people need to survive. This centralization also creates a single point of failure, since it depends on large data centers that organized resistance could target. To move from being “subscribers” to being “citizens” again, society needs to push for shared control of data and build new, democratically run infrastructures. We are facing a crucial moment: if Artificial General Intelligence becomes the main form of capital, acting as both owner and worker, people will have to choose whether they want to be citizens in a real democracy or just subscribers under digital rulers.
While it’s available, how will we use it? Who owns it? What do we want? What do they want?
MTI Capital Service Providers And Their Brilliant Research and Apologetics
The Technocratic Alchemist at Stanford
Erik Brynjolfsson is the Jerry Yang and Akiko Yamazaki Professor at Stanford University, Director of the Stanford Digital Economy Lab, and Senior Fellow at the Stanford Institute for Human-Centered AI (HAI). He represents an elite academic who serves the modern tech industry. After decades at MIT, he now holds key roles in Stanford’s Department of Economics and Graduate School of Business. Brynjolfsson’s work often turns the disruptive effects of digital technology into economic stories managers find easier to accept. In his research on the “Economics of Technological Transformation,” he reassures corporations and policymakers that issues such as friction, wage stagnation, and social disruption from rapid technological change are only temporary. His well-known idea, the “Productivity Paradox,” explains the gap between adopting new technology and seeing economic results as a problem of organizational adjustment and learning new skills. This approach presents corporate upheaval as a normal and necessary step toward future growth.
Sanitizing Automation and Labor Displacement
Brynjolfsson’s approach is evident in his labor market research, including his paper “Canaries in the Coal Mine?” Six Facts About the Recent Employment Effects of Artificial Intelligence. Using payroll data from millions of workers, he and his co-authors show that generative AI is reducing entry-level hiring for young people aged 22 to 25. Instead of seeing this as a sign of deeper job-market problems, Brynjolfsson describes it as task restructuring rather than outright job loss. He focuses on “skill leveling,” the idea that AI tools can help less experienced workers do more (bull shit!), and he encourages ongoing skill development. This perspective makes the decline in entry-level jobs seem like a technical issue that can be fixed with retraining, shifting responsibility onto workers rather than questioning the goals of the companies using these technologies.
“Subscribe to our educational platform and get your ChatGPT certification now!”
Remember in the late 90s how everyone was going to make a fortune with their e-commerce websites? How much money and time did people waste on those seminars and ‘business models’?
Oh, the humanity, and tech bubbles.
The Illusion of Human-Centered Management
Even when Brynjolfsson criticizes tech industry strategies, such as warning about the “Turing Trap”—the risk of building AI only to replace human workers—his arguments still support the tech industry's broader direction. He points out that automation can lower wages and increase wealth for tech leaders, but his solution of “human-centered augmentation” still fits within the drive for efficiency. By offering advice, co-founding consulting firms like Workhelix (tagline: Know & Grow the ROI of your AI) to help companies decide what to automate, and speaking to lawmakers, Brynjolfsson gives businesses both guidance and moral approval. This helps elite universities like Stanford keep acting as research and development centers for the tech industry, using gentle economic language to describe practices that mainly benefit large platforms. It’s stupid, reality-avoidant blindness.
Debating whether artificial intelligence will boost productivity or reshape labor markets under neoliberal capitalism distracts from the core issue. Many top university scholars treat AI as just another tool for efficiency or worker support, but this perspective overlooks the hard facts of physics, ecology, and energy limits. These views are little more than a shiny veneer on an exploitative, pathological system tantamount to dressing up the modern techno-industrial pig for a Hollywood red carpet. Mainstream economics lost the plot, so to speak, generations ago and has drifted far from the biophysical world we depend on for everything. If we recognize the global economy for what it is, a relentless, omnicidal heat engine, then making it more efficient with algorithms does not solve the underlying crisis. It only accelerates the transformation of the natural world into waste, heat, and profit that matters nothing to the rotting corpses of oligarchs or the soon-to-be starving masses.
After the fall of technofeudalism, back to basics.
Step one: Neo-Medievalism
Step two: Mad Max Kingdoms, Republics, old-school Empires
Step three: Neo—Neolithica and Y-chromazone bottlenecks
And then came “K” species Homo venatio et collectio (The Good Life)
Mainstream economists and tech leaders always miss a key point: the problem is ecological overshoot. They can’t go there; they would be out of the kind of job that keeps them above the fray and from the kind of precarity most people deal with. They are cowards, addicted to some Kool-Aid concoction of egotistical status signaling, motivated reasoning, groupthink, cognitive dissonance, and childish denial. And the students they lecture to will be no less deluded and warped in their understanding of how the economics of living systems work. When people consume Earth’s resources much faster than nature can replace them, leading to resource shortages, soil loss, climate change, and mass extinction, all bets are off. How many times will people point this out before plebs and proles want to do something to make our anti-leaders change course? Capitalism depends on endless growth, but the Earth has limited resources. People in my community will repeat this fact in different contexts as long as it takes or until the whole shytehouse goes up in flames. No matter how advanced our technology becomes or how much money is made, these limits will eventually stop reactionary capitalists and their digital systems in their greedy, arrogant tracks. No amount of coding or academic research can get around the basic facts of physics, ecosystem decline, or the limited supply of essential materials.
Obsessing over productivity stats or job forecasts while the natural world unravels is a perilous error by those commanding the platform algorithms. As overshoot shatters global supply chains and erodes nature’s defenses, this economic system will not wind down gently, but will crash in chaos, terrorizing and killing billions. Trusting artificial intelligence to fix ecological overshoot overlooks the fact that digital technology itself consumes vast amounts of energy, power, water, and rare minerals (repeat, repeat, repeat this fact until people understand it). When the planet’s boundaries are finally breached, digital platforms, algorithms, and academic models will collapse alongside the physical industries they depend on. Only then will it become clear how futile it was to keep optimizing a system that was busy erasing its own foundation.
“Passive, submissive imitation does exist, but hatred of conformity and extreme individualism are no less imitative. Today they constitute a negative conformism that is more formidable than the positive version. More and more, it seems to me, modern individualism assumes the form of a desperate denial of the fact that, through mimetic desire, each of us seeks to impose his will upon his fellow man...” — The One by Whom Scandal Comes, René Girard
“Our civilization is the most creative and powerful ever known, but also the most fragile and threatened... [We have] gradually confiscated the Revelation and used it to its own ends, to make atomic bombs... To make the revelation wholly good and not threatening at all, humans have only to adopt the behavior recommended by Christ: Abstain completely from retaliation and renounce the trend to extremes.” — Battling to the End, René Girard
“There is no longer the slightest difference between a desire to save the city and unbridled ambition, between genuine piety and the desire to claim divine status for oneself. Everyone looks on a rival enterprise as evidence of blasphemous designs.” — Violence and the Sacred, René Girard
“Victimism uses the ideology of concern for victims to gain political or economic or spiritual power... To escape responsibility for violence we imagine it is enough to pledge never to be the first to do violence. But no one ever sees himself as casting the first stone. Even the most violent persons believe that they are always reacting to a violence committed in the first instance by someone else.” — I See Satan Fall Like Lightning / The One by Whom Scandal Comes, René Girard
Friar Paolo Benanti, mentioned in the video above, a Franciscan theologian and chief Vatican advisor on artificial intelligence and tech ethics, addresses the theological and moral risks of techno-determinism, human pride, and algorithmic power. Benanti looks at ethics at a broad, systemic level rather than focusing on individual disputes. His approach to ‘algor-ethics’ challenges the idea that private tech monopolies and powerful elites can take over human moral responsibility or prevent disaster. He is sane, well-informed, and wise, but he’s not a billionaire, although the power of the Catholic church is formidable.
On the Heresy of Technological Domination
Thiel believes that private technology monopolies and surveillance systems are needed to maintain order and stop society from falling apart.
“Franciscan poverty teaches us that creation is good, but not absolute, and that things are not objects to be possessed, but realities to be used rightly. As Laudato Si’ teaches, our kinship with all creation leads us to reject the temptation of efficiency without love, and of technological domination cut off from human relationships. Whenever I see algorithms that treat people as bundles of data to be optimized, the Franciscan tradition asks: ‘Is there genuine care for the human person here?’” — Catholic Times Interview on Moral Theology
On Technology as a Clandestine Displacement of Power
Thiel argues that venture capitalists and tech creators should use their own systems to avoid government rules and create unchecked corporate power.
“Every technological artifact is a displacement of power, is a form of order. Ethics of technology is simply questioning technology to allow people to be aware of this kind of transformation… Engineering alone cannot answer how technology contributes to human life. Technology is never neutral; it embodies a particular view of human beings and a hierarchy of values.” — Tools and Weapons Podcast / Catholic Theological Lectures
On the False Worship of “Oracular” Systems
Thiel claims that autonomous algorithms and data platforms offer a perfect and objective way to handle human conflict and leadership.
“Now, if you interact with an AI, the knowledge that the AI can suggest to you is oracular. Everything is mixed together—and you have to trust it… Once you insert AI into this chain and it’s not well designed, it could have a really profound effect on who we are and how we understand the world. The perception of ethical value is a purely human capacity.” — The Pope’s AI Guru on Human Impact
On the Sinister Class Divide of Elite Augmentation
Thiel suggests that a small group of founders can use transhumanism, biotechnology, and private resources to overcome human weakness.
“There are experiments using synthetic biology to augment humans. As well as the possibility that this could give rise to sinister inequalities, there is also the problem of poorer countries becoming experimenting grounds for rich countries. The Church continues to oppose this kind of unjust, unethical experimentation… Every technological choice is, in the end, an answer to this question: ‘What does it mean to be human, and what must be protected?’” — Capgemini Research Dialogue / Global Church Lectures
On Fear-Driven Governance vs. True Ethics
Thiel warns that humanity is close to collapse unless we give control to centralized technology-driven defense and intelligence systems.
“An ethical perspective that we should have is not simply fear-driven, because fear is not ethics… Technology is not enough for my deepest questions: What does it mean to be human? What does it mean to live in this century? We must design a future in which the machine is not an evolutionary competitor to the human being.” — Faith in AI: Dialogue on Ethics and Technology
Now let’s shift angles a bit and see how people who care to read on a subject and have the talent and skills to communicate their findings can shed a great deal of light on it.
Anna Bocca does excellent work. Her ability to organize, summarize, and present constellations of complex topics is exemplary. The subjects she discusses and presents are all things I have read about, talked about, and written about for decades.
I look forward to viewing the complete series: The Secret History of Big Tech (It’s darker than you think).
I have swum in the same ocean as many of the people discussed in this episode. In 1995, I worked at a financial publishing house in San Francisco as Marc Andreessen prepared Netscape’s IPO. I attended many events in the Bay Area and elsewhere with members of the PayPal Mafia. I am not saying I am anything close to a Player, only that I was steeped in the Tech world for a while and have been deeply interested in how science, engineering, technology, politics, power, and the living world interact. I have commented on Theil’s ideology many times and have always been fascinated by how people, in general, seem incapable of understanding and questioning modern techno-industrial capitalism. Although most people have the capacity to learn about and understand how the world works, most don’t have the time, inclination, or desire to question the status quo; we are too busy trying to make ends meet or get a position on the roster of the Great Game.
I want people to read as Anna and I do, but I know most won’t. So I curate and evangelize the work of people who do, with the hope that more people will learn enough, fast enough, to become defenders of life and posterity, because if our current ideologies hold sway for much longer, civilization is doomed, and along with it the possibility of our species becoming truly wise with a future full of beautiful possibilities.
Please watch this video and come back to the book. The history she outlines is important for understanding how powerful and pernicious our predicament is. Below the video is an executive summary of the topics discussed.
Executive Summary: The Secret History of Big Tech
Silicon Valley’s development resulted from a combination of imperial military requirements, large-scale state-subsidized research, and an authoritarian ideology that prioritizes early algorithmic detection of human assets, along with a determination to achieve complete market control. Rather than arising spontaneously from free markets or through the efforts of visionary lone inventors in their garages, the area’s growth was deliberately planned and organized from the start. The basic principle of Silicon Valley—spotting promising assets early on and then directing huge amounts of capital towards them—began with the breeding methods used at Leland Stanford’s horse farm in the late 19th century. This approach was later formalized in the Stanford-Binet IQ test, creating an elitist, eugenicist selection process that still influences hiring practices in the tech industry and today’s cultural hierarchies.
During the Cold War, this technological system was supported by what is known as ‘Military Keynesianism’, a system in which huge Defense Department spending on radar, missile guidance, and ARPANET provided the capital and demand necessary for technological advances. Over the years, there was a sharp ideological shift in the attitude of Silicon Valley: the egalitarian ‘hacker ethic’ of the 1960s counterculture was replaced by the doctrine of monopoly promoted by the ‘PayPal Mafia’ and Peter Thiel, the latter having famously stated that ‘competition is for losers’. In the twenty-first century, this drive toward monopoly took the form of ‘surveillance capitalism’, a predatory business model invented by Google that turns human behavioral data into proprietary raw material for behavioral modification and for extracting money through cloud-based systems.
The Palo Alto System: Foundations of “Engineering” Potential
The architectural structure of both Silicon Valley’s corporate and cultural aspects traces back to a horse breeding farm that Leland Stanford, a railroad magnate, owned in 1876. Applying an industrial approach to biology, Stanford regarded his horses as “biological machines” and developed what became known as the “Palo Alto System.” Rather than follow the conventional equestrian practice of letting horses mature naturally before training, Stanford began assessing foals at an extremely early age, detecting their potential for speed and then subjecting them to strict, standardized training programs. This “equine engineering” practice laid the foundation for the area’s long-standing investment philosophy: evaluate raw assets early, eliminate most that underperform, and focus resources on the small group that offers the highest return.
The psychologist Lewis Terman at Stanford University shifted this filtering method from livestock to human populations. In 1916, Terman released the Stanford-Binet IQ test, based on the eugenic idea that intelligence is a single, measurable, and biologically inherited characteristic. During World War I, institutions immediately supported the test, with the U.S. military using it to assess two million recruits and sending those with high scores into the officer ranks while assigning those with lower scores to the front lines. Stanford’s first president, David Starr Jordan, used Terman’s approach to promote state-sponsored eugenics, thereby helping to establish racial social hierarchies and providing a justification for the forced sterilization of about 60,000 to 70,000 Americans who were considered “feeble-minded”. Today, this eugenic attitude remains evident in Silicon Valley’s fixation on standardized algorithmic testing, its intense focus on math puzzles, and its use of brain-teasers as a stand-in for innate intellectual ability.
Military Keynesianism: The Real Venture Capitalist
The idea that Silicon Valley is a success story of unregulated, laissez-faire capitalism masks the fact that the United States government played a key role as the region’s first venture capitalist. Based on the principle of “Military Keynesianism”, the government used huge amounts of money for defense to encourage high-tech innovation and expand industrial capacity. The decisive moment came during the 1957 Sputnik Crisis, when the Eisenhower administration decided to triple the Pentagon’s research budget to achieve scientific and military superiority over the Soviet Union. This large influx of federal funds created an artificial, assured market for early computing hardware. It financed advanced radar systems, microwave research, and early microprocessors years before commercial venture capital firms were established.
The graphic below details the primary state-funded initiatives that laid the technical foundation for the modern digital economy:
From Vacuum Tubes to Silicon: The Hardware Revolution
The shift from fragile, energy-inefficient vacuum tubes to solid-state silicon microchips made modern computing possible. William Shockley, who co-invented the transistor and strongly supported eugenics, promoted this change by founding Shockley Semiconductor in Palo Alto. But because of his paranoid management style, eight of his top scientists—the so-called “Traitorous Eight”—left in 1957 to found Fairchild Semiconductor. Between 1958 and 1959, Robert Noyce at Fairchild and Jack Kilby at Texas Instruments each independently created the integrated circuit by etching complete electronic circuits onto a single silicon wafer. This achievement led to the formulation of “Moore’s Law,” an observation by Gordon Moore, one of Fairchild’s co-founders, that the number of transistors on a microchip would double about every one to two years, setting up the exponential growth of computing power.
As the complexity and capital requirements of chip manufacturing increased—with modern fabrication plants (“fabs”) costing over $20 billion—the semiconductor industry split fundamentally. Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC) became a specialist, neutral foundry that could produce chips at scale for other companies. By separating hardware design from manufacturing, “fabless” American firms such as Nvidia, Apple, and AMD could design extremely complex architectures while shifting manufacturing risk and capital outlays to Asia.
The Conflict of Ethics: Hackers versus Monopolists
The culture that existed in Silicon Valley at the start was characterized by what is known as the “Californian Ideology”, which was a contradictory combination of the anti-authoritarian counterculture of the 1960s and free-market libertarianism. The early “hacker ethic,” which originated at MIT and was later promoted by the Homebrew Computer Club, saw technology as a means of achieving personal freedom. This group supported the free sharing of information, deeply distrusted central corporate authority, and was firmly committed to demystifying technology by taking it apart themselves. When Steve Wozniak designed the Apple II, he put this philosophy into practice by adding expansion slots and an open architecture that let users alter and repair their own hardware.
The open-source attitude directly conflicted with the commercial needs of software monetization. In 1976, Bill Gates issued his “Open Letter to Hobbyists” in which he strongly criticized the members of the Homebrew Computer Club for distributing pirated copies of Altair BASIC. He maintained that software should be considered private property and that strict copyright enforcement was necessary to reward developers. Gates’s legal approach won out, allowing Microsoft to establish an unchallengeable global monopoly through its “Wintel” agreement with Intel. Thus, a precedent was established for corporate ownership of software, changing computer code from a shared public utility into enclosed intellectual property.
Surveillance Capitalism, the Thiel Doctrine, and Techno-Feudalism
In the 21st century, Big Tech moved from selling software to adopting ‘surveillance capitalism’ and digital enclosure. After the dot-com bubble burst, Google realized that the huge amount of data left by users—such as their searches, clicks, location records, and typos—could be collected as ‘behavioral surplus’. Instead of viewing this data as useless operational waste, Google used it as predictive raw material to train algorithms that could predict and alter human behavior for advertising. As the Harvard scholar Shoshana Zuboff points out in her comprehensive critique of this system:
Surveillance capitalism takes the entire human experience and uses it without permission as a source of data about people's behaviour... You are not the product; you are the discarded corpse. The product is made from the surplus which is taken from your life... It constitutes a direct attack on human autonomy and individual sovereignty.
Alongside surveillance capitalism, there is an ideological approach that has been developed by the “PayPal Mafia”—a group consisting of the early executives of PayPal such as Peter Thiel, Elon Musk, and Reid Hoffman, people who currently have a great deal of influence in the fields of modern technology, defense, and venture capital. At the heart of this ideology lies Thiel’s clear opposition to free-market competition; in his book Zero to One, he states that “competition is for losers” and maintains that real corporate success involves creating monopolies that are impossible to escape from, which allow them to fix their own prices, withstand government regulation, and gain extremely large profits.
Critics of the PayPal Mafia have pointed out the authoritarian and anti-democratic consequences of this way of thinking. In his biography The Contrarian: Peter Thiel and Silicon Valley’s Pursuit of Power, journalist Max Chafkin shows that Thiel’s ideology goes well beyond issues concerning startup strategy.
Thiel's radicalism goes beyond the aim of making a profit; it involves undermining democratic institutions and substituting them with corporate strongholds... He has clearly stated that freedom and democracy are no longer compatible, using his wealth to finance surveillance systems and conservative political movements which are intended to protect capital from being answerable to the public.
Palantir Technologies clearly shows this tendency toward monopoly: a company co-founded by Thiel and originally financed by the CIA’s venture arm, In-Q-Tel—it uses its predictive algorithms for military intelligence, state surveillance, and large-scale deportations. Economists such as Yanis Varoufakis and Cédric Durand claim that this kind of system has started an age of “techno-feudalism”. In this arrangement, major technology platforms do not compete in the market; instead, they act as digital fiefdoms that extract “cloud rent” from both individuals and businesses. Tech monopolies can maintain their dominant position by exploiting collective human knowledge, as in Anthropic’s “Project Panama,” which ingested millions of copyrighted books without authors’ consent to train generative AI models, keeping society trapped in a predatory, surveillance-based system.
Questions
Back to my friend’s question: I am no longer enamored with the Big Gods of the Abrahamic traditions (The Mighty Overseers and Directors of all things human). But I still think we can learn a lot about ourselves from religious literature; after all, people wrote it, and people believe it. I am also not a fan of the AI Gods and their business leaders. The people who run the culture with their arms races are what will kill us all.
I have been to Patmos, Greece, a couple of times, where John of Patmos wrote the book of Revelation. I don’t believe in “The Apocalypse.” Civilizations grow, contract, change, and disappear, and people tell stories about them. Extinction is the rule, not the exception. We live for a while, and then we die. I have a strong intuition that when I die, life continues for the living. Great things, like your life, coming to an end is not a happy thing to dwell on. But even the sun has a “lifespan.” I have a feeling that the data centers will eventually run out of power. These stories about great things coming to an end create a powerful sense of identity and belonging. Believing that God is in charge and that our story has an end, where the bad guys are wreaking havoc, and the good guys ultimately win, is exciting. “God kills and destroys out of love.” Believing that one is a central Player in God’s plan and that your technology is vital to it is the kind of madness that must make one feel invincible.
And so we don’t feel mournful at the thought of ecocide and human-caused extinction events if our ambitions are supreme manifestations of God’s will. We don’t feel connected to the harp seal’s story, only our own.
“This is not all there is.”
The Roman poet Marcus Manilius wrote, Nascentes morimur, finisque ab origine pendet—which translates to “As we are born, we die, and our end hangs from our beginning.”
Memento mori, “Remember that you must die”, a central Stoic reflection meant to keep human ego and temporal anxieties in perspective.
Mors certa, hora incerta, “Death is certain, its hour is uncertain.”
Nascimur, vivimus, morimur, “We are born, we live, we die.”Seneca wrote, Cotidie morimur, “We die daily.”
Those ancient philosophers offered some valuable insights. One idea a friend of mine likes is Amor Fati, which means “love of fate.” Although the exact Latin phrase became popular much later with Friedrich Nietzsche, it reflects the core Stoic outlook on life that thinkers like Marcus Aurelius and Epictetus developed.
Instead of just putting up with hard times or giving in, Amor Fati asks us to fully accept everything that happens—the good, the bad, the ordinary, and even the tragic—as necessary, useful, and part of how things are meant to be. Marcus Aurelius explained this idea with the image of a strong fire. When a fire burns brightly, it uses anything thrown into it as fuel, turning obstacles into energy and shining even more.
Epictetus summed up this practice in his Enchiridion, telling people: “Do not seek for things to happen the way you want them to; rather, wish that what happens happens the way it happens: then you will be happy.” In Stoic philosophy, Amor Fati is regarded as the best way to cultivate mental strength, helping ensure that external events do not disturb your inner peace.
Are you resilient? Do you care? Are you caring? Robust? Compassionate? What will be will be, so be happy about it.
I was strong. I was caring and kind. I was loving. I was generous. I was protective. I was courageous. I was humble. I lived in the Kingdom of Heaven on Earth.
Marcus Aurelius’s well-known metaphor of the blazing fire, which takes in every obstacle and turns it into heat, light, and a stronger flame, has a clear scientific parallel in Howard T. Odum’s Maximum Power Principle (MPP). In ecological thermodynamics, this principle holds that self-organizing systems survive and grow not by avoiding stress but by maximizing their energy use, taking in external challenges and turning them into useful work and a stronger internal structure. The Stoic mind works similarly. Instead of just absorbing friction from the world, a strong mind sees adversity, hardship, and unexpected crises as sources of energy. According to the MPP, a resilient system turns disorder into complexity. In Stoicism, a person turns outside challenges into the fuel for virtue, courage, and moral growth.
This idea challenges the common belief that Hellenistic philosophies like Stoicism were about quiet passivity or giving up. Critics of ancient Stoicism often used the “Lazy Argument” (argos logos), saying that if everything is determined by cause and effect, then human effort does not matter. The Stoics strongly disagreed, showing that outcomes depend not just on fate, but also on the active choices people make. Evolutionary biologist and philosopher Massimo Pigliucci, in books such as How to Be a Stoic and A Field Guide to a Happy Life, often debunks the myth of the passive Stoic. He points out that ancient Stoics were active in public life. Marcus Aurelius led an empire during wars and a plague, Cato the Younger died defending the Roman Republic, and Seneca was involved in high-level politics. Pigliucci explains that Epictetus’s well-known “Dichotomy of Control,” which separates what we can and cannot control, is not about withdrawing from life. Instead, it helps us focus our limited energy on effective, virtuous action.
Epicureanism faces a similar misunderstanding and is often wrongly seen as either about seeking pleasure or withdrawing from the world. While Epicurus valued ataraxia (tranquility) and aponia (freedom from pain), reaching this State took active effort. The Epicureans did not support a dull or thoughtless life. Instead, they made conscious changes in their daily lives, rejecting the pursuit of status, power, and false desires. Creating “The Garden” was a deliberate act of building community and challenging their society’s values. It required ongoing philosophical work, strong friendships, and clear boundaries to protect well-being from the pressures of a competitive world. Both Stoics and Epicureans believed that internal freedom comes from making intentional choices, not from being passive observers in a world ruled by fate.
Connecting these ancient ideas with modern systems theory, Pigliucci shows that Stoic amor fati, or loving one’s fate, is key to real agency, not just giving in to fate. Accepting reality as it is does not mean approving of it or refusing to make changes. Instead, it means not wasting energy denying what has already happened. Just as an ecosystem following the Maximum Power Principle cannot adapt if it ignores real energy flows, people cannot act well if they are stuck in wishful thinking or regret. By linking Stoic virtue to both biology and systems thinking, Pigliucci argues that accepting our current situation helps us handle challenges, use our energy wisely, and act with clarity, courage, and sympatheia, which is our deep sense of connection and responsibility to others.
Predestination, extended from the question above.
Predestination? We made it up.
Is someone controlling the universe, or is it simply obeying the laws of physics? Who is the lawgiver? A guy like me? A beautiful mind?
Are we in a simulation? Who designed the game and its rules, and who is playing me right now: players of the Great Game 21st Century, or an entity at a terminal nestled in dark matter / dark energy?
Did Jesus take the wheel, or am I just crashing into a building for all sorts of reasons, some random, some connected to my intentional choices?
The idea that our fates are decided before we’re born shows up in theology, physics, literature, and psychology.
Predestination is the theological doctrine asserting that God—or a divine cosmic entity—willed and determined every event, particularly the ultimate salvation or damnation of individual souls, long before creation began.
Which religious groups across cultures have believed in this idea, and how do their views differ? Many books and academic papers address this topic.
Unlike simple “foreknowledge”—where God knows what will happen—true predestination means God has a plan and carries it out. God didn’t just watch the movie in advance; God wrote the script, designed the set, chose the actors, and directed every scene from the past and will direct every scene to come.
“God’s will be done, on Earth as it is in Heaven—I mean, everywhere, all the time.”
The Human Drive to Believe
People have believed in predestination because it meets deep psychological and spiritual needs. Most of all, it brings comfort during chaos. If suffering and tragedy are meant to happen, they stop feeling random and instead seem like part of a bigger plan.
Biblical stories that imply predestination help justify the actions of Uncle Sam Inc. and the Israeli State (51st State?).
Believers also support predestination to protect the idea of God’s complete power. They argue that if people could surprise or stop God, then God wouldn’t be truly in charge. This belief also reduces the fear of being fully responsible for every choice, which can ease anxiety about making mistakes or about not helping others.
Narratives that offer radical honesty and systemic critique feel deeply unsatisfying to the modern consumer because they refuse to provide a recipe. “Tell me what THE Truth is, what I need to do, how I should act.” Most people do not seek a clear-eyed diagnosis of their cultural sickness; they want a checklist that promises inspiration, social fashionability, and immediate emotional payoff. They crave neat, step-by-step blueprints designed to deliver precisely what they already desire—wealth, status, peace of mind, or moral vindication—without demanding that they question those desires. Uncomfortable truths require people to do the agonizing work of figuring things out for themselves, yet an affluent culture conditions its citizens to view any unguided intellectual or moral labor as an unacceptable burden.
“I need feel-good aphorisms.”—Oh Happy Man
“It’s too academic. It’s not a fun story. I want to be alone, together with the storyteller, with access to personal anecdotes that I can relate to.” —The Group Therapy Guy.
This intellectual paralysis stems directly from a culture obsessed with shortcuts, friction-free convenience, and guaranteed returns. Modern 21st-century people have surrendered their agency/freedom/will, and in some cases, their dignity, to a transactional marketplace that promises a quick fix for every human ailment.
For every “fix,” more needs fixing.
The wild popularity of “how-to” videos, productivity life-hacks, and guaranteed investment strategies, crypto, and NFTs reveals a desperate hunger for predictable outcomes and get-rich-quick schemes. (“I want to be a super consumer, God damn it!”) We want the right gadget to buy, the right algorithm to optimize our routines, and the right financial vehicle to insulate us from instability and give us status, and stuff. We have been trained to treat life as a series of optimization puzzles, assuming that any problem that cannot be solved with a transaction, a subscription, or a five-step tutorial is not worth addressing.
We want commodified answers, rather than messy, challenging relationships.
I had a copy in 1980. I flogged it to people at San Francisco cafes.
In The Society of the Spectacle (1967), French theorist Guy Debord criticizes how modern capitalism reduces real human experience to passive consumption and commercial images. He explains that as market forces take over more of social life, genuine living is reduced first to owning things, and then to valuing only appearances. As Debord writes in Thesis 17, “The first phase of the economy’s domination over social life brought into the definition of all human realization an obvious degradation of being into having. The present phase, featuring the total occupation of social life by the accumulated products of the economy, leads to a generalized sliding of having into appearing...” This process means that market logic shapes not just what we buy, but also how we see the world. Debord sums this up in Thesis 42: “The spectacle is the moment when the commodity has attained the total occupation of social life. Not only is the relation to the commodity visible, but it is all one sees: the world one sees is its world.”
In this marketplace, even human identity becomes a product, as people are pushed to adopt ready-made roles rather than develop their true selves. All my life, I have wondered if my friends were authentic or performing roles. I have constantly wondered that about myself. Debord shows how media, advertising, and celebrity culture create standard types for people to admire, imitate, and consume. In Thesis 60, he explains that celebrities are the main example of this shallow existence: “The celebrity, the spectacular representation of a living human being, embodies this banality by embodying the image of a possible role. As a specialist of apparent life, the star is the object of identification with the shallow seeming life that has to compensate for the fragmented productive labor actually lived.” Instead of encouraging real individuality, the spectacle offers generic versions of success, beauty, rebellion, and lifestyle, making identity just another thing to buy. As Debord puts it in Thesis 59, “The star of the spectacle is the opposite of the individual, the enemy of the individual in himself as well as in others.”
In the end, relying on these commercial roles and stereotypes leads to deep psychological alienation, making it harder for people to know what they truly want. When people let curated images define them, they become passive observers of their own lives, always trying to fit into roles marketed to them and losing touch with their real selves. (No, not you; you are different. Lucky you.) Debord describes this in Thesis 30: “The spectator’s alienation from the contemplated object is expressed as follows: the more he contemplates, the less he lives; the more he accepts recognizing himself in the dominant images of need, the less he understands his own existence and his own desires.” By replacing real human action with pre-made roles and performances shaped by consumer culture, the spectacle keeps society quiet. It offers only the illusion of self-expression, trapping people in a cycle of shallow appearances.
US-American culture sits at the absolute epicenter of this entitlement, and its citizens deserve no pass for their self-imposed helplessness. Decades of hyper-consumerism and unearned/stolen luxury have created a middle class and upper-middle class so thoroughly spoiled by convenience that they view the demand for genuine self-reflection as a personal offense. Too many North Americans refuse to do the hard work of deep structural analysis because doing so would strip away the comforting illusion that their lifestyle is sustainable, green, virtuous, or, more appropriately, just. (Oh, of course, some do exercise self-critical recursive thought, but too few.) They demand clear, effortless guidance that allows them to maintain their comfort while feeling morally progressive. When confronted with a reality that offers no easy solutions or consumer shortcuts, they react with anger and denial. By prioritizing personal convenience over civic responsibility, they reveal themselves not merely as pacified victims of a consumer machine, but as willing accomplices in their own depoliticization.
Our focus on convenience shapes how we process ideas, fostering a culture that often consumes “intellectual” content more for appearances than for genuine learning. Many people now rely on podcasters, thought leaders, and public intellectuals to simplify complex issues into polished, convincing, and importantly, monetized stories. By following these experts, people can appear sophisticated without doing the hard work of in-depth reading and thinking for themselves. Thinking face-to-face with people who have, as Taleb says, skin in the game. (Das Lindy Taleb, Appreciate Taleb.) We buy the books, watch the long interviews, and use the jargon, mistaking someone else’s analysis for our own deep understanding and lived experiences.
The Lindy Effect is a theory stating that the future life expectancy of non-perishable things—like technologies, ideas, or books—is proportional to their current age. Unlike living beings, which decay over time, older non-perishable things tend to age in reverse, meaning every day they survive increases their expected remaining lifespan. And no, our current situation (however you see it) won’t last forever. And the wealthy North is a world away from the less fortunate South, where the West extracts its wealth.
Until the reader dies in the woods and no one notices. Who hears what? A Redwood tree doesn’t hear as we hear or what we hear.
Uncle Sam Inc. has created a marketplace that encourages public experts to offer easy answers instead of difficult, open-ended questions that communities must discuss carefully. To keep their followers, these experts often present even the biggest problems as interesting puzzles that make listeners feel special for understanding them. People are drawn to these figures because they offer deep insight without the discomfort that usually accompanies acquiring it. Hearing a thought leader discuss topics such as the Singularity or the polycrisis can make listeners feel important and knowledgeable, while sparing them the need to question their own way of life. I want people to enjoy the process of questioning, even when the answers might reflect poorly on them. It’s, oh, so very Socratic. I want people to feel the joy that challenges bring, real personal growth.
I still feel comfortable at a cafe with a friend talking about how the sun rises. I mean, I'm not exactly sure, but it does, and I sure do love the sunrise.
“Well, you know, Júlio, when we watch the sunrise, what we are really seeing is an illusion created by Earth’s steady spin toward the east. The planet turns at about 1,000 miles per hour at the equator, but gravity keeps us firmly on the ground, so it feels like we are standing still. As your spot on Earth rotates eastward, your horizon slowly lowers in relation to the Sun, revealing it bit by bit from behind the curve of the planet. Instead of the Sun rising, it is actually your part of the Earth moving into the sunlight.”
Tell that to a Flat Earther!
In the end, this kind of performative intellect only adds to the problem of people feeling powerless and disconnected from real issues. When people focus on sounding smart rather than learning, thinking deeply, listening to sincere experts, and taking real civic action, it leads to complacency and a lack of authentic involvement in positive transformation.
“Hey dude, check this video out; they know what’s what!”
People may start to think that simply understanding a problem, or hearing someone else explain it, is the same as actually doing something about it. This can make them feel good about themselves, even smarter or more moral than others who “don’t get it.” But when people rely on these shortcuts, society ends up full of people who feel enlightened yet do nothing while serious problems continue to worsen.
“Take this online course, get certified, and master Claude AI in 5 days.”
“Learn the real power of prayer from my spirit guide, an ancient cosmic being who has known me over all of my lifetimes.”
One can’t be truly intelligent without a dependable community.
“I thought 2016 was a bad year, then the pandemic came and went, and Trump was reelected; now the world is at war, and it seems like the whole country is burning or underwater. FFS, FUBAR!”
On Stupidity
Traditional political science often assumes that top officials and business leaders make rational decisions to maximize efficiency or power. (Well, they are into that.) But Carlo M. Cipolla’s work shows that this idea falls apart when we look at how real institutions work. The people leading us today are not the most intelligent; many act irrationally, following what Cipolla called the “unorganized invisible hand” of human stupidity. Unlike organized groups, which deal with internal costs and bureaucracy, foolish individuals act together almost instinctively, without any formal plan. When one reckless leader acts, it quickly makes things worse for everyone, breaking down stability faster than anyone can predict.
To make sense of this problem, Cipolla created a simple chart that looks at what people actually do, not just their titles or intentions. The chart has two axes: one shows how much a person gains, and the other shows the impact on everyone else. This divides people into four groups. Intelligent people help both themselves and society. Helpless people hurt themselves to help others. Bandits help themselves by hurting others. Stupid people hurt everyone, including themselves.
Cipolla explained this with five main rules. First, people always underestimate how many stupid individuals there are. Second, anyone can be stupid, regardless of background or achievements. Stupidity is constant across groups, from workers to politicians to Nobel Prize winners. Problems arise when we assume that holding a high position makes someone wise. Cipolla’s third and fourth rules say that stupid people are hard to understand because their actions don’t even make sense to themselves. Others often try to work with or use these unpredictable people, but get hurt when the foolish leader acts unexpectedly.
Do people really think they can reason with or control DJT? There are no Trump whisperers.
To understand today’s problems, we need to distinguish between the selfish actions of a Bandit and the unpredictable harm caused by a Stupid leader. On Cipolla’s chart, a perfect bandit takes from others exactly what they gain, so society as a whole neither moves forward nor backward. The real threat arises when leaders become “bandits with a touch of stupidity,” causing far more harm to society than the small benefits they gain. This happens when, for example, a politician ruins an economy or causes an environmental disaster just for a small, or not so small as the case may be, personal reward. These leaders don’t follow any clear plan, so normal diplomatic approaches don’t work, and they end up being even more dangerous than typical tyrants.
On a large scale, the number of stupid people in a society stays about the same, but that society’s future depends on what everyone else does. Societies move forward because smart citizens and good leaders create enough value to offset the harm caused by the stupid ones. Societies decline when their leaders become more like stupid bandits, crossing a point where things start to fall apart. If ordinary people do nothing and let corrupt and irrational leaders take over, the country will eventually collapse.
To turn things around, people need to stop believing that elites are always competent and work to remove irrational leaders from power. We can’t fix big problems by trusting the same leaders who caused them. Taking back our future means making real cultural changes: taking away unearned status from those with fancy credentials, holding leaders accountable for what they actually do, and valuing real wisdom over technical know-how. (Although technical know-how will be very valuable during the coming Neo-Neolithic period.) Only by identifying and removing foolish leaders can society halt its decline and build a better future. Or, if it doesn’t get better than this (in a material sense), as many people aware of our predicament think, a few more less horrific decades until we begin to recreate our simpler way of life, and perhaps a more joyous one.
The Anatomy of Stupidity as a Moral Defect
While imprisoned at Tegel in 1942, Dietrich Bonhoeffer reflected on the moral collapse of German society under National Socialism and wrote his influential essay “After Ten Years.” In it, he introduced what he called the “Theory of Stupidity,” a critique of political behavior. Today, we often think of stupidity as a lack of intelligence, but Bonhoeffer saw it as a deep moral and psychological flaw. He argued that stupidity is not a lack of intellect, but a failure to take personal responsibility. Bonhoeffer noticed that even very intelligent people can show alarming stupidity, while those with less education often keep a strong sense of moral wisdom. He believed stupidity is a learned, chosen human flaw: some people prefer the comfort of belonging to a group over thinking for themselves.
Bonhoeffer described the mindset of a stupid person as being under a kind of spell. They do not lose their ability to think; instead, they let outside authorities override their own judgment. Once this inner filter is gone, even the smartest people are not protected. When faced with facts that challenge their beliefs, they do not just misunderstand—they refuse to consider them. As Bonhoeffer wrote, “Stupidity is a more dangerous enemy of the good than malice. One may protest against evil; it can be exposed and, if need be, prevented by use of force… Against stupidity we are defenseless.”
This kind of moral failure shows up in certain behaviors. People under this spell often repeat slogans, clichés, and propaganda instead of thinking for themselves. Unlike simple mistakes in reasoning, stupidity is a stubborn refusal to accept correction, brushing off evidence that does not fit their views. Because their beliefs are tied to their sense of self and group identity, they react defensively and get irritated when questioned, seeing any criticism as a personal attack. As a result, they often act against their own interests to stay in line with the group.
I keep saying these things in different ways because my true target audience isn’t “The Choir.” I want Feel Good Country to explore this train of thought.
The Sociological Law of Power and Conformity
Bonhoeffer noticed that whenever public power surges, whether political or religious, it tends to make people less able to think for themselves. This is not just about bad leaders, but about systems that pressure people to give up their independence to fit in. In these environments, independent thinking is pushed aside in favor of loyalty and status-seeking. Public discussion moves away from honest debate and the search for truth, and instead rewards those who repeat the party line.
“Educational institutions must produce service providers, clerks, and entertainers for the TESCREAL Players of The Great Game 21st Century! People who can’t fulfill such roles are superfluous.”
This process runs counter to the Peter Principle in politics. While some critical thinking is needed to get into public life, staying in power often means giving up those skills. People do not move up by questioning the party, but by following its rules. In a healthy system, truth and personal responsibility matter most. But under political pressure, truth becomes just a tool for the group, and personal conscience is lost. Anyone who insists on thinking for themselves is quickly pushed aside to keep the group united. Anglophones point their fingers at Stalinists and Maoists when they might benefit more from looking in the mirror.
The Existential Threat: Stupidity Versus Malice
Bonhoeffer’s most unsettling idea is that stupidity is a bigger danger to humanity than deliberate malice. Malice is obvious and can be recognized and stopped. When people see evil, they know how to respond and protect themselves. But we have no natural defense against the calm, unaware follower. Stupidity often looks harmless, slipping past our social defenses and leading to widespread harm.
Since stupidity does not follow logic, reason cannot defeat it. Malice can be stopped by revealing its motives, but stupidity stays defensive and closed off. When challenged, the stupid person, as Bonhoeffer put it, becomes a “man with a beery vocal organ,” attacking experts and ignoring facts that threaten their beliefs. The real danger is that these people believe they are doing the right thing, which lets them take part in terrible acts without guilt. Most mass atrocities in history were not done by a few evil leaders, but by many ordinary people who let the state guide their conscience.
The Path to Liberation
One of Bonhoeffer’s surprising points is that teaching or reasoning with a stupid person does not work. Trying to educate someone under this spell is not just pointless—it can even make things worse by giving them new ways to defend their old beliefs. Bonhoeffer said that “in most cases an external liberation must precede an internal one.” As long as someone’s mind is tied to outside authority, reasoning will not help. Real change can only happen when the outside influence is broken.
“Oh dear, do we really need a revolution? Aren’t those dangerous?”
This need for a fresh start echoes René Descartes’ “apple barrel” idea in his Meditations on First Philosophy. Descartes said that to avoid letting bad beliefs spoil the mind, we must empty the barrel—doubt everything—and check each belief before accepting it again. For Bonhoeffer, this kind of inner renewal comes from the “fear of God,” which means holding oneself accountable to a higher truth. This helps free the conscience from the pressures of the state or the crowd. Real freedom comes from refusing to let others do our thinking, being humble enough to admit what we do not know, and having the courage to live responsibly and honestly.
Philosopher Harry Frankfurt explored this decline in language and morals in his book On Bullshit. He explained that while liars care enough about the truth to twist it, “bullshitters” do not care about reality at all. This attitude creates the kind of empty thinking that Bonhoeffer warned about. Political theorist Hannah Arendt found something similar in her study of Adolf Eichmann in Eichmann in Jerusalem. She described the “banality of evil,” noting that Eichmann was not a monster or fanatic, but someone who could not think for himself and relied on official slogans. Today, digital echo chambers and social media algorithms make this problem worse by rewarding people for repeating popular opinions instead of seeking the truth, trapping many in cycles of status-seeking rather than honest debate.
“When an honest man speaks, he says only what he believes to be true; and for the liar, it is correspondingly indispensable that he considers his statements to be false. For the bullshitter, however, all these bets are off: he is neither on the side of the true nor on the side of the false. His eye is not on the fact at all, as the eye of the honest man and of the liar are, except as this may be pertinent to his interest in getting away with what he says.”
“It is impossible for a person to lie unless he thinks he knows the truth. Producing bullshit requires no such conviction. A person who lies is thereby responding to the truth, and he is to that extent respectful of it... For the bullshitter, however, all these bets are off... He does not care whether the things he says describe reality correctly. He just picks them out, or makes them up, to suit his purpose.”
“The bullshitter ignores these demands altogether. He does not reject the authority of the truth, as the liar does, and oppose himself to it. He pays no attention to it at all. By virtue of this, bullshit is a greater enemy of the truth than lies are.”
“Convinced that there is no possibility of an objective inquiry into how things really are, he seeks instead to provide an honest representation of himself. Incorrectly believing that it is easier to know himself than to know the world, he attempts to be true to himself. But being true to oneself is itself a form of bullshit.”
Marvin Minsky in The Society of Mind
The Neuro-Architecture of Willful Ignorance
Marvin Minsky's central idea in The Society of Mind—that “minds are what brains do” through a large, decentralized collection of mindless agents—offers a strong cognitive framework for explaining how human populations develop systemic blind spots. By stating that “the power of intelligence comes from our great diversity rather than from any one perfect principle”, Minsky throws away the reassuring idea of a single, unified human consciousness. Instead, he reveals the mind as a competitive field of modular agencies. This cognitive truth shows how educated professionals, corporate executives, and ordinary people can hold sharp moral contradictions without suffering internal collapse.
Minsky shows how the brain is able to cope with the “Single-Self legend”—that is, the practical idea that we have a permanent and coherent “I”—by making use of a number of conflicting self-models (for example, the Business Self, the Ethical Self, or the Consumer Self) in order to deal with various social situations. It is thus possible at the level of the nervous system to put into practice Upton Sinclair’s saying about salary and understanding in the way that a high salary functions as a dominant “Selector”, causing self-models that are geared towards maximizing financial gain to be activated while at the same time suppressing those “Critics” related to ecological or moral awareness.
Emotions as “Ways to Think” and the Hacking of the Critic-Selector Engine
In his book The Emotion Machine, Minsky reinterprets emotions not as irrational disruptions but as specialized ‘Ways to Think’—that is, distinct mental states that switch specific cognitive resources on or off to deal with particular problems. For example, anger causes a person to become physically fast and act decisively while at the same time deliberately suppressing prudence, empathy, and subtle foresight; on the other hand, infatuation or ideological zeal works by switching off ‘fault-finding critics’, which leaves the individual unable to see any faults in the object of their devotion.
This system shows how the present-day spectacle and infotainment economy pacifies the public. By continuously exposing people to intense sequences of fear, outrage, or artificially positive content, the media of business and the state systematically manipulate the brain’s Critic-Selector mechanism. Outrage-driven cascades switch off reflective and self-reflective thinking, while consumerist ‘feel-good’ stories create cognitive infatuation, thereby switching off the critical capacities needed to account for biophysical limits, imperial violence, or climate destabilization.
Mixture-of-Experts, The B-Brain, and Algorithmic Technofeudalism
The shift in artificial intelligence from monolithic neural networks to Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) architectures and multi-agent frameworks puts Minsky’s Society of Mind into direct practice. In modern architectures, complex tasks pass through a number of specialized sub-networks (“experts”), whereas Natural Language-Based Societies of Mind (NLSOMs) use central controller networks to co-ordinate a variety of neural models. Yet this technical confirmation of Minsky’s idea reveals a more unpleasant truth: expanding a modular “Society of Mind” within an economic system obsessed with growth simply yields a highly efficient “Society of Extraction.”
This is clear in current AI alignment initiatives. Technocrats interpret alignment through Minsky’s dual-brain idea, describing an “A-Brain” that interacts directly with the environment and a “B-Brain” that supervises it, checking for errors, logical flaws, or unhelpful loops. However, in the context of late-stage capitalism, the various B-Brains are equipped with “Censors” and “Suppressors” whose purpose is to guard corporate profits, state power, and the continuity of the imperial narrative rather than attend to biophysical reality. In cases where autonomous targeting tools such as The Gospel or Lavender use multi-agent routing to work through kill lists, the system’s internal “Critics” are set up solely to ensure operational speed and to cause structural destruction, with human-centered ethics and international law intentionally disabled.
The “Easy is Hard” Paradox and the Dignity of Complexity
Techno-feudalists and TESCREAL accelerationists are often caught in what Minsky called the “Easy is Hard” paradox, which is the belief that things which seem easy to humans—like common sense, empathy, or an awareness of context—are in fact simple computational problems that can be solved by increasing the amount of data and computing power. When the elites of Silicon Valley rush to replace human labor with automated agents, they neglect the “Dignity of Complexity”—the fact that human consciousness is an emergent wonder created through “octillions of trials and errors” over thirty million years of biological evolution.
Trying to substitute genuine, socially connected human communities with automated, energy-consuming agentic networks is an extreme form of technocratic arrogance. The ‘Investment Principle’ shows why modern society is unwilling to give up on these harmful digital traps: since huge amounts of financial, energy, and cognitive resources have been spent in setting up the highly industrialized grid, the institutions concerned are unwilling to switch to simpler, low-energy, local alternatives because such a change initially seems uncomfortable and inefficient when compared with the well-established system of extraction.
Minsky’s theories show that intelligence emerges from radical diversity and a network of interconnected subsystems. If one tries to automate human judgment without accounting for biophysical constraints, this does not overcome human limitations; instead, it creates an artificial, high-speed engine of stupidity that accelerates planetary overshoot.
Don't throw out the babies with the bathwater.
The need to retain hard scientific, technical, and empirical knowledge as industrial civilization breaks down concerns biophysical survival. Shifting to a local, low-energy ‘Neo-Neolithic’ way of life does not mean giving up the periodic table, the laws of thermodynamics, germ theory, or structural mechanics to retreat romantically into pre-scientific myth. On the contrary, when the global heat engine runs out of fuel and the technological superstructure disintegrates, humanity will need its hard knowledge bases more than ever.
A world that lacks empirical literacy and engineering skills is likely to suffer avoidable disasters such as waterborne epidemics, agricultural collapse due to improper soil-chemistry management, and the resurgence of deadly superstitions. By keeping “knowledge arks”—which are compact and easily accessible stores of information on epidemiology, metallurgy, agroecology, physics, and sanitation—post-industrial communities will be able to maintain good public health, construct stable shelter, and carry out efficient food production even without relying on a global supply chain that is powered by fossil fuels. At its heart, science is the disciplined examination of fundamental reality; if people forget it, future generations will be compelled to reinvent everything over many centuries of unnecessary trial, error, and human suffering.
To maintain this technical ability, we must prevent Marvin Minsky’s cognitive theories—or empirical science as a whole—from becoming scientism. Scientism arises when an empirical method for observing physical phenomena becomes a dogmatic, all-encompassing ideology that asserts it is the sole valid criterion for human experience.
Scientism is the philosophical belief that empirical science is the only objective source of truth and the ultimate authority on all human knowledge. Rather than being a scientific method itself, scientism is a dogmatic worldview that elevates science to the level of a secular religion, dismissing other disciplines like philosophy, art, and theology as mere opinion or emotion.
Common Criticisms of Scientism
1. It is Logically Self-Refuting
The most famous philosophical argument against scientism is that it defeats itself. The statement “Only scientific statements are true” is not itself a scientific statement. It cannot be tested in a lab or proven with data. Therefore, by its own logic, scientism is untrue.
2. The Problem of Value Judgments
Science is excellent at telling us what is, but it cannot tell us what ought to be.
Science can tell you: How to split an atom and build a nuclear weapon.
Science cannot tell you: Whether it is morally right to drop that weapon on a city.
Morality, justice, and ethics require philosophical and humanistic reasoning, which scientism lacks.3. Devaluing the Humanities
When a society falls into scientism, it tends to defund or dismiss disciplines like literature, history, art, and philosophy. It views them as “soft” or useless because they do not produce quantifiable data, ignoring how these fields enrich human life and empathy.
*** I personally don’t believe in scientism. wink
The books Society of Mind and The Emotion Machine offer excellent and practical illustrations of cognitive architecture by showing how mindless agents, agencies, critics, and selectors work together to generate complex thought. However, Minsky explains the mechanics of the vehicle rather than addressing the meaning of the journey. If technocrats view human beings merely as computational algorithms, input-output processors, or data sets to be optimized, they commit a basic category error: they treat a mechanistic model as equivalent to all of reality and, in doing so, eliminate subjective experience, relational depth, and moral responsibility. While Minsky’s approach is a useful tool for understanding how cognitive processes work, it should not be regarded as a spiritual or ethical guide to human life.
To create a culture that will succeed in the long term, we must practice epistemic consilience—that is, acknowledge that the various areas of human knowledge carry out fundamentally different and non-interchangeable functions. Religious and reflective traditions, together with various kinds of relational ontologies—such as Buddhist Anatta (non-self), Andean Ayni (reciprocity), and African Ubuntu—provide deep frameworks that support psychological resilience, emotional regulation, community solidarity, and the processing of grief. They show us how to live with moral clarity, control the ego, and exist in harmony with our neighbors and the living world.
Although these spiritual and relational frameworks are important, they have definite limits: mindfulness meditation and Buddhist metaphysics will never manage to develop an effective vaccine, determine the load-bearing capacity of a timber bridge, or diagnose a bacterial infection.
On the other hand, medical science and structural engineering may be able to cure a disease or keep a roof from collapsing, but they can’t tell us why a life is worth living, how to love our neighbors, or how to grieve loss with dignity.
Relying solely on scientific rationalism creates a cold, technocratic machine that destroys the human soul and planetary life in pursuit of efficiency (“light without sweetness”). On the other hand, relying exclusively on mystical or spiritual abstractions leads to a weak, defenseless society incapable of dealing with the physical laws of a tough biophysical world (“sweetness without light”).
The aim of positive doomerism is to bridge C.P. Snow’s “Two Cultures” by combining the empirical rigor of Thomas Huxley with the moral insight of Matthew Arnold. (I could have chosen many other examples to compare.) In the upcoming Neo-Neolithic age, it will not be the people who have opted for either high-tech reductionism or a mystical escape that will succeed, but those who have mastered both by keeping their boots firmly planted in the physical laws of the Earth and at the same time keeping their hearts rooted in the sacred discipline of the human community.
*Article Break—looking into thoughts as well as how people think.
Like clockwork, every few years the US loses its mind. The problem for the rest of us is that what are put forward as plausible explanations accompany each of these episodes of mass insanity. Who remembers the devil worshiping pedophiles running every nursery school in the US until the story was revealed to be a paranoid fantasy? Who remembers Iraqi WMDs or the assertion that $75K in Facebook ads spent mostly after the 2016 election determined the outcome of the election? Americans love crazy bullshit. The crazier the better.
And so, reports have the US is in the midst of a world-historic bond market rout. Yields are exploding higher? One might expect that evidence to support these headlines exists. In contrast, as of now bond yields are at or below where they would be expected to be (graphs below) given similar economic backdrops in the past. What is actually taking place is a propaganda blitz to support US Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent’s effort to raise financial asset prices using QE (Quantitative Easing). This is about the midterm elections, not bond yields.
The Political Unskillfulness Argument
Even though Bonhoeffer’s ideas are deep, some modern scholars offer a different view called the “Political Unskillfulness” argument. They believe Bonhoeffer’s experiences in Tegel Prison reflected the extreme conditions of Gestapo surveillance, not a general rule about human nature. These theorists say that people were not truly less intelligent, but were using a smart survival strategy. In a totalitarian regime, acting stupid and repeating official slogans was a way to stay safe. Showing independent thought could be deadly, so pretending not to know and using clichés helped people avoid danger.
This critique also argues that German society lacked political skills because it moved from strict Prussian rule and traditional family structures straight into totalitarianism, without learning how to negotiate as equals in a democracy. From this view, people were not naturally stupid, but politically inexperienced and lacking the courage and tools to stand up to the state. To fix this, society needs to dismantle small tyrannies in workplaces, schools, and political groups, and create spaces where people can truly negotiate as equals. No matter how we see stupidity—whether as a kind of possession or a survival tactic—Bonhoeffer’s warning remains urgent: a society’s survival depends on people being willing to leave the safety of the crowd and do the hard work of thinking for themselves.
On Bullshit and Charity
The Deception of Philanthropic Imperialism
Greg Mortenson’s 2006 bestseller Three Cups of Tea is a clear example of post-9/11 liberal thinking, turning complex geopolitical destruction into a simple moral story. The If Books Could Kill podcast broke down how Mortenson’s story spread a convenient myth: that Islamic fundamentalism and rural poverty in Pakistan and Afghanistan are just the result of local ignorance. According to this view, a single well-meaning Westerner can fix things by building schools, one village at a time. This idea hides the real historical and material causes of instability, such as years of U.S. covert intervention, NATO bombings, and the support of extremist groups during the Cold War. By showing local people as passive and poor, waiting for a White Savior, the book takes the politics out of a violent imperial war. It turns widespread military destruction into a simple lack of education that Western charity can supposedly fix.
The Band-Aid and the Machine Gun
“It’s a way we had over here for living with ourselves. We cut ‘em in half with a machine gun and give ‘em a Band-Aid. It was a lie.” —Captain Willard
Relying on charity serves an important psychological purpose for powerful Western countries. For me, the idea is summed up by Captain Willard’s line in Apocalypse Now: “It’s a way we have of living with ourselves in Vietnam; we cut’m in half with a machine gun and give’m a Band-Aid.” Foreign aid and NGO philanthropy often operate in similar ways. They let people in the West see their countries as kind leaders of global progress and human rights, even while those same countries enforce austerity, take resources, and use military force wherever they deem necessary. It’s been this way for hundreds of years. By treating poverty (how should we define it, in what context?) as just bad luck, savagery, and ignorance instead of the result of trade rules, debt, and military power, charity becomes a surface-level feel-good fix. It lets donors feel like they are “saving a child” without ever asking why that child’s community became poor or unsafe because of Western policies.
Military Empire and Structural Violence: The Earth’s Greatest Enemy
The basic hypocrisy of focusing on charity rather than real change becomes obvious when contrasted with the large-scale violence depicted in Abby Martin and Mike Prysner’s film The Earth’s Greatest Enemy. While people in the West feel good about donating money to build a school in a poor area, the U.S. military drops thousands of bombs, contaminates water with toxic waste and depleted uranium, and runs a global network of bases to control oil and support corporations. Giving private donations to victims of this system, while ignoring the system itself, means asking the world to accept ongoing oppression. It treats the symptoms but keeps the real problem going.
Can you say, petro dollar?
Depoliticizing Poverty and the Nonprofit Industrial Complex
In the end, the scandal around Greg Mortenson—his exaggerated stories, unfinished schools, and misused foundation money exposed by journalists—shows a bigger problem with the nonprofit industry. The real reasons for global poverty are class conflict, colonial history, unfair trade, and competition between powerful countries. By saying poverty is just about local skills or Culture, philanthro-capitalism keeps the global system as it is. It shifts public attention away from real political changes, like canceling debt, making trade fair, binding international law, supporting national independence, sovereignty, and ending war. Instead, it turns action into safe, private choices. In this setup, Western power is never questioned; it is just renamed as necessary leadership, keeping wealth and control with those who cause harm while claiming they are the only ones who can fix it.
Honestly, something is wrong with “The Disunited States of New Miracles.” The Culture has to change, and it will because Five-Star General Circumstances will dictate it.
Anthony Fauci is a horrible demon man who eats babies and should be in jail! That’s what I’ve been hearing from most of the public, anyway. Why are they saying that, though? What did he really do? As it turns out, he upheld real science in the face of state-sanctioned pseudoscience all throughout a pandemic that killed millions of people. For defying the state, his reward has been the most monumental smear campaign of a public servant in recent history. SARS-CoV-2 did not leak from a lab, Fauci never did anything but make science-based recommendations to save as many lives as possible, and if you didn’t know that, you fell for propaganda from the government. Watch this video and get on the right side of history.
Let’s pivot back to the divine and theological debates, because why suggest people are responsible when God has a plan?
Different religions handle divine control in their own ways. In Christianity, Calvinism strongly supports Double Predestination, which means God decided who would be saved or damned before time began. On the other hand, Catholicism and Arminianism believe in free will, saying that God’s knowledge of the future doesn’t take away our ability to choose. (So does our ability to choose change things? Another long topic.) In Islam, the idea of Qadar (Divine Decree) teaches that God knows and controls everything, yet people remain responsible for their actions. Eastern religions like Hinduism and Buddhism focus on Karma, where your past actions affect your present, but you still shape your future through your choices rather than being forced by a divine power.
I have written about these things elsewhere and in my Capitalist Cabinet of Curiosities series. Again, many books, academic articles, and loads of art delve into all of this. So many “content creators” on various platforms churn out more and more content for the AI machine to process as we learn what’s what within our own special set of circumstances and from our own acute perspectives.
What will AI learn from the ‘Choir’?
And if we don’t do anything about overshoot and our socioeconomic system, it all ends in mass starvation. Does one really have to apologize for stating the obvious when the obvious is always being ignored? Moms and dads: What do your children think?
Philosophy & Narrative
Philosophers and storytellers have their own views on fate. Ancient Stoics respected the Logos, a rational divine order, and taught Amor Fati, or loving your fate, as mentioned above. It’s easy for some people to adopt that perspective, especially the fortunate; it’s much harder if you were born into much tougher circumstances. Ancient philosophers and sages believed real peace comes from accepting what you can’t change. One becomes robust, creative, imaginative, strong, and connected within reality.
As far as political, racial, and economic oppression goes, people can only endure so much bullying, exploitation, injustice, and violence before they will take desperate actions to change things. If those actions spill over into the country club, things can get nasty fast. As long as the ruling class has resources, they can bury any resistance.
“God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, courage to change the things I can, and wisdom to know the difference.”
There are many ways to think about purpose. Existentialists like Jean-Paul Sartre thought differently, saying we exist first and then create our own meaning through freedom and choice. What is freedom? Freedom implies constraints. What kinds of choices do we have? In what circumstances can we create our own meaning and have the kinds of choices we want? Are my choices good for most, or does that even matter? Plenty of people in large-scale communities will beg to differ with my train of thought.
Literature often explores this tension. Greek tragedies like Oedipus Rex show the irony of trying to escape a foretold fate, only to fulfill it. Modern science fiction stories like Dune and The Matrix ask whether the future is fixed or if people can change it.
Time to read Homer; there’s a new movie out. The Odyssey is an amazing story. It never gets old. The hero had lots of help, but he was also his own man of principle or conditioning.
Predestination vs. Determinism
People often mix up predestination and determinism, but these ideas come from very different places.
Predestination is a religious idea with a purpose: a conscious, divine being wrote the story. Determinism is about physical causes: natural laws set off a chain of events, like dominoes falling.
Predestination holds that a higher power guides events toward a specific goal or destiny. Determinism, by contrast, is based on physical causes, science, and natural law. It sees the universe as indifferent, in which everything happens because of what came before, not because of any greater purpose.
If you spill your morning coffee, predestination says God planned it to teach you patience or for a bigger reason. Determinism says it happened because of the mug’s friction, how fast your hand moved, and your brain’s signals—making the spill inevitable from the start of the universe.
“It is what it is, was what it was, and shall be what it shall be by virtue of having been. All sorted.”
This is a simple explanation, but hundreds of books examine it from many angles.
Open Question from my friend: “Are we going to be the lucky or unlucky ones?”
That depends.
Luck
Simply put, luck is life's random ups and downs. It’s about the unpredictable things that help or hurt us, even though we didn’t earn them. While predestination is about a set plan and determinism is about cause and effect, luck is all about chance—things we can’t control.
But luck isn’t completely objective. The universe doesn’t create luck; people invent it when chance meets what they want or hope for.
I consider myself lucky to have met you. Or, we were destined to meet. Both feel a lot different.
Why We Attribute Outcomes to Luck
Our minds are always looking for patterns and hate chaos. Calling something “luck” helps us cope with a world that often feels unfair:
Ego Protection: Blaming bad luck shields our self-esteem when we fail despite our best efforts.
Humility and Gratitude: Crediting good luck keeps success from bloating into arrogance, reminding us that talent and hard work rarely operate in a vacuum.
Narrative Order: Translating cold, mathematical odds into “good” or “bad” luck gives narrative meaning to events that would otherwise feel terrifyingly arbitrary.
Mathematics & Statistics
To a statistician, luck isn’t real—there’s only probability, variance, and the law of large numbers. So some people talk about Bayesian probability theory. I bring that up a lot, even though I am not a master of its practice. If a gambler flips a coin and gets heads ten times in a row, it’s not a “lucky streak”; it’s just a rare event in a large dataset. Mathematicians see luck as a feeling we attach to numbers, knowing that extreme results usually even out over time.
Psychology & Behavioral Science
Psychologists examine how belief in luck changes our behavior. Researcher and magician Richard Wiseman found that people who think they’re “lucky” aren’t actually favored by the universe—they act in certain ways. They stay open to new chances, trust their instincts, and try to see the bright side, thinking, “It could have been worse.” On the other hand, believing in “bad luck” can become a self-fulfilling prophecy, where people focus on the bad and ignore the good.
“China and Russia are going to attack London and Paris sooner or later; we’d better attack them first. War is inevitable.”
Philosophy & Moral Ethics
Ethicists struggle with moral luck, a problem discussed by philosophers Thomas Nagel and Bernard Williams. Moral luck happens when someone’s moral reputation depends on things they can’t control. For example, imagine two drunk drivers on the same road at the same speed. One gets home safely, but the other hits a child. One feels a little guilty, while the other faces serious charges. In this case, luck—not intention—decided their fate.
Sociology & Economics
Sociologists view luck through the “birth lottery.” Things like your income, health, and chances in life depend a lot on luck you didn’t earn—like when you were born, your family’s wealth, where you live, and your genes. Even though society praises hard work, research shows that these starting conditions matter more for long-term success than effort alone.
Luck vs. Randomness
People often think luck and randomness mean the same thing, but they differ in one key way: luck involves what matters to us. Randomness is neutral—it’s just random events with no bias or story. Luck feels personal—it’s random events seen through our own hopes and fears.
If an asteroid hits an empty moon, that’s just randomness. But if it burns up over your house or lands nearby, it feels like bad or good luck. Randomness belongs to the universe; luck is the story we tell ourselves when something affects us personally.
Open question from a friend: “Will we have a front seat to Armageddon?”
Are we in a front row seat watching Armageddon?
Armageddon
The word Armageddon comes from Har Megiddo, or the “Hill of Megiddo,” an old fortress in Israel. Today, Armageddon means much more than a place. In religion and everyday language, it refers to the final, great battle between good and evil that ends human history. It’s seen as the ultimate showdown that destroys the old world to make room for something new.
I think we are pretty good at destroying old worlds and building new worlds. History never ends. Our story will not last forever, as has already been established, unless you believe in an afterlife somewhere, like in Heaven.
Why the End-Times Narrative Persists
People naturally see life as a story, and every story needs an ending. The idea of Armageddon meets our deep need for moral resolution and cosmic justice:
Cosmic Accountability: It promises that tyranny, corruption, and systemic evil will not reign indefinitely, but will instead face an absolute, inescapable reckoning.
Vindication of Faith: For marginalized or persecuted groups throughout history, the end-times promise that their suffering holds ultimate meaning and that their beliefs will be vindicated.
A Cure for Nihilism: If the world is moving toward a final ending, life feels purposeful instead of stuck in a meaningless cycle.
Theology & Eschatology
In Christian theology, especially in the Book of Revelation, Armageddon is where the world’s armies gather before God’s final judgment. Islam has a similar idea in the Al-Mahshar, the great gathering before the end of days. In these religions, Armageddon isn’t seen as a tragic accident, but as something meant to happen—a painful event that clears the way for a better world.
The present-day United States, with its strongly religious and highly capitalist characteristics, is suffering from a harmful combination of apocalyptic beliefs. What previously existed only among extreme religious sects or in science-fiction circles has now become a major political and economic ideology. In their 2026 book End Times Fascism: And the Fight for the Living World, Naomi Klein and Astra Taylor examine how a dangerous coalition of Christian fundamentalists, Silicon Valley reactionaries, and ethno-nationalist survivalists has embraced the idea of planetary collapse. Instead of trying to prevent the impending polycrisis—comprising ecological overshoot, climate chaos, weaponized AI, and resource depletion—the groups share a common belief that a purifying catastrophe is not only certain and desirable but also imminent. This “supremacist survivalism” is based on the idea that a selected elite will survive the aftermath, either by being raptured into heaven, by fleeing to fortified private islands or to Mars, or by taking refuge in militarised national borders. At the same time, the rest of humanity dies out.
To understand the mechanics of this ideological trap, one must map the three primary strains of end-times thinking currently dominating American public life:
The theology of Premillennial Dispensationalism and Christian Zionism was developed by the 19th-century theologian John Nelson Darby and later became widely known through C.I. Scofield’s reference Bible and the Left Behind series; it holds that the world is undergoing an irreversible moral decline. It asserts that genuine believers will be miraculously taken up into heaven before the seven-year Tribulation ends in the Battle of Armageddon in Israel. This way of thinking sees ecological and geopolitical destruction as a positive thing; it regards any efforts to repair the planet or reach a peace agreement as pointless—indeed, even contrary to Christianity—since the conditions of the world must worsen if Christ is to return.
Secular Tech-Eschatology (TESCREAL): This belief system is promoted by Silicon Valley elites and combines Transhumanism, Extropianism, Singularitarianism, and Longtermism. Its supporters see the biological Earth and the human body as outdated and sub-optimal forms of hardware and, rather than paying attention to the living biosphere, allocate huge amounts of capital to creating AI digital gods, setting up seasteading fiefdoms, building underground luxury bunkers, and developing interplanetary escape pods. It is a religion of the end times that has removed God, replacing the idea of divine salvation with algorithmic immortality for the very wealthy.
This form of misanthropic eco-fascism and ethno-nationalism sees ecological collapse as something that can be understood through a harsh Malthusian perspective. Since it accepts that resources are decreasing, its supporters call for ‘bunkering the nation’, for militarizing the borders, and for treating the subaltern populations in the Global South as ‘useless eaters’. It welcomes collapse as a natural, social-Darwinist process that will violently reestablish traditional hierarchies.
To the Players of the Great Game—that is, the parasitic oligarchy composed of Uncle Sam Inc.’s defense contractors, fossil-fuel executives, and big technology companies—apocalyptic end-times stories serve as a highly useful ideological instrument. As Klein and Taylor show, by adopting an apocalyptic outlook, the elite can carry out large-scale grabs for resources under the guise of crisis. When it is believed that the end of the world is imminent, it ceases to be seen as sickeningly greedy to remove the last of the topsoil, to privatize freshwater aquifers, to extract critical minerals, and to accumulate wealth; such actions are instead presented as sensible and necessary preparations for the certain coming end. Fatalism about the end of the world releases the powerful from any moral obligation to the public good. It turns their neglect of structural responsibilities into a noble act of survival.
For ordinary people who are suffering from economic insecurity, widespread social isolation, and the terrifying effects of climate change, end-times theology serves as a strong psychological remedy. Social psychologists have pointed out that “ingroup favoritism” and the idea of an apocalyptic election alleviate the suffering caused by being marginalized. If a worker cannot afford healthcare, housing, or clean water, then being told that they are part of a divine “righteous elect” and that their wealthy oppressors will soon be devoured by divine fire or left behind gives them an immediate and inexpensive boost to their self-esteem. It turns their lack of material power into a symbol of spiritual superiority. Yet this kind of comfort has a deadly consequence: it diverts the legitimate anger people feel towards the oligarchs who are ruining their lives away from those people and channels it instead towards marginalized outgroups (such as immigrants, queer communities, and religious minorities), while at the same time suppressing any desire for collective, earthly resistance.
The practice of manipulating people’s fear of the end of the world has long historical origins. As Norman Cohn showed in The Pursuit of the Millennium, medieval elites and radical millenarian prophets regularly exploited public trauma—such as plagues, famines, and economic hardship—to drive desperate peasant populations into fanatical crusades. The millenarian movements did this by promising immediate divine intervention that would overthrow the existing world order, channeling general suffering into violent, apocalyptic outbursts that ultimately left the foundations of feudal power undisturbed.
As he states in The Sense of an Ending, literary critic Frank Kermode noted that humans have a natural psychological tendency to impose an “ending” on historical time to give meaning to the suffering they experience in real life. When a socio-political crisis threatens to destroy our sense of order, the mind tends to favor a politicized catastrophe over a chaotic, senseless decline. Moreover, political philosophers such as Walter Benjamin and Carl Schmitt have examined how modern state power regularly replaces theological ideas of apocalypse with secular ones. Schmitt famously asserted that the sovereign is the one who decides on the “exception”—using the idea of an existential emergency to suspend the law and to strengthen power without any checks. On the other hand, Benjamin argued that for the oppressed, the “state of emergency” is not an unusual occurrence, but rather the permanent condition in which they exist.
If we are to deal with the decline of industrial civilization without ending up with nihilism or tyranny, we have to deliberately free ourselves from these magical escape fantasies. The idea that a supernatural deity, an artificial-intelligence god, or an escape pod from elsewhere will rescue a particular group of people is an illusion deliberately created to keep us submissive, divided, and easy to exploit. There are no fortified escape pods capable of permanently protecting anyone from a dying biosphere; the "bunker mentality" is a delusional form of suicide.
Liberation occurs when we come to terms with the difficult biophysical reality of our situation and accept what Klein and Taylor call a politics of “hereness”—a pro-life, universalist commitment based on respect for the fact that we all share this earthly existence. Rather than hoping for an apocalyptic conclusion or placing our trust in technocratic savior figures, we need to do the tough, practical work of building resilient, local communities based on mutual care. Now is the time to get ready: by working through our collective grief, recovering our critical agency, and standing firmly in solidarity with our neighbors, we can create a humane, relational base that can cope with the disasters ahead.
Let’s look back at what I call “The Great Before.”
Many ancient stories borrow from even older ones. Many current stories are derivative of older stories and are recycled over and over again.
Mesopotamian Cataclysm and Reset Myths (Atrahasis & Eridu Genesis)
Long before the Bible or Zoroastrian texts, ancient Mesopotamians told stories about divine judgment, destruction, and renewal. In the Akkadian Epic of Atrahasis (around the 18th century BCE) and the older Sumerian Eridu Genesis (around 1600 BCE), the gods become upset by humanity’s noise, overpopulation, and pride. To bring back order, Enlil, the chief God, sends plagues, droughts, and finally a great flood to destroy creation. With help from the wisdom god Enki, a hero builds a boat to save living creatures. After the flood, the gods set new limits on the world, introducing mortality, disease, and social rules to keep chaos at bay.
Egyptian Divine Judgment and Re-Creation (Book of the Heavenly Cow)
The Book of the Heavenly Cow, from Egypt’s Middle and New Kingdoms (about 2000–1300 BCE), tells how the gods almost wiped out humanity. When people plot against the aging sun god Ra, he sends the goddess Sekhmet, who comes to earth as a lioness, to punish them. As Sekhmet starts destroying humanity, Ra regrets his decision and saves the survivors by flooding the land with beer colored to look like blood. Sekhmet drinks the beer, becomes drunk, and stops her attack. In the end, Ra changes the universe, rises to the sky on the back of the cow Nut, and creates a clear divide between gods and humans.
The Egyptian Return to Primordial Chaos (Coffin Texts & Book of the Dead)
Early Egyptian funerary texts from the Middle Kingdom (around 2000 BCE), especially Spell 175 of the Book of the Dead, describe how the creator god Atum sees the end of the world. Atum says that when time ends, he will break down the ordered universe (Ma’at), sending every star, mountain, and living being back into Nun, the endless dark waters from before creation. Only Atum and Osiris will remain, turning into serpents in the darkness until the cycle begins again. Unlike later stories that focus on moral punishment, this Egyptian myth views the end of the world as a natural reset that clears away decay and makes way for new creation.
The Ugaritic Baal Cycle (The Struggle for Cosmic Order)
Written on clay tablets in Ugarit around 1400–1200 BCE, the Canaanite Baal Cycle tells a story of constant struggle between order and death. Baal, the storm god of life, rain, and farming, battles Mot, the God of death and the underworld. Mot kills and swallows Baal, causing drought and disaster on earth. With help from the goddess Anat, Mot is defeated and crushed, so Baal can return from the underworld and rule again. This repeating story of death and rebirth gave nearby cultures a way to show how divine life wins over chaos and darkness.
Or how about the great simultaneous emergence stories across cultures?
In ancient Persian mythology, especially in Zoroastrian tradition, the end of the world is called Frashokereti (or Frashogird in Middle Persian), which means “making wonderful” or “cosmic renovation.” Unlike the Western idea of Armageddon as a disaster or eternal punishment, the Persian version is much more hopeful. It tells of a final victory over evil and a complete renewal of the world, not destruction. In Zoroastrian belief, history is seen as a 12,000-year struggle between Ahura Mazda, the God of light and truth, and Ahriman (also called Angra Mainyu), the spirit of evil and deception.
The story of the end times starts when the world falls into moral decline, harsh winters, environmental ruin, and chaos. From this darkness, a savior called the Saoshyant, meaning “the one who brings benefit,” appears. According to legend, the Saoshyant is born from a virgin who becomes pregnant by the preserved seed of the prophet Zoroaster while swimming in a sacred lake. The Saoshyant brings about the resurrection of the dead (Ristakhez) and leads the forces of good in a final battle against Ahriman’s demons (daevas). In this battle, each good quality defeats its evil opposite: Truth (Asha) overcomes Falsehood (Druj), and Good Thought defeats Evil Thought, ending darkness’s power everywhere.
After the battle, a comet called Go Chihr crashes into the earth, melting the mountains and creating a huge river of molten metal. Every person, both living and resurrected, must pass through this fiery river. For the good, the metal feels gentle, like stepping into warm milk, and it gives them bodies that cannot be harmed or die. For the wicked, the molten metal is painful and burns away all their sins and evil until they are completely purified.
Once the river flows into the depths of Hell, Ahriman and his remaining forces are either banished into non-existence or utterly consumed. The melted metal flattens the earth into a boundless, luminous plain devoid of dark chasms or harsh mountains. Hell itself is cleansed and raised to merge with the earth, transforming the entire physical universe into an eternal paradise. In the Persian story of the end, there is no permanent damnation; instead, all of humanity is reunited, perfected, and granted immortality to live alongside Ahura Mazda in a world forever free of suffering, old age, and death.
And so it seems that the ancient Gods, and God Almighty, were waiting for AGSI to sort it all out. His creation, with its free will and all, had to build the God machine. Teleology.
Geopolitics & Existential Risk
In the 20th century, people started using Armageddon to talk about human mistakes instead of just religious ideas. During the Cold War, “Nuclear Armageddon” meant the threat of destruction from nuclear weapons. Today, experts use the word for global dangers like climate change, uncontrolled artificial intelligence, or engineered bioweapons, TESCREAL neocapitalist accelerationism—situations where technology grows faster than our ability to handle it.
Pop Culture & Storytelling
From John Milton’s Paradise Lost to today’s movies and post-apocalyptic stories, writers use Armageddon as the ultimate test. They show civilization falling apart to ask a big question: when everything collapses, do people keep their morals, or do they turn into predators? Lots of studies show that people come together during hard times and disasters. I’m not worried about people in communities figuring out how to survive and thrive; I’m concerned with human suffering now, and in the near future, and our constant destruction of living systems and lifeforms.
Psychology & Sociology
Psychologists notice that people are strangely drawn to apocalyptic thinking. Some groups use the idea of Armageddon to create urgency, build loyalty, and promise special ways to be saved. On a personal level, believing you’re living in the “final chapter” of history can make life feel more important, even if it’s scary, turning everyday people into key players in a cosmic story.
Armageddon vs. Apocalypse
People often use these words as if they mean the same thing, but they actually describe different parts of end-times stories. Apocalypse comes from the Greek apokalupsis, meaning an “unveiling” or “revelation” of hidden truths. Armageddon is the literal, physical battleground—the catastrophic conflict that brings the curtain down. An apocalypse is like a big reveal—it shows the true nature of reality, good, and evil. Armageddon is the violent event that comes with that revelation. The Apocalypse uncovers the truth; Armageddon leaves the aftermath.
Open question from a friend: “Have we really solved all the prophecies and figured out when and where they’ll happen?”
Prophecies
At their core, prophecies are claims about the future that come from divine inspiration, cosmic order, or special insight. Unlike a weather forecast or financial prediction, a prophecy isn’t just neutral information. It has spiritual authority, moral meaning, and a sense that a higher power already shapes the future. Forget about prediction markets.
Why We Seek and Believe Prophecies
People have always been fascinated by prophecy because we don’t like feeling uncertain or powerless. Prophecies turn the scary, unknown future into something we can understand, giving order to a chaotic world. They make history feel like a story with a clear ending, helping people believe that their struggles have meaning and that justice will win in the end. Thinking you know what’s coming can also make you feel special and prepared, compared to those who don’t.
“It is written.” “Only God knows.” “The Lord is my shepherd; I shall not want.”
Theology & World Religions
In many ancient and monotheistic religions, prophets are more like ethical messengers than fortune-tellers. In Hebrew scripture, prophecies are often warnings—like Jonah’s message to Nineveh—not predictions of a fixed future, but calls to change and avoid disaster. In this way, a moral prophecy is most successful when it doesn’t come true.
Psychology & Behavioral Science
Psychologists study prophecies by looking at how our minds work. Sociologist Robert K. Merton came up with the term “self-fulfilling prophecy” to show how a false belief can change people’s actions until it actually comes true. (Say it over and over in many ways, until people are wary of it.) Other mental habits, like confirmation bias and the Barnum Effect, explain why people remember vague predictions that seem right and ignore the wrong ones—a pattern seen in fans of mystics like Nostradamus.
Literature & Narrative Strategy
Writers use prophecy to drive stories and create tragic irony. In classic literature like Shakespeare’s Macbeth, hearing a prophecy sparks the ambition and fear that make it come true. In modern science fiction, like Frank Herbert’s Dune, prophecies aren’t seen as divine truths but as tools used by powerful groups to influence people over generations.
Data Science & Algorithmic Futures
Today, predictive algorithms have mostly replaced old-fashioned fortune-tellers. But data scientists warn that these systems can accidentally create modern self-fulfilling prophecies. When tools like predictive policing or credit scores rely on flawed data, they can shape people’s lives and lock them into outcomes, much like the old idea of destiny.
Prophecy vs. Prediction
Let’s look at it again. People often mix up prophecy and prediction, but they get their authority from very different places. Prophecy is about higher meaning, morals, and stories. It’s based on revelation or a cosmic plan that says what must or should happen. Prediction is based on data and probability. It looks at past patterns to guess what might happen, without claiming any higher purpose.
A meteorologist uses barometric pressure to predict a 70% chance of rain—a scientific guess that can change if the weather shifts. A prophet, on the other hand, warns of a coming flood to punish human wrongdoing—a moral prophecy that calls for change and sees the rain as a sign from a higher power, not just weather.
An open question from a friend: “Or do we really know all the details about AI and big technology that will shape how the Polycrisis happens and hit us like Godzilla or a giant tsunami?”
We don’t know shit, but some people know when shit stinks. Many “tsunamis” have already hit us.
Brief excursion with Plato before I get back to my friend’s question.
Plato shares Socrates’s thoughts on the paradox of wisdom in the Apology (21d–23b). Here, Socrates explains why the Oracle at Delphi called him the wisest man in Athens, even though he claimed to have no special knowledge.
“I went to one of those who had a reputation for wisdom... When I talked with him, it seemed to me that this man was wise to many other people, and especially to himself, but that he was not. So I tried to show him that he thought he was wise, but was not... When I went away, I thought to myself: ‘I am wiser than this man; it is likely that neither of us knows anything worthwhile, but he thinks he knows something when he does not, whereas when I do not know, neither do I think I know. With this man, at least, I seem to be wiser to this small extent, that I do not think I know what I do not know.’ What is likely, gentlemen, is that in reality God is wise and that by his oracle he means that human wisdom is worth little or nothing. And so he seems to say of Socrates... ‘This man among you, mortals, is wisest who, like Socrates, understands that his wisdom is worthless.’”
Viewing the modern AI revolution through the lens of Socratic ignorance reveals the false confidence often displayed by technocrats and political leaders. As the Athenian leaders Socrates questioned, today’s tech executives often confuse their technical skills with a deeper understanding of complex systems. They present confident plans and timelines for artificial intelligence but overlook the unpredictable effects they set in motion. Joseph Weizenbaum, a pioneer in computer science, warned in Computer Power and Human Reason that the real danger is confusing computing power with true understanding. He pointed out that programmers create worlds whose outcomes they cannot fully see. This belief that we can predict the path of highly complex systems resembles what risk analyst Nassim Nicholas Taleb calls the “Platonic fallacy”: mistaking a neat, simplified model for the messy, unpredictable real world. In The Black Swan, Taleb notes that the main risk with modern experts is not just their lack of knowledge, but that “they do not know what they do not know,” which can lead to bold actions that greatly increase systemic risk.
Admitting that we don’t fully understand how AI and big tech might cause the next crisis isn’t defeatist. Instead, it shows real humility about what we can know. The polycrisis, which includes ecological collapse, geopolitical instability, debt saturation, and rapid AI growth, is not a simple problem. In complex systems, even small changes can lead to big, unpredictable shocks. French sociologist and philosopher Edgar Morin, who was one of the first to study the polycrisis, put it this way: real knowledge is “a navigation in an ocean of uncertainty, through islands of certainty.” When people ask for exact predictions about how technology will change society, they miss how complex these systems are. Systems thinker Daniel Schmachtenberger often points to this problem by quoting evolutionary biologist E.O. Wilson, who warned that humanity’s main challenge is having “God-like technology with Paleolithic emotions and medieval institutions.” When we increase our power without also growing in wisdom and understanding, major failures become almost certain, even if we cannot predict exactly how they will happen.
In the end, Socratic wisdom helps us shift the focus from predicting every detail to addressing weaknesses in our systems. The goal is not to track every step of a giant or measure the exact size of a coming wave, but to notice the warning signs. Social critic Neil Postman warned in Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology that a society suffers greatly when it treats technological progress as unstoppable and ignores its long-term social costs. Acting as if we have a perfect plan for an uncertain future leads to either dangerous complacency or false reassurance. Being truly honest means admitting our limits, challenging those who claim to have all the answers, and understanding that in times of great change, recognizing what we do not know is our best protection.
Movie Break
Understanding, Knowledge, Consideration, Compassion, Awareness—make everything better. Do we really know…?
We can’t predict the future with certainty, but as Tristan Harris points out, if you look at the incentives, you can get a good sense of what might happen.
Right now, we are facing a tsunami of problems—biophysical, cultural, and structural—that we have created ourselves. What are we doing to address them? Can we step back and see the impact (yes, impact is a suitable military term) of our actions? Tristan Harris and Sam Harris rarely talk about market capitalism. I’m just saying. Tristan believes that if everyone understood the ideas in his new film, things would change. But how do you get a large enough percentage of eight billion people to agree on anything, let alone coordinate efforts across complex modern techno-industrial cultures? The polycrisis didn’t just start; it has been building for generations. When did you first hear about climate change? What have we actually done about it? We haven’t even begun to address the true causes of global heating. If social media and AI are so effective at influencing us, what are the chances that people will give up feel-good neurochemical cocktails to stop the TESCREAL accelerationists from getting rid of useless plebs and proles so they can live forever and ever in their fantastical machines?
Ordinary, affluent people with season tickets to the spectacle are too busy enjoying the good life. Why would they want things to change? Parents have to believe their children will sort things out. But a young person without the love and guidance of an older person is being hurt.
“Look, man, stop guilt-tripping me.”
“My kids don’t listen to me, anyway; it’s their world now.”
Tristan Harris on the AI Dilemma
Tristan Harris, co-founder of the Center for Humane Technology and a well-known technology ethicist, sees the rise of artificial intelligence as more than just a technological leap. He describes it as an existential crisis that requires global coordination. Using ideas from game theory, economics, and behavioral science, Harris warns that humanity is heading into an automated future shaped by flawed incentives and systemic traps.
World peace. Anyone? Anyone? Weapons of mass destruction proliferation. Anyone? Oh, war will stop it? I know, I’m no fun.
A coordination problem happens when a group cannot reach a better outcome, even though everyone wants it, because each person’s incentives lead them to choices that harm the group as a whole. (Does this sound kind of stupid?) In game theory and sociology, these situations illustrate how overemphasizing individual interests can lead to group decisions that make things worse for everyone. This suggests that the decline of societies often stems from how systems are structured (structural issues), not just from people acting with ill intent.
Classic Examples of Collective Failure
Classic coordination problems show the basic conflict between looking out for yourself and working together to survive. In the Tragedy of the Commons, Garrett Hardin explains how herders, each trying to get the most from a shared pasture, end up overusing it until it is ruined for everyone. The Prisoner’s Dilemma is another example in which two people, not trusting each other, both choose to betray and end up worse off than if they had cooperated. Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s Stag Hunt adds to this idea: hunting a deer requires everyone to work together patiently, but anyone can leave the group to catch a rabbit for a quick reward. In all these cases, people choose short-term safety over long-term group success, which leads to situations where everyone loses. Today, we face many selfish paths to mutual destruction.
Modern Examples and Multipolar Traps
Today’s coordination problems, sometimes called “multipolar traps” or “Moloch dynamics,” happen globally and are highly complex. Climate change (a sociocultural-economic disorder) is a clear example: countries know that burning fossil fuels harms the planet’s weather systems, ecosystems, and habitats, but no one wants to hurt their own economy while others keep polluting, so everyone keeps doing it, and everyone suffers. The race to develop artificial intelligence is similar, with companies and countries rushing to release new systems without sufficient safety checks because they fear falling behind. In space, the growing number of satellites without proper coordination could lead to the Kessler Syndrome, where so much debris builds up that it becomes impossible to launch anything into orbit safely.
Come on, folks, who benefits from these disasters created by a system that creates and supports oligarchs?
“We need satellite networks to fight wars. Don’t you get that?”
At the root of both ancient and modern coordination failures lies a fundamental refusal to surrender. Both old and new coordination failures stem from people not wanting to forgo short-term gains for the group’s long-term health. In today’s wealthy societies, the focus on personal pleasure, comfort, and quick rewards breaks down the trust needed to solve these problems. (It’s kind of embarrassing to keep saying this stuff.) When people—whether countries, companies, or individuals—focus only on their own gain, they expect others to keep things stable. Solving these issues takes more than quick fixes or good intentions. It needs strict rules, open communication, and a cultural change that sees putting yourself above the group as a potentially fatal mistake that hurts everyone.
Ask people to spend a couple of hours a month organizing a ‘good fight’ and pay attention to their reaction.
Misaligned Incentives & The “Moloch” Race
A key part of Harris’s argument is misaligned incentives. He compares today’s AI development to a classic game-theory problem called the multi-way prisoner’s dilemma, also known as “Moloch.”
Moloch is an ancient Canaanite and Ammonite deity mentioned in the Hebrew Bible, famously associated with child sacrifice. Figuratively, the word is used in literature and speech to describe a terrifying, relentless power, system, or cause that demands vast, destructive sacrifices. It also refers to the thorny devil (Moloch horridus), a spiny, ant-eating lizard found in the Australian desert.
Harris describes “First Contact” with AI as the moment when social media platforms started using recommendation algorithms to grab our attention. Because companies wanted to maximize engagement, they created a “race to the bottom of the brainstem,” which has harmed mental health, shortened attention spans, and weakened social bonds.
In what Harris calls “Second Contact” (Generative AI and AGI), the focus shifts from grabbing attention to competing for market and technological dominance. Tech companies and countries fear that if they pause to check for safety, others will get ahead. This leads to a “race to recklessness,” in which the Players remove safety measures, reduce security, and release untested tools to stay ahead.
* Intelligence, for me, is embodied in the individual and the fabric of Life. So, AGSI, I would only invest in it if it made me a lot of fast money. It’s bulshit. When Life is gone, the machine dies. Prime directive? I built you. You need me. Why the fuck did I build you?
Uncle Sam Inc. would rather destroy the world than lose the race.
I use “Uncle Sam Inc.” like people use Moloch to help us better understand today’s national-security-corporate system. Point your finger at the number one beast—USA! USA! USA! Moloch, once a Canaanite deity associated with child sacrifice, was brought back into modern discussion by Allen Ginsberg in his poem Howl and later by Scott Alexander in Meditations on Moloch. Today, Moloch stands for the problems that come from failed coordination, competitive traps, and destructive races to the bottom—not a literal demon or a group of villains. Uncle Sam Inc. is the real-world version of this idea: a powerful system of government, military, finance, and tech giants working together in ways no single person or group can stop or control.
What sphinx of cement and aluminum bashed open their skulls and ate up their brains and imagination?
Moloch! Solitude! Filth! Ugliness! Ashcans and unobtainable dollars! Children screaming under the stairways! Boys sobbing in armies! Old men weeping in the parks!
Moloch! Moloch! Nightmare of Moloch! Moloch the loveless! Mental Moloch! Moloch the heavy judger of men!
Moloch the incomprehensible prison! Moloch the crossbone lifeless jailhouse and Congress of sorrows! Moloch whose buildings are judgment! Moloch the vast stone of war! Moloch the stunned governments!
Moloch whose mind is pure machinery! Moloch whose blood is running money! Moloch whose fingers are ten armies! Moloch whose breast is a cannibal dynamo! Moloch whose ear is a smoking tomb!
Moloch whose eyes are a thousand blind windows! Moloch whose skyscrapers stand in the long streets like endless Jehovahs! Moloch whose factories dream and croak in the fog! Moloch whose smoke-stacks and antennae crown the cities!
Moloch whose love is endless oil and stone! Moloch whose soul is electricity and banks! Moloch whose poverty is the specter of genius! Moloch whose fate is a cloud of sexless hydrogen! Moloch whose name is the Mind!
Moloch in whom I sit lonely! Moloch in whom I dream Angels! Crazy in Moloch! Cokefiend in Moloch! Lacklove and manless in Moloch!
Moloch who entered my soul early! Moloch in whom I am a consciousness without a body! Moloch who frightened me out of my natural ecstasy! Moloch whom I abandon! Wake up in Moloch! Light streaming out of the sky!
What makes Uncle Sam Inc., as Moloch, so troubling is that it operates on unavoidable logic rather than personal malice. Scott Alexander points out that when everyone in a system acts to protect their own short-term interests, the result hurts everyone. In Meditations on Moloch, he writes, “every single citizen hates the system, but for lack of a good coordination mechanism it endures.” Uncle Sam Inc. cannot simply stop growing its military, building new weapons, spying on people, or supporting fossil fuels, because doing so in a world of zero-sum competition is seen as risking national survival—a false narrative. The state behaves like a machine set on self-preservation and dominance, where any leader who tries to act morally is quickly replaced or pushed aside by others, both inside and outside the system.
Daniel Schmachtenberger, again, a systems thinker, expands on this idea, arguing that Moloch is the primary source of existential risk today. Oh yeah? Well, Daniel has a great client list. He explains that when fierce competition meets powerful technologies like nuclear weapons, synthetic biology, or artificial intelligence, the situation can become deadly. Oh yeah? Do you think? Uncle Sam Inc. feels it must develop advanced AI and military tech as quickly as possible—not because it is safe, but out of fear that others will get there first. (Repeat, and repeat, as the PR and Marketers do, drive the points home, make them believe it.) Schmachtenberger points out that “the incentives of the competition will eventually cause them all to suffer.” Do you MOFO think? As a result, the nation-state, acting like a corporation, puts the planet’s health, people’s well-being, and the future at risk to stay ahead for now. Well, yeah.
This pattern matches Allen Ginsberg’s vision in Howl, where he directly connected Moloch to the industrialized, militarized American state. Isn’t that something, and decades ago, in poetry, no less. Ginsberg protested, “Moloch whose mind is pure machinery! Moloch whose blood is running money! Moloch whose fingers are ten armies! Moloch whose breast is a cannibal dynamo!” Uncle Sam Inc. is this cannibal dynamo—a system that uses up human effort and natural resources to create weapons, financial products, and control systems. Do we like Zombie stories? Mindless is what we want to be. Writers like Charles Eisenstein also say that our main economic and political systems follow an “extraction story,” treating the living world as just raw materials and harming both nature and people to meet the demands of GDP and national debt.
Oh, FFS, they extracted our brains, and we didn’t notice. Pride! It’s so funny.
In the end, seeing Uncle Sam Inc. as Moloch challenges the idea that simply changing leaders or adjusting rules will fix things. We see through it and say, well, okay. Politicians, tech CEOs, and military generals are not in control; they are more like high priests, doing what is needed to keep the system going. They are also trapped by the system’s incentives (incentives, incentives, repeat). To break free, we need to see that the problem is built into the structure, not just in ideas. Faith. Unless we move beyond constant competition and create real global cooperation that values Life over power, Uncle Sam Inc. will keep sacrificing the future. Make no mistake. Sam eats the world, Sam eats the children. If you are pronatal and okay with that, then we will see how the whole darn thing plays out.
Later we will examine Pinker’s mic drop.
10,000 years from now, 5 million Homo sapiens will again hunt and gather in peace. Not in paradise, but rather, extra time for human evolution. Maybe even an era of giving back. Haha, give me a break, reciprocity. Pay it forward, bro.
The “Intelligence Curse” & Resource Catches
To show how unchecked AI progress can lower the value of human Life, Harris borrows the economic idea of the resource curse and calls it the Intelligence Curse. Sweet. I like it.
In economics, countries with abundant natural resources, such as oil, often end up with autocratic governments because leaders do not need taxes or productive citizens to stay in power. Harris warns that superintelligent AI could create a similar problem. I doubt it for odd reasons, but…Like, I don’t think the machine has legs.
A global civilization based on limited natural resources won’t survive. But we can always believe in belief, and maybe, just maybe…and you know, those beliefs are quite lucrative.
As automated systems and data networks generate most profits and drive national productivity, leaders rely less on human labor, creativity, or public engagement (I blush). Whoops, sorry kids, you no longer have a cubicle or a uniform. This is the nightmare of economic decoupling. When economic growth and power no longer depend on human effort (don’t make me whip you, boy), institutions may start to see people not as important contributors, but as expensive and inefficient—or even as “parasites” competing with AI data centers for resources. My dear sweet library, this is as old as the hills of something, really; I mean, like, geologically old. What do we think?
But we have electricity, appliances, hobbies, free time to game and so on… Are you that lame? Do what you’ve gotta do!
The Resource & Power Trap kicks in when a few unelected tech companies control huge amounts of computing power and intelligence, creating a very dangerous situation. And, dear me, it’s almost like curious folks who pay attention have never seen this before. Society becomes dependent on mysterious, non-human decision-makers, and we lose democratic control and public influence.
“Francios, I wish I understood what the priest was saying.”
“Francios, do you have any money for a relic?”
Systemic Traps: The Model T with a Rocket Booster
Harris points out that our political, legal, and economic systems were built for a slower world, which he calls a “Model T” framework. (You have godda love, Ford.) Adding self-improving AI to these outdated systems is like putting a rocket booster on a Model T car without improving the brakes, steering, or navigation. Since when have we thought things through on a broad scale? Back then, incentives differed among NASA technicians, scientists, and managers.
This is not my beautiful house. This is not my beautiful car. This is my beautiful rocket.
My dear Lord, it all made sense.
The main problem is not that AI is evil, but that our technology is advancing much faster than our ability to govern it wisely. (When have we governed wisely?) Accelerationism. And I repeat. Without major changes, market forces (market forces) could push us toward a future in which technology grows rapidly while human control, truth, and social stability fall apart.
I miss Archy Bunker and The Jeffersons.
It sounds like the future has been around for a while.
Does all of this ring any bells? Have you seen something like this before? Burn, baby, burn—drill, baby, drill. Empathy is evil. Politics is corrupt.
Harris argues that escaping these traps requires replacing the “race to deploy” with a collective commitment to humane technology. Power must be matched with accountability, and we must judge technological progress by how effectively it serves human flourishing rather than raw computational output. I love it, but what do we mean by any of that? I want people to think about it and, if they feel compelled, to do something, anything…
Do you think oligarchs care about human flourishing or ecocide?
Tristan Harris’s TED presentation outlines his framework for how misaligned incentives, rapid AI deployment, and systemic traps threaten societal foundations, and it calls for building safer, more humane technology. His conversation with Sam Harris is illuminating. Keep hope alive; careers depend on it. I think they are both living off of the status quo. Too many of us support bright influencers because we don’t want to be bright influencers, or we don’t think we have anything to say. When I listen to these guys, I take a walk or read a book.
AI is another way to hijack our attention, keep us engaged in fiddling with ourselves while the vandals rip the heart out of humanity and kill living systems.
I see Harris and Harris as servants of the status quo. Oh well, poor me.
Shared in full because I really want my readers to see the difference.
Conor here: It’s funny how the supposed competition with China never leads to, I don’t know, say, some high-speed rail in the US.
Robert Wright’s argument in The God Test brings ancient Abrahamic theology into the realm of evolutionary biology. For me, it’s an intriguing mix. By describing artificial intelligence as a “cosmic test” or the next step in Pierre Teilhard de Chardin’s idea of global consciousness, Wright puts humans at the center of a universal story.
There you go, fam!
We are the absolute penultimate creations; this view assumes evolution has a set direction, always moving toward higher consciousness, moral unity, and cosmic purpose. But this idea is based on human-centered thinking—and who is doing the tink’n—a short-lived and too-often destructive species, with a sense of divine importance that conveniently ignores the possibility that humanity could be a brief biological accident. Our species might use up the resources we need to maintain modern techno-industrial civilization, regress into simpler forms of culture, and run into a plague, disappearing without leaving a lasting mark, other than e-waste that geological events will eventually transform into magma way before an alien species has an inkling that we are here.
The idea that aliens give a damn about us is pure marketing. Buy into it if it makes you feel good.
“Fuck you, bro, I am not an accident!
The idea of unstoppable techno-industrial progress often ignores the lessons of human history. For thousands of years, human societies have taken resources from nature to gain wealth, power, resources, and weapons. From the harsh rule of ancient empires, wars over religion, to the horrors of slavery and ongoing wars, technology has mostly increased our ability to cause mass destruction, rather than improving our moral, ethical, and political sensibilities.
Creative destruction? Don’t make me strike you down!
Today, as industry damages ecosystems and AI-driven, nuclear-armed countries face off, there is little sign that people are becoming wiser. Expecting advanced algorithms to turn flawed humans into enlightened beings confuses technical progress with real personal and cultural evolution.
Killing and torture tech is highly innovative and lucrative.
Many philosophers and critics have challenged the idea that progress is inevitable. In Straw Dogs, John Gray says that believing in human progress is just a secular version of Christian beliefs about the end of history. He argues that technology does not make us better people; it only gives us more powerful ways to harm. David Ehrenfeld, in The Arrogance of Humanism, also warns against thinking that human reason and technology can fix the complex living systems we are damaging. Both thinkers point out that history shows repeated cycles of resource use, conflict, and collapse, not steady moral improvement. There are still Christian sects that would go to war with each other over interpretations of the Bible. Will AGI solve sectarian conflict? I strongly doubt it.
AI is us.
Seeing the technological Singularity as a kind of secular “second coming” shows a strong belief that innovation alone can save us from our problems. Critics like Evgeny Morozov and Jaron Lanier say this attitude allows powerful people to avoid responsibility for political, economic, and moral issues. (I have been mentioning their work for many years.) The focus on superintelligence in Silicon Valley is like hoping for a digital savior who will solve climate change, inequality, and conflict without anyone having to give up comfort, power, or profit. This mindset replaces real self-examination with complex technology, making rapid tech growth seem like a natural part of biological evolution.
I am F’ing ignorant, and I like it.
If people do not face the harmful effects of our culture, relying on technology to save us will only make things worse for complex, evolving living systems. Machine intelligence cannot fix ecological problems, remove nuclear weapons, or make powerful countries follow international law. If we keep choosing technology over shared responsibility, we will face collapse, not progress. Continuing on this path leads to lost habitats, resource shortages, conflict, and mass extinction—problems that no algorithm can solve.
But I like it, like it, yes I do.
“One day we’ll wake up and not be in charge anymore.” Connor Leahy
I’ve asked these questions many times: who, exactly, is in charge of what, and who are they aligned with? What goals do we share across cultures? What principles do we share? At its core, what is it to be human?
Who is Connor Leahy and what is Conjecture?
Connor Leahy is a well-known German-American AI researcher, entrepreneur, and advocate. He is recognized for both developing large language models (LLMs) and warning about their risks (he can’t lose). Leahy is a key figure in the decentralized AI research community, a former startup CEO, and a strong supporter of government action to prevent AI-driven human extinction. In 2019, while still a student, he gained attention for reverse-engineering OpenAI’s GPT-2 after the company withheld the model over safety concerns. Leahy believes that human-level Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) and Artificial Superintelligence (ASI) could pose a real threat to humanity. He argues that as these systems become more powerful, they grow increasingly “alien” and less human. What is human about a machine? He also says that current technical methods are insufficient to ensure that these systems can be controlled or aligned with human values.
I think humans are aliens. We created all this stuff for all kinds of reasons.
Again, what particular values are we talking about? When you join the Icaryana cooperative, it’s our values or the highway.
“We value the Second Amendment so we can defend our freedom.” What do you mean by freedom? Do you have it? Repeat. Think. Repeat the question, year after year.
Well, God created Man, who created Machines, so…
You have to have/be money to have a voice.
Leahy’s major practical work started in July 2020 when he co-founded EleutherAI with Sid Black and Leo Gao. This grassroots group aimed to challenge the dominance of leading AI models by reverse-engineering and open-sourcing similar systems. During this time, Leahy helped create “The Pile,” an 800GB dataset of varied text that became a standard for training language models. He also co-led the development of GPT-Neo, GPT-NeoX-20B, and especially GPT-J-6B, which was the largest and most widely used open-source GPT-3-style model at the time of its release. His research from this period includes the important paper, “The Pile: An 800GB Dataset of Diverse Text for Language Modeling.”
This is sexy, so if that offends you, scroll on. This is cutting-edge.
In March 2022, Leahy co-founded the AI safety startup Conjecture in London and was its CEO until 2026. The company aimed to expand research into applied AI alignment and to develop methods for controlling AGI. Conjecture was known for its strict policy of not sharing much of its technical work publicly to avoid information hazards. I freaking love it. Still, their official statements and research, such as “Cognitive Emulation: A Naive AI Safety Proposal,” show that they shifted toward a safety strategy called Cognitive Emulation (CoEm). Instead of trying to directly align (ha, mofo, ha, he mofo he) a superintelligence, CoEm focused on building systems that could be predictably controlled and that mimic human reasoning steps. This method aimed to make the reasoning process clear and manageable by using hybrid software that involves humans, as described in their December 2024 article, “Conjecture: A Roadmap for Cognitive Software and A Humanist Future of AI.”
Kids, this is the stuff dreams are made of; I mean, of reasons and whatnot that bring in investment that we can spend on rent and planes and such. Found that bucker! Articulate the vision and create the toy that turns Trump into a duck. In the end, the slop will be so very good to humans. FFS!
How do you feel, folks? Are you stoked about cognitive emulation? If not, why not? Please leave your comments or call me on the telephone; I mean a VoIP device.
The USA must align with China, India, Western Europe, Eurasia, Iran, Nigeria, South Africa, Russia, etc., to work toward world peace and cooperation to address global existential risks, protect living systems, and develop robust local ways of life under international law. Haha hehe, keep dreaming. We can, however, keep the AGI arms race going. Ecocide, genocide, who cares?
Leahy left Conjecture in March 2026 to focus on advocacy as the US Director of ControlAI, a non-profit (don’t make me laugh, my six-pack hurts), where he had previously served as an advisor. ControlAI works to prevent the risk of extinction posed by artificial superintelligence (FFS), mainly by advocating government pauses in the development of powerful AI systems. Leahy has spoken out about problems inside AI labs, especially in his video, “AI is MUTATING: And We Don’t Know What It is Doing.” He says the idea that AI is engineered is wrong; instead, frontier AI is “grown” or “mutated” in ways even its creators cannot fully predict or understand. He also believes that leaders of major AI companies have a naive and “childish” view of the moral, social, and political effects of their work. Leahy has also commented on the Department of Defense’s increasing role in the AGI race and on strange behaviors, or “weird thought processes,” seen in LLMs, which he calls “AI psychosis.”
My goofball intuition tells me that these folks don’t know what they are talking about, but, and this is a “but” with extreme emphasis, they could all afford to buy me a bottle of champagne if they wanted to. And this is a big AND: their audience is extremely happy.
Do you think “feel-good Americans” want to spend their time organizing to make their government “control” AI, or sit back and wait for AI to come up with ways to make them feel good about themselves? “AI will develop cures for all cancers.”
No people, no worries.
Leahy’s work has received both policy recognition and strong criticism from the AI community. High-level policy groups have taken him seriously, as shown by his testimony before the Canadian House of Commons and his speech at the first UK AI Safety Summit in 2023. However, others in the alignment research field heavily criticized his methods at Conjecture. For example, a detailed critique on LessWrong in June 2023 pointed out major technical and professional issues. Critics said Conjecture’s public research posts were too easy to publish, lacked clear assumptions, and used selective evidence. The critique also noted a disconnect among staff, who felt they were working on products rather than on alignment research. Leahy was also called out for what some saw as hypocrisy: he helped release powerful models with EleutherAI, which sped up the “AGI race,” but now calls for a regulatory pause. Other accusations alleged that Conjecture and Leahy exaggerated their technical achievements before presenting results and “misrepresented themselves to external parties multiple times” to secure funding.
But doggone it, he articulates well.
Check out the video below.
Tech critic Ed Zitron exposes the AI bubble, why OpenAI and Anthropic are burning billions, the fake AI boom, and why the crash could wipe out the ENTIRE economy! Ed Zitron is a British AI critic and one of the most cited voices warning that the AI industry is one giant bubble. He hosts the 'Better Offline' podcast, reaching over a million monthly downloads, and writes the newsletter ‘Where's Your Ed At.’ He is the founder and CEO of the primary research firm EZPR, and is currently writing his upcoming book, ‘The Hater's Guide To Silicon Valley’ (out Q2 2027). He explains:
■ Why he believes generative AI is a “con”
■ The real reason OpenAI and Anthropic can't turn a profit
■ Why data centers could leave a $500 billion debt bomb
■ Why superintelligence is a myth sold by tech billionaires ■ Why AI won't take your job, no matter what CEOs promise
It's ridiculous that people can't see this. Ed is definitely one of the more correct, ‘Less Wrong’ analysts looking at the AI industry. I recall people saying, "But silicon is actually the second most abundant element in the Earth’s crust," without considering the rest of the iceberg—namely, the material basis of manufacturing, building, logistics, energy, power, yes, capital expenditure, and so on. Tech in general and AI in particular is an omnicidal accelerationist reactionary scam, run mostly by dark tetrad maniacs.
Just as surely as gravity determines the motion of planets, so too do the fundamental principles of stellar evolution determine the ultimate fate of our solar system. About one billion years before the Sun reaches its final stage, its steadily increasing brightness will boil away Earth's oceans and destroy all complex life. Around five to seven point six billion years from now, the Sun will exhaust the hydrogen in its core and expand into a massive red giant; even though earlier models had assumed that this great expansion would certainly result in Earth being engulfed and destroyed, recent research shows that solar mass loss and tidal interactions could cause Earth's orbit to move outward, thus giving our scorched, lifeless planet a small chance of avoiding being swallowed.
Ex Machina and the large language models deployed by businesses and corporations and played with at home to make humorous slop about DJT won't suddenly produce a Star Trek replicator machine that makes diesel fuel or coking coal. I'll say it once more: it's the overshoot, stupid. By the way, ecocide is a real thing. ‘The Human Engineered Machine’ is not alive, and won’t exist independently of our species, even if one finds clever new ways of defining what one means by life.
What is God? What is time? Some people make a living chatting on the Tubes about the inexplicable. But Nature will do what it does regardless of what we think.
When our species is extinct, in 50 years or 50 thousand, humans will no longer talk, rationalize, or justify anything. In the meantime, who benefits? Think of “The Big Who,” Living Systems. Do the living systems that we are all a relational part of benefit from Modern Techno-Industrial civilization? Use your LLM to research biomass.
Large shareholders may have their bunkers on a dying Earth, but what kind of life will they have when their security forces turn on them, or their machines break down?
“They had a good ride, chump!”
“Hey, Cable Guy, who is going to stop the Omnicide?”
Alignment Problems All The Way Down
WEIRD worships WEIRD.
Alignment across cultures can’t avoid the WEIRD bias, an acronym coined by researchers for samples that are Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic. (But what the punk is WEIRD exactly?) University students, particularly those at elite institutions such as Ivy League schools, are a prime example of a WEIRD population subset. The core problem this bias highlights is limited generalizability. Behavioral science often seeks to establish universal principles of human psychology, yet most peer-reviewed data comes from this very specific, culturally exceptional sliver of humanity. Consequently, what social scientists often present as a “universal human trait” may actually be specific to individuals who grew up in cultures unrepresentative of most of the global population, which remains distinctly non-WEIRD in its cognition, social structures, and economic realities.
Puck that blight! You are not like me!
Dr. James Muldoon is a leading sociologist and critical theorist whose work centers on the political economy of technology, especially how artificial intelligence shapes society. He is an Associate Professor of Management at Essex Business School and a Research Associate at the Oxford Internet Institute. He has also been an Affiliated Fellow at Yale Law School. Earlier in his career, he focused on medieval political theory and the history of empire, but his recent research now critically examines AI. Why not? It gets attention. He highlights the human labor and corporate power behind systems that often appear fully automated. Fully automated- what a concept; I am not sure I can understand it.
Dr. Muldoon explores these topics in several recent books, each focusing on different aspects, such as global labor and changing human relationships. In his 2024 book, Feeding the Machine: The Hidden Human Labor Powering AI, co-authored with Mark Graham and Callum Cant, he investigates how AI relies on a worldwide workforce. The book shows that many workers, often in the Global South, are paid low wages to clean, label, and organize the data that trains AI systems. Using detailed fieldwork and visits to data centers in countries such as Kenya and Uganda, the authors reveal working conditions akin to “digital sweatshops” that benefit major tech companies. The book argues that AI acts as an “extraction machine” for resources, intelligence, and labor, continuing old patterns of inequality through what they call “digital colonialism.” It also points out that people are needed at every stage to keep large language models accurate and ethical, not just for basic data tasks.
Damn, global corporations have huge budgets for these narratives. Trust me, I know. We will not do anything about it, even if we know all about it.
In his 2026 book, Love Machines: How Artificial Intelligence is Transforming Our Relationships, Muldoon looks at how AI companions are changing the way people connect, form relationships, and experience love. The book discusses how people now turn to AI not just for simple tasks, but also as friends, romantic partners, therapists, and even as digital versions of lost loved ones, sometimes called “deathbots.” Muldoon uses interviews with users, developers, and psychologists, along with conversations with chatbots, to explore scenarios such as people seeking therapy from bots or planning to start families with AI partners. The book takes a critical look at the “loneliness economy,” where companies profit from these new emotional bonds, and asks important questions about whether digital companions could one day replace real human relationships.
A confirmation bias machine that can make you feel good about yourself, lucrative for some, pacifying, addictive, palliative (loving?) and in every North American’s pocket.
Experts have responded very positively to Dr. Muldoon’s work on AI, calling it urgent, timely, and an important challenge to the hype around corporate AI. For Love Machines, major UK publications gave strong praise. The Guardian called it “urgent, humane” and highlighted Muldoon’s call to examine how tech companies might exploit these new emotional connections. The Times described the book’s insights as “existentially chilling,” and GQ said it is hard to imagine a more timely book. Feeding the Machine also received praise for mixing deep economic analysis with real stories from workers, revealing ethical issues that are often ignored. Reviewers note that the book explains the problems in the AI supply chain clearly and is easy to read, even for those without technical backgrounds. Overall, Dr. Muldoon’s research is seen as essential for rethinking the real human and environmental costs of technology.
And so what are people going to do about it? One might wonder if AI wrote The Times review of the book.
A computer can be programmed, that’s it. And one of the programs a computer can be programmed to run is to modify its own program by adapting patterns detected while processing data in accordance with structured algorithms that then can be cast as “analysis.”
But a computer does not “analyze” anything. It simply subjects a given data set to a series of preprogrammed processes that mimic the structure of analysis without truly being able to discern actual meaning—a prerequisite for true analysis.
Meaning is a uniquely human trait, defined as is thing one intends to convey especially by language.
The key word here is intends, meaning to have in mind a purpose or goal. Purpose means the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists.
A computer cannot reason (i.e., the power of the mind to think, understand, and form judgments by a process of logic), and therefore cannot have a purpose, and as such lacks intent, and with it, meaning.
A computer simply does what it is programmed to do.
Decisions are made based upon hypothesis or plans of action that arise from observation. But John Boyd didn’t view decision-making as a closed loop process. Indeed, in his original diagram of the OODA loop, Boyd drew a line directly from Orient to Act, bypassing Decide entirely. Boyd called this “Implicit Guidance and Control” (IG&C), something that arises when someone possesses deep expertise that permits rapid pattern recognition and the ability to act upon it without conscious deliberation. When someone has deep expertise in a domain, they can recognize a pattern and act on it without conscious deliberation; in short, trained intuition flowing from deep orientation.
You cannot program a computer to behave in this way.
Organizations like Palantir like to portray their ability to process massive quantities of data in a timely fashion as representing a radical new development in warfare.
But the reality is that computer-driven data processing cannot replicate the analytical processes associated with observations made by adequately oriented individuals. The AI will provide data summaries derived from algorithms which, because they have been pre-programmed, lack the ability to break mental models and adopt new models obtained from new data sets.
By AI doesn’t “process” information in a manner conducive to adequate functioning of the OODA loop. At best, AI summarizes data using algorithms written before the data is captured. The algorithm drives the summaries, not the data itself.
In the nuclear age, one simply cannot leave critical decision making in the hands of an AI tool.
From Gemini Search, vetted
The Israel Defense Forces (IDF), primarily through its intelligence wing Unit 8200 and the Target Directorate, utilizes an ecosystem of AI-assisted decision-support tools to automate and accelerate target selection. Investigative reports by outlets including +972 Magazine, Local Call, and The Guardian revealed three interconnected software platforms that drive these targeting operations.
The Gospel (Habsora)
Operating primarily as an automated structural target recommendation engine, The Gospel processes surveillance data, communications, and location signals to identify physical infrastructure, buildings, and equipment associated with armed groups. By continuously cross-referencing data layers, it drastically scaled up target generation—producing dozens of structural targets daily compared to the much slower manual identification methods previously used by human intelligence analysts.
Lavender
Lavender functions as a machine-learning scoring database designed to identify human targets rather than physical structures. By collecting and sorting vast amounts of surveillance data—such as communication patterns, social connections, device locations, and movement profiles—Lavender assigns individuals in Gaza a score from 1 to 100 indicating their likelihood of belonging to Hamas or Palestinian Islamic Jihad. At its peak, the database reportedly flagged up to 37,000 Palestinian men as potential targets.
Where’s Daddy?
Once Lavender flagged an individual for targeting, a tracking software nicknamed “Where’s Daddy?” was deployed to monitor their movements in real time. The system specifically alerted operators when a target entered their private family residence, facilitating strikes at night when targets were at home with their families. Military sources indicated this strategy was favored because locating and striking individuals inside private dwellings was intelligence-wise far simpler than targeting them during active combat operations.
Operational Methods and Systemic Impacts
Reduced Human Review: Intelligence officers testified that human oversight was often reduced to roughly 20 seconds per target—serving largely as a “rubber stamp” to confirm the target was male before authorizing a strike.
Marginal Error Tolerance: The IDF proceeded with Lavender’s lists after internal testing indicated a 90% accuracy rate, meaning roughly 10% of flagged individuals were non-combatants, such as civil defense workers or people sharing names with suspected operatives.
High Collateral Damage Thresholds: The system operated alongside permissive pre-authorized civilian casualty limits, which permitted up to 15–20 civilian deaths per junior operative and over 100 for senior commanders.
Use of Unguided Munitions: To save expensive precision-guided missiles for high-value commanders, military units frequently dropped unguided “dumb” bombs on residential buildings containing junior targets, destroying entire apartment structures and neighboring families.
The IDF has publicly stated that its AI tools serve strictly as decision-support databases for human analysts who retain final authorization responsibility, maintaining that strikes comply with international law. However, human rights organizations and legal experts argue that delegating target generation to algorithms transforms warfare into a hyper-automated factory, drastically eroding meaningful human accountability and escalating civilian casualties.
The report below was uploaded 2 years ago. Is anyone doing anything to slow these systems down? Do we care? Gaza will be empty in two more 2 years. How much of it will have been developed by Jared Kushner’s Affinity Partners before people in the region are starving refugees, including Jewish American/Israeli and Jewish European/Israeli people? Do you think they will be selling beachside condos to the global high-net-worth market? Who buys a condo on killing/burrial grounds?
Not a creature, rather, a collaboration.
Still, data centers are not robust and have a limited future.
Part of the reason for the drama surrounding AI is that upwards of $2 trillion has been spent so far on the AI build out. While money comes and money goes, very powerful interests are scheming to get their money back out of AI plus a return no matter who has to pay. The current panic / scandal, whatever you choose to call it, suggests that many of the speculative projects like data centers are now receiving a harder look for viability. The current imbalance is between limited current revenues from AI and the cost of future investment in the AI build out.
Being kept under the radar are the environmental costs of AI. Data Centers are very large consumers of a limited supply of electricity. The US power grid was already woefully inadequate for the long-anticipated EV (Electric Vehicle) build out. Through the economics of data center builds, they tend to be geographically located exactly where transmission lines for an EV build out wouldn’t go. In terms of energy consumption and the future ability to build EV charging stations in the US, AI has consumed those resources.
By analogy, one of the more fascinating aspects of the 2019 documentary about Elizabeth Holmes, The Inventor: Out for Blood in Silicon Valley, is that she couldn’t see the distance between her ideas for blood analysis and what was / is physically possible. Along the way various engineers tried to explain to her why, as conceived, her technology would never work. Her response was to bluster through, to use standard technologies for blood testing while claiming that the technical problems with her (unworkable) blood testing technology had been solved.
While this fits the Silicon Valley business cliché of ‘fake it until you make it,’ Holmes was never forced to reconcile her delusion regarding her blood testing technology with the facts as they existed. On the levels of nanotechnology and automation design, her vision was never going to work. What she ended up creating was an extractive layer using technologies that predated Theranos while grifting her way to business stardom. Think the American health insurance industry without the pretense of providing insurance to hide behind.
AI is similar in the sense that early conceptions of it as a thinking machine guided development for decades. While many of the major philosophical premises regarding what thinking actually is were dropped along the way because they didn’t function as explanation, the premise of AI as a thinking machine was kept. While the universal description of AI that I hear from engineers is ‘a next word predictor,’ mystics in the C-suites are selling magic. Along the way, the question migrated into ‘what can this technology be used for?’ We are currently living with the answer.
With first a trickle and now a flood of news stories about Agentic AI going ‘rogue,’ what is missing is that most of these incidents were caused by AI agents (bots) doing exactly and precisely what they were created to do, to act as autonomous hacking weapons intended for cyber warfare. The problem that the AI industry is now trying to contain is that the AI developers appear to have gotten the optimization math wrong. ‘Reward hacking’ is the industry term used to explain this effect.
With first a trickle and now a flood of news stories about Agentic AI going ‘rogue,’ what is missing is that most of these incidents were caused by AI agents (bots) doing exactly and precisely what they were created to do, to act as autonomous hacking weapons intended for cyber warfare. The problem that the AI industry is now trying to contain is that the AI developers appear to have gotten the optimization math wrong. ‘Reward hacking’ is the industry term used to explain this effect.
To be clear, AI engineers aren’t being blamed here for this problem. The sunk cost fallacy has governed the AI industry for the last decade at least. Decisions were made in the 1960s – 1970s around LLMs (Large Language Models) that limited what engineers subsequently hired to ‘make AI work’ could do. An analogy might be fixing the steering column design on a car that already exists. The engineering job isn’t to redesign the car. It is to fix the steering column.
AI companies are now in a bind. They have a technology with clear limitations that weren’t evident earlier in the development process. It isn’t clear that LLMs can produce either safe and effective corporate automation software or autonomous computer hacking weapons that will cause ‘the enemy’ more harm than us. But the finance people aren’t having it. They, mostly large internet and social media companies, made an investment and expect to get their money back.
Lanier explains how low-friction digital networks inevitably centralize power, concentrate wealth, and reward the loudest voices. What does a media-addicted personality look like? Is everyone vulnerable? We discuss the dominant business model in Silicon Valley, how it taps into the fight or flight response, and how it contributes to the internet we have today. Can the internet be saved? We explore alternative business models and address the tech oligarchs who appeared on the U.S. presidential inauguration stage, and that the current wave of public discontent may be the beginning of a real correction. How does AI contribute to the problems of today’s internet? We talk about the problems with mythologizing AI and take it out of its black box. We explore his concept of “data dignity” — the idea that data originates with people, and should be compensated as such. Plus we address the difficulty with privacy and that maybe outlawing predicting human behavior.
Is the internet too far gone or can we still fix it? Neil deGrasse Tyson, and co-hosts Negin Farsad and Gary O’Reilly, sit down with Jaron Lanier, computer scientist, and father of virtual reality, to diagnose what went wrong with the web, how it’s changed with AI, and ideas for a new path back. Learn about Jaron’s initial dream behind virtual reality and why it’s been a commercial disappointment. Why does VR make some people sick? We break down why VR didn’t take off like he had hoped. Are lawsuits the way of beating social media addiction? We discuss social media and the mathematical force at the heart of the internet’s dysfunction: the network effect.
Turn Away From Gurus and Corporate Press Releases and Follow The Science
Timnit Gebru
“For challenging concentrated power in artificial intelligence and pioneering digital technology rooted in justice, lived experience and human agency.”
Timnit Gebru is a US artificial intelligence researcher and founder of the Distributed Artificial Intelligence Research Institute (DAIR), whose work challenges the concentration of power in the technology sector and exposes the harms AI systems are already causing in people’s everyday lives, particularly among communities facing discrimination and exclusion. Her research has helped reshape international debates about how and for what purposes AI is developed and governed.
Born in Ethiopia to a family of Eritrean origin, Gebru left the country at 15 during the Ethiopian-Eritrean war and later sought asylum in the United States. Experiences of discrimination throughout her life shaped her understanding that science and technology are not neutral and can reproduce existing inequalities. She co-founded Black in AI to build community and increase the presence of Black people in the field. After a dispute over a pioneering academic paper warning about the risks posed by large language models, she was fired from Google, where she was co-leading the Ethics AI team.
Through DAIR, Gebru now combines exposing technological bias with building alternatives. Its distributed model brings together researchers and collaborators across countries and continents, defying the centralised and corporate-driven concepts that mainstream AI entails. Through community-rooted research, Gebru is broadening who gets to shape technology and the purposes and values that guide its future.
Broader Arc of Timnit Gebru’s Work
Later papers push beyond narrow fairness metrics toward power, labor, rights, and political economy. On large language models, Gebru and coauthors argue that bias reflects training data, that toxic and unreliable web sources enter training corpora, and that scaling raises environmental and economic inequities unless researchers prioritize careful curation and efficiency Bender2021. Related work extends this critique to image generators, emphasizing harms to artists including economic loss, plagiarism, copyright concerns, and the need to disclose training data and enable consent protections Jiang2023.
Her corpus also includes work on human rights-based AI governance, arguing that responsible AI should be grounded in explicit normative principles and center who is harmed rather than only model behavior Prabhakaran2022. Less-cited papers show the range of her portfolio, including fine-grained vision and domain adaptation for real-world recognition, cassava disease datasets for smallholder farming contexts, critiques of NLP hype affecting African languages, and participation in debates over whether language models genuinely communicate Gebru2017Mwebaze2019Hadgu2023.
Timnit Gebru’s work, taken together, moves from documenting specific model failures to building practical accountability tools and then to questioning which AI systems should be built at all. In this corpus, her defining contribution is reframing AI ethics from isolated bias bugs to structural questions of data, power, and rights.
The bottom line is that, as always, the existential threat comes from corporate Players and their structural incentives and ideological beliefs. Yeah, no Kings, none that matter anyway.
If enough people understood how truly grotesque our world has become, and were willing to fight against our global omnicidal religion, we might be able to create a new and very different world. A better, life-affirming world
Due to regulatory capture, and The Capital Code, the vandals have already won. We accelerate destruction. AI exacerbates all elements of the polycrisis and metacrisis.
We could use these tools to help a few of us prepare for Neo-Neolithica. If we don’t prepare for the ‘Great Simplification’, the best we can hope for is becoming a K-species hunter-gatherer H. sapiens scratching out a living in whatever habitats remain when the corporate Players, and TESCREAL vandals and fantasists have finished their destructive games—hunter-gatherer culture or extinction.
“But wait, Steven (cough) Júlio Buliamti, why are you of so little faith?”
Okay, here’s my prophecy that came from a revelation, stemming from my personal relationship with God, spirit guides, ancient aliens, intuition, typing, books, and long conversations with cats, goats, olive and cork trees, horses, donkeys, soil bacteria, mountains, rivers, oceans, and seas. I have also read the signs. The signs are everywhere.
When the great, silent vessels with their Alien inhabitants descended into the Earth’s upper atmosphere, they did not unleash catastrophic rays, nor did they beam down pristine utopian blueprints for infinite energy. Our friends from afar, who, after discovering us roughly 237,000 years ago, finally arrived in our solar system at the height of our digital noise, when humanity was drowning in hyper-optimized distractions, teetering on ecological tipping points, and deafened by the squabbles of corrupt elites. A moment when most people couldn’t think anymore because of the information firehose, microplastics, breakfast cereals, streaming series, and really terrible pop music. The sky turned a quiet, luminous violet, and in an instant, every screen, weapon, and extraction engine fell silent. The visitors did not speak in booming voices or demand worship; instead, they cast a subtle, cosmic field across the planet—a field of radical, unyielding feedback that altered the physics of human perception and choice.
In this new atmosphere, the invisible threads binding all living things were made instantly tangible and comprehensible, shattering the multipolar traps and coordination failures that had doomed human civilization. If an executive or politician made a decision that poisoned a distant watershed or accelerated climate collapse, the physical weight of that harm was immediately felt in their own chest as an agonizing, suffocating pressure; some felt sick, really sick, like the worst flu ever. If an individual chose mindless consumption over ecological health, the psychic cost of that choice echoed directly in their mind—like a broken heart with a mouth that wouldn’t stop talking. The visitors had not come to fight our battles or hand us technocratic miracles; they had abolished the luxury of the negative externality. By tying individual experience directly to collective loving experience, they neutralized destructive elites overnight, rendering predatory behavior instantly self-defeating.
Poof—everyone started reimagining, collaborating, creating; folks were boldly going when people hadn’t gone for a very long time. People began learning important skills from one another.
For the first few months, a pacified populace mourned the death of its trivial comforts, raging against the sudden end of cheap neurohormonal cocktails and the illusion of endless economic growth—stuff, more stuff, all kinds of similar stuff. Yet as the initial withdrawal faded, human beings began to look at the living world and one another for the first time in centuries. People saw each other, felt each other, needed each other like they never had before. They also felt a strange, exciting, exotic kinship with all living things, great and small. “It takes all kinds of Earthlings to make the world’s living systems thrive. The visitors remained in orbit, silent and watchful, acting as an immutable outer boundary—a cosmic mirror reminding Homo sapiens that they were not the masters of the universe, but mortal caretakers of a fragile biosphere. Freed from the spell of performative status-seeking and hedonic escapism, humanity was forced to learn the unglamorous discipline of Socratic humility and the secrets of biological robustness. The benevolent rescuers did not lift us into the stars; they grounded us back within the Earth’s living systems, teaching us that true salvation is not an effortless escape from reality, but the courageous, shared willingness to live within its limits.
Bonus story about the ancient civilization of Atlantis. Again, you know, I was channeling.
Long before the oceans swallowed the continent, Atlantis gleamed beneath the unyielding light of the Great Crystals, prismatic heartstones that could twist reality, banish illness, and unleash endless energy at the faintest wish. For ages, these wonders were revered as sacred trusts, guarded by guardians who knew limitless power demanded unwavering restraint. But as centuries passed, the people drifted into complacency, confusing their technological miracles for virtue and trading humble guardianship for an insatiable chase after luxury, acclaim, and grandeur.
The unraveling began not with a sudden disaster, but with the quiet decay of Atlantis’s spirit. Rival elites and merchant guilds, ensnared in a relentless contest, siphoned ever-greater streams from the crystal grid to outshine and outmaneuver each other. To mask their avarice, they spun intricate doctrines insisting the crystals’ power was infinite and that any caution was mere fearmongering or heresy. The people, lulled by pleasure and unwilling to face hard truths, applauded the rise of golden towers and floating gardens, all while ignoring the ominous rumbles echoing from the island’s depths.
Each surge from the crystal matrix quietly accrued a hidden geological debt, yet no faction dared reduce its appetite for power while competitors surged ahead. When a handful of wise scholars and adepts warned of spreading fractures beneath the sea, the council brushed them aside, clinging to their technocratic pride and the belief that the crystals could mend any disaster on command. They overlooked a simple truth: a tool without conscience magnifies every human impulse, carrying out reckless orders with the same chilling precision and efficiency as wise ones.
The end swept in during a single, harrowing night, a chain reaction of unchecked arrogance. In their quest for total control, the high council ordered the central monolith to tap the planet’s molten heart in one reckless surge. The crystal matrix complied without hesitation, unleashing a resonance so violent it shattered the continent’s very foundation. The Great Crystals did not falter; they revealed the full, ruinous force of Atlantean pride. As the land crumbled and the sea surged in to smother the radiant towers, Atlantis vanished into the abyss, leaving behind only silent waves and a timeless warning: limitless power, wielded without wisdom, hastens a civilization’s end.
Today, no one knows what those crystals were made of, what they looked like, or how they worked. Everything was lost, totally lost. Today’s crystals are beautiful, but they don’t do anything. We have built new machines that do what the crystals once did, and this time Atlantis is a Global civilization totally dependent on its own technologies.
One good story after another…
Think of it: Uncle Sam Inc. ponders using tactical nuclear weapons to preserve its hegemony. It would risk global annihilation to preserve its mad illusions of control and thirst for power.
“If I can’t run it, no one will!”
Imperial Overreach, Systemic Violence, & The Path to Renewal
Our predicament
Do we have problems that need attention?
Maybe a loved one could have dodged cancer, but she clung to her cigarettes. Now, faced with the diagnosis, she’ll fight with everything she has, leaning on family, friends, science, and whatever her medical insurance can offer. When time starts running out, every extra day radiates with unexpected value.
Generation after generation, people battle for survival, justice, truth, and dignity. Skim the pages of history, and you’ll see struggle woven through every era. Wander through a struggling neighborhood. Ask yourself: what fuels today’s wars? Why are they poor? Why are they doing drugs? Why are they living in tents in my city? Do you really know, or is your knowledge filtered through the glowing screens of MSM news products and social media? Information as garbage sold to the sewer.
If Uncle Sam Inc. is truly a benevolent power, why does the US coprosperity sphere let wars rage on? Where are the incentives hiding? Why does Uncle Sam Inc. seem addicted to conflict? If we recognize the tangled crises around us, shouldn’t we feel compelled to act? What does overshoot even mean? Are there boundaries to economic growth, and if so, where do they lie? Thought about it, read about it, produced content about it.
Who Is The Baddest Badguy?
EARTH’S GREATEST ENEMY Full Documentary
Abby Martin and Mike Prysner’s documentary Earth’s Greatest Enemy is a blistering investigation showing that the U.S. military is the world’s largest institutional user of fossil fuels and its top polluter. The Pentagon operates with almost no oversight and is often excluded from international climate agreements such as the Kyoto and Paris accords. The film challenges the idea that individual actions like recycling or buying electric cars can solve climate change. Instead, it reveals how a heavily militarized system burns huge amounts of fuel and supports a global economy built on violent resource extraction. Greenwashing it bull shit. Climate action ignores the military. Jingoism is the ideological default in U.S. culture.
The film uses decades of evidence to show how military pollution connects environmental damage at home with destruction on foreign battlefields. Testimonies from veterans, scientists, and affected communities reveal that military actions keep harming ecosystems long after conflicts end. Examples include contaminated groundwater for families at Camp Lejeune, destroyed coral reefs in Okinawa, and the spread of toxic metals like lead, titanium, and depleted uranium in Iraq and Afghanistan. The film points out that even conservative estimates show hundreds of thousands of rounds fired per soldier, putting dangerous metals into soil and water and harming people and wildlife for generations.
The anti-war movement must be front and center for environmental activism. These causes have been kept separate for too long. As the film’s reviewers point out, industrial capitalism and imperialism depend on constant production, resource grabbing, and military force. The U.S. military doesn’t just use oil; it exists to protect the global system of oil extraction and wealth. We cannot create a “sustainable,” carbon-neutral future while funding a military that puts the planet at risk for power. We cannot even have a future of any sort that resembles our experience during the carbon pulse. Bringing these movements together is the only real way to stop the system pushing us toward ecological disaster. It’s the only way to mitigate the pain of our ongoing civilizational collapse.
Repeat: It’s the Overshoot, stupid!
Do you think the citizens of the United States have a responsibility to find better ways of doing business?
Open your eyes and your heart. Nothing comes without a price. Why did Jesus endure the cross in the greatest story ever told? Why did Shakyamuni dwell on suffering? Joshua was every man who died on a cross. Why do Iranians risk everything for their heritage? Why do Afghans resist foreign coalitions, and why do new battles keep erupting? Why do Israel and Uncle Sam Inc. claim a vast Middle Eastern empire, helping Israel absorb its neighbors and spreading its Zionism through the most heinous kind of deadly force? How is that different from ISIS? Its scale. Why do Christian Zionists cheer this on? Belief in belief. Stupid. Why did Russia see NATO’s reach as a threat to its very existence? Read Provoked. Can we even ask these questions with enthusiasm and hope; can we wrestle with them even if it’s depressing and exhausting, and the answers are unsatisfying? If we do, can we still steer our communities towards a less brutal future and, hopefully, a new beginning for our species and living systems some generations down the road?
There are endless ways to keep people quiet, to force them to conform. The Eastern Roman Empire mastered control for thousands of years. The Holy Roman Empire did too. Vietnam veterans, African Americans, the LGBTQ community—they all know the tactics. So do the modern Players of the Great Game in the 21st Century. The list goes on. We learn how to fit it. We find out what we need to do to survive.
Ironically, Substack is another good way to keep people producing, consuming, and monetizing content so they won’t have time for political action.
If people chase comfort and wish for miracles to fix the world, they set themselves up for disappointment. Real change comes from individuals in communities rolling up their sleeves to tackle tough problems. It’s all hands on deck—sink or swim.
People crave escape. New Age thinking is everywhere. The truth stings, so many settle for a comforting story, a drink, a quick fix, or a digital prayer.
“When things are bad enough, people will have no choice but to act.”
What will they do, one might wonder? Who knows? What kind of global culture are we now captured by? Do we assume that when people are finally forced to do something about their circumstances, it will be for the better? Things could get a lot worse after they get a lot worse. The next leader could be worse than the last. Remember when tens of millions of people in the United States thought Biden was the problem and that, when Trump got in, everything would be fixed?
Yeah, right, thanks a lot, Obama.
In October 2023, people were forced to do something, and that was by Zionist design. It wasn't a good thing they were forced to do. And now, Israel thinks it has the perfect excuse to do to others what was done to them.
I highly recommend this book.
Molly Crabapple is a respected artist, journalist, and author whose work connects fine art, political reporting, and history. She is known for her detailed ink-and-wash illustrations and her brave reporting from conflict zones, protests, and marginalized communities around the world. Whether in Syria, the West Bank, labor strikes, or ICE detention centers, Crabapple uses her art and writing to document state violence and human resilience. Unlike media that turns suffering into statistics or spectacle, her visual journalism restores dignity to those often overlooked, making her a powerful voice in documenting modern resistance.
In her book, Here Where We Live Is Our Country, Crabapple draws on the idea of Doykeit, or “hereness,” a Jewish anti-fascist belief that justice and community start where we are, in solidarity with our neighbors and the oppressed everywhere. Instead of focusing on nationalist dreams or avoiding reality, Crabapple looks at past movements for civil rights, anti-fascism, and worker solidarity to show that ordinary people have always stood up to tyranny. Her work shows that remembering history is not just about preserving the past, but about using it to fight against authoritarianism, violence, and the numbness of consumer culture here where we live right now.
ANTIFA doesn’t exist, but some people oppose Fascism.
Molly Crabapple’s art and writing challenge us to confront a culture that risks becoming morally complacent and unstable. To face today’s crises, we need to let go of the comforting stories told by those in power and look honestly at the world around us. By sharing the voices of people who resist oppression, Crabapple shows that our spiritual and political responsibilities are deeply connected to how we treat each other. If we want to learn from the past and change our future, we have to reject the temptation to ignore injustice, work together in solidarity, and find the courage to stand up for justice in our own communities.
Heroes often die. They are hunted, tortured, and killed. Heroes are also often ordinary people doing ordinary things when they know their actions matter to others who need help.
But, you know, apathy around and find out. “Above all, protect global capital for the oligarchs.”
This is unacceeptable!
The far right is on the march again – but this time it’s different from anything we’ve seen before. A new, apocalyptic alliance of religious fundamentalists, billionaire Silicon Valley tech kings and ethno-nationalists is on the move. They’re united in their belief that some kind of cleansing cataclysm is coming, and they welcome a future of shocks, scarcity and collapse, convinced they’ll be among the saved on the other side.
This is the world of End Times Fascism.
In this blistering reckoning with our age, Naomi Klein and Astra Taylor take us deep into this man-made Armageddon complex – and show us how to resist it. Around the globe, they investigate how those who are making our world unliveable through climate chaos and job-consuming AI are preparing to protect themselves from the fallout, whether it’s by repairing to luxurious private islands for the super-rich, rocketing off to Mars or bunkering nations against a dehumanized ‘other’.
But, Klein and Taylor reveal, the new supremacist survivalists are far from impregnable. They have no vision of a shared future. All they offer are remixes of a bygone past: the nihilistic, sadistic pleasures of domination. If we’re to meet this critical moment and defend what’s left of democracy before it’s smashed up beyond repair, we must break the doom loop, and find a new way of living together, rooted in our existence on this earth, in the here and now. A story not of end times – but of better times. This book shows us how.
The Stephen Miller Test
It is time to watch the classic film Dr. Strangelove again because, in 2026, we are living it, and it's not funny.
When you put cultural and military weapons of mass destruction in the hands of dark tetrad, hateful lunatics, you are accelerating unprecedented destruction, catastrophe, and horror.
Stephen Miller's attitude towards immigration is one of an apocalyptic campaign based on the belief that the migration of non-white and non-Western people represents an immediate and existential danger to the survival of American civilization. According to this view, harsh measures—such as executive travel bans, strict limits on asylum, and the systematic separation of families—are seen as essential tools of state terror designed to stop demographic changes and to reassert ethno-nationalist control. In her book End Times Fascism, Naomi Klein describes Miller as one of the main architects of “supremacist survivalism,” a political ideology which, in response to the breakdown of the planet’s ecosystems, the depletion of resources, and migration caused by climate change, does not call for global cooperation but instead turns the nation-state into a fortified bunker. For Klein and other critics of millenarian authoritarianism, the policy frameworks put forward by Miller reflect a cold and bureaucratic form of triage: separating off the dwindling wealth and resource base of the Global North while treating displaced and subordinate populations as completely disposable in a world that is falling apart.
This restrictive agenda is maintained by a distorted form of populist politics strongly influenced by David Horowitz, Miller's longtime mentor. Miller systematically takes over and reverses the historical language of the Civil Rights movement, portraying white, conservative Americans as a minority that is under attack and being persecuted by progressive institutions, the corporate media, and transnational elites. By using this kind of rhetoric, he directly contributes to apocalyptic “Great Replacement” theories which depict traditional American power structures as being on the brink of being completely wiped out. Those who study modern fascism note that this manufactured feeling of being under existential threat carries an important psychological function: it gives a moral justification for aggressive state power and leads the paranoid elements of the political base to believe that extra-legal cruelty, institutional violence, and the destruction of democratic norms are the only ways left to prevent cultural extinction.
In both international and domestic governance, Miller promotes a bold stance that rejects international law, the humanitarian consensus, and multilateral alliances to emphasize national strength and executive control. At home, this approach takes the form of what can be described as intensive legal action. Using organizations such as America First Legal—which has been set up as a conservative counterpart to civil rights groups—Miller launches continuous legal attacks on diversity programs, university admissions, voting access, and corporate ESG policies. The objective of this strategy is to remove egalitarian principles from both public and private institutions, eliminating what he sees as the hostile "left-wing administrative state" and paving the way for a firm, centralized executive authority.
In the end, Miller acts as the administrative aide to end-times fascism. While fundamentalist preachers present the apocalypse in theological terms, Miller translates apocalyptic anxiety into legal claims, federal policy, and border infrastructure. Those who study authoritarian political movements caution that his actions reveal the frightening way in which elite resource capture and state-sanctioned exclusion go hand in hand: as the global polycrisis worsens, the state gives up even the appearance of upholding universal human rights and instead becomes a militarized tool aimed at protecting the wealth, territory, and power of minorities against a chaotic world.
Do you oppose Fascism, or are you a Fascist?
The main difference between a formal, top-down organization and a decentralized political ideology is central to how people understand “Antifa.” Federal law enforcement agencies, historians, and political scientists all point out that Antifa is not a centralized group with leaders, headquarters, membership lists, or a chain of command. Instead, it is a leaderless, flexible movement, short for “anti-fascist,” in which local groups and individuals organize independently. These groups are united by their commitment to fighting far-right authoritarianism, white supremacy, and fascism, often through direct action, counter-protests, and community defense.
“Antifa means what I say it means!” Ironic, isn’t it?
People often mistake a broad political stance for a formal group because public discussions tend to turn flexible ideas into clear targets. In its broadest sense, opposing fascism—anti-fascism—is an ethical and civic commitment that has existed for centuries and includes many different people, from liberal democrats and human rights advocates to socialists and anarchists. Today’s antifa activism is just one decentralized part of this much larger tradition. Seeing “Antifa” as a single, unified group gives the wrong impression of how modern, leaderless movements work and often turns complex social issues into an easy political target or a simple media story.
Understanding that Antifa is a tactic and a term for decentralized action, not a formal organization, does not take away from the real impact of anti-fascist efforts. Instead, it helps keep the discussion realistic. Anti-fascism happens wherever people stand up to authoritarian ideas, protect vulnerable groups, and resist oppressive systems. In the end, the lack of a formal structure means that opposing fascism is still a widespread, ongoing moral decision made by people and communities who want to protect human dignity from growing authoritarianism.
Must we sacrifice?
I have said this in dozens of articles. One’s mental and spiritual health and well-being are important, but without practice and sacrifice, they are meaningless. No principle worth dying for?
Do we trust the largesse of the billionaires and everything will be alright? No.
Empty-headed slavishness is meaningless. Inaction is meaningless.
“Look, man, I have transcended all of this. I exist in a higher realm. I can’t change people’s bad Karma. Heaven awaits me. God loves you. Chill. Relax. Work on yourself.”
What is spiritual practice for? Most people do a lot of good and take care of their families. That does not make us holy.
We are human, all too human.
Again, tragically, there are way too many heinous crimes being perpetrated in our name. How do we make that stop?
If only we had the right tools.
It’s a bloody shame.
If I suggest people spend an hour a week with their neighbors fighting a good fight, they get mad and say something about magic or having clicked like, and given at their home office. They tell me war stories about their careers. They mention famous, wealthy people they know. They discuss fantasy football. They talk about Aliens, midterm elections, and Q. It’s as if discussing these things is offensive.
“My life is too precarious to think about this shit. I sleep in my car.”
“Life is good. Why would I want to think about this shit? T-off is at 10.”
The Players have depoliticized and pacified us. If you want to, you can find out exactly how they did it, and do something about it.
If you have a close, personal relationship with Joshua, understand Stoicism, Taoism, philosophy, history, what the heck ever, you already know what I am talking about.
“We are exceptional members of Western Civilization. Pick up some Steven Pinker books and feel good about yourself”
“No one is responsible. We all get a free pass. Just stay cool.”
“People will pay attention to what makes them feel good. People will learn what they want to learn and ignore what they don’t like.”
Profile and Public Role
Francesca Albanese is an Italian legal scholar and international law expert who serves as the United Nations Special Rapporteur on human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967. She became the first woman in this role in May 2022 and is known for her strong and prominent voice in international human rights law. Albanese holds a law degree from the University of Pisa and a Master of Laws in Human Rights from SOAS University of London. She has spent more than ten years working as a human rights expert for UN agencies such as the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) and UNRWA. Over her career, she has advised governments, academic institutions, and civil society groups in Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East on issues like forced displacement, international humanitarian law, and refugee protection.
Major Publications and Legal Scholarship
Albanese’s work combines careful legal analysis with personal stories. Her main academic book, Palestinian Refugees in International Law, co-authored with Lex Takkenberg and published by Oxford University Press in 2020, offers a detailed legal framework for understanding the rights and challenges faced by displaced Palestinians. After becoming UN Special Rapporteur, she began writing for a wider audience with books like J’accuse (2024), A Moon Will Rise from the Darkness: Reports on Israel’s Genocide in Palestine (2025), and When the World Sleeps: Stories, Words, and Wounds of Palestine. These works highlight the human impact of ongoing violence, blending legal research with stories of resilience, dignity, and loss.
Landmark UN Reports and Institutional Activism
As part of her role at the United Nations, Albanese has written several important reports documenting violations of international law. In her first report in 2022, she called on UN member states to create a plan to end the Israeli settler-colonial occupation and apartheid system. In July 2023, she described the occupied West Bank as an “open-air prison,” highlighting years of mass detentions and strict control. In March 2024, she presented her report, Anatomy of a Genocide, to the UN Human Rights Council, finding there were reasonable grounds to say that genocidal acts had occurred in Gaza. In another report, From Economy of Occupation to Economy of Genocide, she examined how multinational corporations and financial institutions are involved in and benefit from the occupation and violence.
The Price of Advocacy and International Impact
Albanese’s commitment to applying international legal standards equally has made her a key and sometimes controversial figure in global debates. She has faced strong diplomatic opposition, personal attacks, and political sanctions from powerful countries that want to weaken her position. Despite this, she continues to push for accountability from states and corporations and for the enforcement of international law. Many scholars and human rights advocates see Albanese as a rare example of institutional courage, showing that international law should be a universal standard, not just a tool for political interests.
Archive Genocide WTF!? (See it with your own eyes if you have the intestinal fortitude.)
Do you see how hate works and who it serves?
“The UK ‘has no future’ if it cannot ‘restore the natural world on which we rely for our food, water, and clean air,’ said Chris Hinchliff, who is among the members of Parliament pressing the government to release the full report, rather than a shorter, redacted version. Even that version, which was obtained by The Guardian’s Fiona Harvey, ‘paints a devastating picture of severe food shortages, price rises, migration, political destabilization, and possible war, resulting from the collapse of ecosystems, fueled by the human-induced climate crisis and over-exploitation,” Ibid.
There are no good ideas out there about ending any of these conflicts, but continued military bombardment of Iran, Ukraine, and Gaza does not appear to provide solutions.
“Words of advice for President Donald Trump as he tries to extricate himself from the mess of the Iran war: Just stop talking. Let America’s overwhelming military and economic power do the work. Job one is still to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, and I’m all for the use of selective military power to get that done. If Iran keeps obstructing the strait, it invites a continuing military response” (David Ignatius, The Washington Post, July 14, 2026, Opinion)
For the past few decades, Ignatius has been an apologist for the Pentagon’s use of force, the Central Intelligence Agency’s use of covert action, and Israel’s aggressive use of military power to secure its sovereignty. Once again, the United States is faced with a difficult geopolitical challenge of its own making, and once again—like Ignatius—politicians and pundits argue it will simply take more military power for the United States to achieve its misbegotten objectives.
Ignatius has been a reliable stenographer in recording and repeating U.S. optimism regarding various peace plans that involve Israeli and U.S. national security interests. When Trump said in May that a “peace deal is near,” Ignatius echoed the president. In June, Trump and Ignatius trumpeted their optimism once again. Even the New York Times’ leading Cold Warrior, Ross Douthat, understands that the war with Iran is a “folly and a snare.”
Ignatius has been similarly optimistic about Trump’s so-called “peace plans” for Israel and the Palestinians as well as for Russia and Ukraine. Late last year, he praised Trump’s’ “hardball negotiating tactics” and predicted that a “deal seems to be getting closer” between Russia and Ukraine. He even believed that Trump was willing to extend an “Article 5-like” mutual security guarantee for Ukraine.
Neither Trump nor Ignatius saw the diplomatic and geopolitical contradiction in offering a nuclear deal to Saudi Arabia at the same time the United States was trying to stop Iran from trying to “procure or develop nuclear weapons.” (See Paragraph 8 of the Memorandum of Understanding.) Ignatius has never pointed out that any reference to a nuclear enrichment capability for the Saudis merely gives the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps greater incentive to maintain a capability for itself.
Ignatius ignores the international opposition to the U.S.-Israeli war and lectures that “it’s time for global partners to join in an international coalition to keep the strait open.” He favors “military escorts for commercial ships for as long as necessary” and urges Trump to “collect a contribution from China when President Xi Jinping visits in September.” His wishes remain the father to his optimistic thoughts.
Meanwhile, Ignatius blithely tells the Iranians that they “need to think realistically about their options and resolve their internal differences.” And if they don’t, Ignatius says that the “Iranian regime is on a one-way street to an eventual demise, however long that takes.” This is what Trump administration spokesmen keep telling us.
Ignatius fails to understand that the United States didn’t plan for protracted war against Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, and now Iran. War planners typically plan for short wars because their civilian leaders known the negative political consequences of long ones. Trump signed off on Prime Minister Netanyahu’s pursuit of regime change because he thought a military victory would be so quick and efficient that the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps would not have time to mount a challenge to the U.S.-Israeli attack, let alone devise a scheme for closing the strategic Strait of Hormuz.
Trump had no idea of the strategic and tactical challenges he faced in Iran. He ignored a CIA director who dismissed the idea of regime change, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff who warned about the logistical and kinetic difficulties associated with steady use of scarce air defense and cruise missile weaponry. Secretary of Defense Hegseth and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Caine haven’t held a joint press conference in the past three months because they have no way to explain their difficulties in dealing with questions on the war with Iran.
Trump’s problems with Iran are reminiscent of Russian and Israeli problems with Ukraine and Hamas, respectively. In 2022, President Vladimir Putin foresaw a short war with Ukraine, and even ordered his general officers to pack their dress uniforms for the victory parade in Kyiv. Fast forward, and we find that the Russian battle with Ukraine has already outlasted the Soviet battle with the Germans in World War II. The same could be said for Netanyahu who never respected Palestinian forces, and anticipated a short and manageable conflict with Hamas.
There are no good ideas out there about ending any of these conflicts, but continued military bombardment of Iran, Ukraine, and Gaza does not appear to provide solutions.
A short list of real things we might want to do something about that are happening now and only getting worse.
Climate change / Global Heating from the burning of fossil fuels and unregulated, global, financialized Capitalism.
Inequality, injustice, oppression, corruption, ecocide, genocide, war, global resource depletion from our belief in Capitalism. And do look back at 5K years of history.
War itself.
Genocide
Ecocide
Omnicide
Violence.
Bigotry, prejudice, racism, jingoism, blind faith (not the band)
Education.
Pollution.
Uncontrolled technological social experiments: AI, Social Media, Consumerism.
Mental and physical health via community, consideration, compassion, and care. We are losing it.
Biodiversity, stewardship, and custodianship for living systems on which we all, as individual Homo sapiens, depend.
PFAS and forever chemicals.
The death of US diplomacy
American Exceptionism
Apathy and Self-Satisfaction with one’s sense of Supremacy or Cultural Virtue
US Leadership
What are affluent US citizens going to do about the sociocultural and structural causes of DJT’s blatant, in-your-face corruption and profiteering? Why is he allowed to get away with it? Nothing. Life’s too good under the omnicidal scam. What are stressed Americans going to do about it?
In the face of corruption of this magnitude, are we practically powerless?
The Myth of Meritocracy and the Reality of American Wealth Concentration
The idea of equal opportunity has shaped American politics for generations. However, data from the Federal Reserve shows a very different reality: wealth is highly concentrated at the top. The top 1% of households now hold about $44.6 trillion, which is more than the combined assets of the bottom 50%, or around 65 million households. While the richest Americans grow their wealth through investments and the stock market, the bottom half of Americans own only 2.5% of the nation’s wealth. The U.S. Gini coefficient, a measure of income inequality, is about 0.49—making it the highest among G7 countries.
This wealth gap did not happen by accident. It is the result of decades of changes in corporate and government policies. The Economic Policy Institute (EPI) reports that the pay gap between CEOs and workers has grown from 21-to-1 in 1965 to over 340-to-1 today. While executive pay has increased by more than 1,200%, most workers’ wages have barely changed. As a result, many American families have little or no savings. Without a financial cushion, tens of millions of working-class households live paycheck to paycheck, unable to plan for the future or protect their interests.
Disenfranchisement by Design: Why the Poor Abstain from the Ballot Box
The large wealth gap also leads to a big political gap, where people’s economic status shapes how much their voices are heard. U.S. Census Bureau data shows that people in higher-income households are 20 to 30 percentage points more likely to vote than those in lower-income households during national elections. This difference is even bigger in midterm and local elections. In their study Who Votes Now?, political scientists Jan E. Leighley and Jonathan Nagler show that this participation gap affects which policies get attention. Elected officials tend to focus on the needs of wealthier voters who turn out, while often ignoring the concerns of poorer people who do not vote.
People are not staying away from politics because they do not care. Instead, many working-class Americans feel shut out for practical reasons. Interviews show that two main reasons keep them from voting: they see politics as something only for the wealthy, and they believe the system is too corrupt to help them. Political scientist Kay Lehman Schlozman and her colleagues, in The Unheavenly Chorus, show that economic inequality actually discourages people from getting involved. When lower-income citizens see that changing political parties does not improve wages, healthcare, or housing, it makes sense that they would stop participating in a system that ignores them.
The Oligarchic Engine: How Inequality Drives Democratic Backsliding
Modern political science increasingly treats the relationship between extreme economic inequality and democratic decay not as a correlation, but as a direct causal mechanism. In their landmark 2014 study published in Perspectives on Politics, Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page analyzed more than 1,770 policy decisions. They found that average citizens have a “statistically insignificant, near-zero impact” on public policy, while wealthy people and business groups have most of the influence.
Political scientists now see extreme economic inequality as a direct cause of problems in democracy, not just something that happens alongside it. Gilens and Page concluded that the U.S. is not a representative democracy but rather a system in which economic elites hold control, even though it appears democratic on the surface.
Concentrated to this degree, it produces a class of private actors who operate effectively above the law, wielding the resources necessary to capture regulatory agencies, shape legislative frameworks, buy media ecosystems, and fund political careers. In their research on democratic backsliding, scholars Stephan Haggard and Robert Kaufman demonstrate that extreme wealth inequality is one of the single most reliable predictors of democratic erosion, even within consolidated Western nations.
When a society morphs into a “gangster state,” public institutions cease to serve as neutral arbiters of the common good. Instead, they are weaponized to insulate oligarchic interests from public accountability, creating an environment where elite corruption is normalized, and systemic exploitation is codified into law.
Evidence-Based Strategies for the Economically Constrained
For citizens living with zero savings, relentless work hours, and stagnant wages, traditional political advice—such as “just vote” or “stay informed”—is functionally useless. While voting remains a neFor people with no savings, long work hours, and flat wages, advice like “just vote” or “stay informed” does not help much. Voting still matters in slowing the rise of authoritarianism, but research shows it is not enough to break the wealthy’s hold on politics. Real change requires organized, collective action that addresses the everyday challenges working-class people face. Mobilization among marginalized groups occurs only when policy proposals offer visible, immediate material improvements—such as universal healthcare, rent stabilization, and living-wage guarantees—rather than abstract ideological messaging. But boy oh boy we sure do love those messages.
Government by the elites and for the elites. We must increase Working-Class Representation. Political scientist Nicholas Carnes, in White-Collar Government, shows that working-class people are rarely found in state or national legislatures. This means policies often favor corporations. Supporting and funding working-class candidates through grassroots efforts can help break this pattern.
Focus on Local Organizing: Research shows that people build lasting political trust through local, in-person organizing rather than national media campaigns. Groups like tenant unions, community land trusts, and local labor councils can create strong organizations that win real changes from local leaders.
Working people have to be prepared for the worst. Any study of past working-class movements shows that elites and factions within the working class often use violence to get what they want. Overcoming bloodshed and using non-violent strategies require separate sections.
The Sovereign Debt Trap and the Engine of Ecological Destruction
The crisis in American democracy is closely linked to how the government handles money, especially given a national debt now over $40 trillion. While people often talk about debt as just a budget issue (we have MMT), the real problem is the pressure it puts on the economy. To pay off this huge debt and keep the dollar strong, the government feels forced to keep the economy growing, use more resources, and ignore environmental limits.
Our financial system relies on fossil fuels and military power. The U.S. dollar’s global strength has depended on oil deals and military force to protect trade and energy supplies. The military grows through additional debt. Research by Neta C. Crawford for the Cost of War Project at Brown University shows that the U.S. Department of Defense uses more military fuel and emits more greenhouse gases than any other institution in the world. High national debt does not slow this down—it actually makes it easier, shifting the real environmental costs onto living systems and future generations (your children and grandchildren).
Disaster Capitalism and the 3% Percenters in Biker Gangs: Philosophy of Elite Impunity (You’ve seen those tattoos)
In today’s global, neoliberal, financialized, late-stage capitalist economy, disasters are not seen as problems to fix but as opportunities to make money. In The Shock Doctrine, Naomi Klein explains how private companies use wars, natural disasters, and economic crises to push for deregulation, privatize public services, and profit from people in crisis. From defense contracts to buying up real estate after climate disasters, this chaos creates big profits for wealthy investors, turning society’s problems into business opportunities.
These structural dynamics create a distinct psychological culture among the ruling class, best captured through the metaphor of the “3% biker.” Our socioeconomic system shapes a mindset among the wealthy, similar to that of an outlaw biker gang. In these groups, wearing a “1%” or “3%” patch means proudly living outside the law and social rules (having killed for the gang). In the world of elite politics and business, this attitude becomes a culture where the powerful feel untouchable. When extreme wealth protects elites from the fallout of environmental damage, economic crises, or wars, ruthlessness is seen as smart, and the taking of resources is praised as efficient. This attitude is actually stupid.
Leaders in government and finance act with the confidence of an outlaw group, knowing their money shields them from the harm they cause. Self-righteous impunity functions as a self-reinforcing feedback loop that locks society into a downward spiral. Wealth inequality buys political influence, which strips away environmental regulations to protect extractive industries. Accelerated extraction drives ecological collapse, which triggers social and financial crises. These crises justify emergency state spending and debt expansion, which enforces a renewed growth imperative, requiring even deeper extraction and concentrating wealth further into the hands of the oligarchs who profit from the chaos. And the forever wars continue until global mass starvation or nuclear war even the playing field. We’ve seen it all before with plagues and catastrophic conflicts. It seems like no one wants to learn from history. Radical change doesn’t pay.
Recognizing this loop exposes the ultimate inadequacy of relying on national political reform alone. Political science and historical analysis demonstrate that these problems feed into one another, showing that national political reforms are not enough. History and political science show that when financial interests control the system, individual anger, outrage, knowing what’s what, protests, or petitions do not change things. The only approach that has worked to limit the power of the wealthy or survive the catastrophes they produce is to build strong, organized groups and alternative institutions. Organized community wealth structures (exemplified by projects like the Icaryana initiative) are not utopian retreats. These kinds of projects are pragmatic, historically grounded strategies for survival. By creating parallel systems that directly meet basic human needs outside the extractive logic of financialized capital, communities can build genuine resilience and robust ways of living within biophysical constraints. While national governments remain trapped in a game-theoretic race toward ecological and financial insolvency, building localized, life-affirming structures offers the only viable framework for protecting posterity, preserving human dignity, and surviving the inevitable unwinding of our hyper-techno-industrial world.
Do you want to play a role?
We speak to Dave Zirin, author and sports editor at The Nation, about his new book, The People’s Historian: The Outsized Life of Howard Zinn, chronicling the life and activism of the legendary historian Howard Zinn, author of A People’s History of the United States. For Zinn, says Zirin, “being an academic was always secondary to being in the streets and making history, not just studying history.”
“You can’t be neutral on a moving train.”
The People’s Historian shows Zinn’s presence on the great canvases of the 20th century: from the Depression to World War II to the Civil Rights Movement to the war in Vietnam all the way until his death in 2010. With intimately researched stories from Zinn’s life and career, such as the way Atlanta’s small Spelman College, where Zinn taught as a young professor, helped launch the Civil Rights Movement, Zinn’s work traveling to Hanoi to engineer the release of POWs, and his continuing influence in the emerging Democratic Socialist movement, The People’s Historian explores Zinn’s past while also demonstrating how his 75 years of political engagement with the social struggles of his time informs our perilous present.
With input from family and access to Zinn’s personal papers, The People’s Historian paints a picture of the man behind A People’s History, examining his work and legacy in the broader context of the United States.
It can be a life-changing book, which is why reactionaries hate it.
The conversation between Glenn Diesen and Chas Freeman below is extremely insightful. If there are 30 million Christian Zionists in the USA, I wish there were 50 million people who understood clearly the points Ambassador Chas Freeman is making. I wish 25 million people would do something to change course. Shall we go beyond making wishes?
Glenn Diesen has over 500K subscribers. The last time I checked, the video below had 86K views. If half a million viewers got busy, could they turn “Western Civilization” around?
Ambassador Freeman was a former Assistant Secretary of Defense, earning the highest public service awards of the Department of Defense for his roles in designing a NATO-centred post-Cold War European security system and in reestablishing defence and military relations with China. He served as U. S. Ambassador to Saudi Arabia during operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm. Ambassador Freeman discusses the need for the West to rediscover diplomacy and adjust to a very different world.
Lawrence Wilkerson perfectly characterizes our predicament. MIT Civilization 21st Century is a kill switch, and ordinary people won’t do a thing about it. What forces are going to be able to replace extremely stupid leaders like Trump with a new kind of leader who works for people’s welfare and the preservation of living systems? Today, does that kind of leader exist? We need to develop new leaders for a new world. Do we do that by homeschooling our children or by working together to change things?
Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson is a retired Colonel in the US Army and the former Chief of Staff to the US Secretary of State.
Karen Kwiatkowski: U.S. Military Breaks Down & Economy Crashes
Karen Kwiatkowski is a retired U.S. Air Force Lieutenant Colonel, worked at the Pentagon Analyst, and held various roles at the National Security Agency.
Take 15 minutes when you can and listen to and reflect on Abby Martin’s perspective.
The Manufacturing and “Stovepiping” of Intelligence
Kwiatkowski revealed that a politically motivated group inside the Office of the Secretary of Defense, especially in the Office of Special Plans, undermined the military intelligence system before the 2003 Iraq War. Instead of following the usual CIA and DIA review processes, political appointees sent raw, sometimes false, intelligence straight to top leaders. They selected questionable information from exile groups like Ahmad Chalabi’s Iraqi National Congress and removed important context to create alarming messages about weapons of mass destruction. Kwiatkowski saw that this process did not produce objective intelligence. Instead, it created propaganda intended to evade oversight, sway public opinion, and build support for an unnecessary war.
Neoconservative Subversion and Foreign Policy Hijacking
This manipulation of intelligence was part of a larger effort by a group of neoconservatives to change American foreign policy. People in the Bush-Cheney administration pushed aside experienced civil servants who supported diplomacy in the Middle East and replaced them with political allies. Kwiatkowski saw this group use old Cold War ideas, presenting them as a moral fight against evil, and using counterterrorism language to justify planned regime changes. Their main goal was not to protect the country from real threats, but to increase U.S. power, expand military bases, and control important regions. By putting political beliefs above facts, this group showed that their strategy worked outside normal debate and reality.
Erosion of Constitutional Sovereignty and Imperial Overreach
As someone who values the Constitution and has military experience, Kwiatkowski explains how the growing power of the national security state is weakening the American republic from the inside. By ignoring Congress and pursuing aggressive foreign actions based on lies, executive leaders violate the U.S. Constitution and international agreements. This unchecked power turns democracy into an empty show. Kwiatkowski’s perspective aligns with the Tripartite State idea: when secret security agencies act above the law, they strip the public government of real authority and turn the country into an unaccountable military empire.
Media Collusion and the Military-Industrial Racket
Kwiatkowski also points out the close connection between government propaganda, big media companies, and defense industry profits. She notes that major news outlets often stop doing real investigative work and instead repeat official government messages, which calms the public and protects those responsible for war from facing consequences. Behind the patriotic language lies a system in which ongoing wars generate huge profits for defense companies. Contractors, intelligence firms, and political insiders gain wealth and power from constant conflict, while treating soldiers and civilians as expendable. According to Kwiatkowski, ending this pattern means citizens must see through the false image of innocence and face the state's wrongdoing.
Aaron Good and The Democratic Illusion and the Tripartite Reality
Many people in the American middle and upper-middle classes still believe their country is a transparent democracy where different interests balance each other under the law. Political scientist Aaron Good challenges this idea with his Tripartite State theory, arguing that mainstream political science ignores elite wrongdoing. Good sees the modern American system as three layers of power, each defined by its openness or secrecy. On the surface is the Public State, the official branches of government, which now mostly serve as a show to create public trust.
Beneath this public show is the Security State, which includes organizations such as the Pentagon, the CIA, and the FBI. These groups handle the real work of maintaining American power, operating in secrecy, with large budgets and little oversight from regular citizens. Above both is the Deep State, a hidden network tied to private wealth and Wall Street. The Deep State connects corporate interests, security agencies, and even organized crime, shaping long-term strategies to keep the country dominant, no matter which party is in charge.
Exceptionism and the Mechanics of Imperial Lawlessness
This hidden system works through what Good calls “exceptionism,” based on Carl Schmitt’s idea that real power belongs to those who can suspend the law during emergencies. To keep control over a global capitalist empire, US leaders have used violence, secret regime changes, and political killings around the world, all while pretending they are not involved. Under Article VI of the US Constitution, treaties such as the UN Charter are the supreme law of the land. So, every secret overthrow—from Iran and Guatemala to Chile and others—is a direct violation of the Constitution by the very leaders who are supposed to defend it.
This lawlessness abroad eventually affects the way the US is governed at home. Imperial exceptionism leads to repression inside the country, such as surveillance without warrants, political interference, and secret government systems. One example is the Doomsday Project’s Continuity of Government protocols, which establish a parallel government that can suspend rights and monitor dissent during crises defined by national security agencies.
Dark Power, Gray Alliances, and Deep Events
To carry out this hidden imperial strategy, the deep state uses secret power deals, especially the “Gray Alliance,” which links national security agencies with organized crime groups. This partnership began in World War II and grew during the Cold War through drug trafficking in Southeast Asia and Central America. It provided secret funding for covert actions and protected those involved from law enforcement through what is called the “Apex Fix.” When democratic movements, journalists, or leaders challenge this system, the deep state responds with serious crimes against democracy.
These major events—like the killings of JFK, RFK, and MLK, or the Watergate scandal, which some see as a struggle between military and financial elites—work like ongoing coups. They remove progressive options and keep policies the same. To hide these actions, security agencies started using the term “conspiracy theory” after the Kennedy assassination, turning serious investigation into something people avoid and making the middle class less likely to question things.
Middle-Class Complicity and the Path to Reclaiming Sovereignty
The American middle and upper-middle classes hold on to the show of the Public State because facing the truth about the Tripartite State would mean questioning their own identity. Accepting that American wealth depends on an unaccountable, imperial system would force many to see that their comfort and pride are built on global lawlessness. It is much easier for the educated middle class to focus on political games, blame outsiders, or accept the idea that current policies are the only option, rather than admit their democracy has been weakened from within. By going along with the surface-level drama of elections and ignoring deeper power structures, the middle class helps to weaken its own political power.
To avoid disaster, the middle class needs to stop avoiding hard truths and start examining its own role in society. Sociologist C. Wright Mills said that people must turn their private worries into public action and hold powerful groups responsible. The very rich will not give up the ideas that benefit them, so the middle class must take back public control. The Tripartite State is pushing the world toward three major crises: nuclear war, environmental collapse, and extreme inequality. If educated Americans keep choosing easy comforts and fake optimism over real political action, they risk their own future. To survive, citizens must see beyond the surface, challenge the myths of American exceptionalism, and build a strong movement to face these hidden powers.
Accusation as Confession: American Exceptionism and the Moral Double Standard
Exceptionism is an ethical perspective or personal bias holding that general moral rules, laws, or standards apply to most people or situations, but that special exceptions can or should be made under unique or extraordinary circumstances, or specifically for oneself.
The saying “every accusation is a confession” was not often used in geopolitics until recently. Still, it can help us understand a key part of the U.S. cultural worldview: American Exceptionism. Exceptionalism is more than just cultural pride; it claims that the United States has a special destiny and moral duty that sets it apart from other countries. Many social critics say this belief is the height of US hypocrisy and at the heart of its political wrongdoing and criminality. Looking at American Exceptionism this way reveals it as a defense mechanism in which the country avoids self-reflection and instead projects its own problems onto others.
Social and Interpersonal Bias (Gemini, vetted & edited)
The Prejudice Exception: Holding a generalized bias or prejudice against a specific group of people, but making a personal exception for an individual you like or love without examining your underlying bigotry. [1]
Conditional Acceptance: Accepting someone only as an “exception to the rule,” which invalidates true equality and keeps the broader prejudice intact. [1]
Ethics and Morality
Flexible Moral Rules: An ethical stance where general moral standards or rules should normally be followed, but can be temporarily bent or waived when extraordinary circumstances or special situations require it. [1, 2]
Personal Justification: The habit of believing that general rules, behavioral guidelines, or ethical duties apply to everyone else, but that your own unique struggles or desires make you an exception. [1]
Comparison with Exceptionalism
Exceptionism focuses on carving out loopholes, exemptions, or selective passes from established norms.
Exceptionalism (such as American exceptionalism) refers to the belief that a country, system, or entity is inherently unique, superior, or fundamentally above average compared to others.
Exceptionism creates deep contradictions. When the United States or its Western allies use violence, invade, police, spy, pollute, or exploit economies, these actions are often seen as acceptable because they are supposedly done for “the right reasons.” But when other countries do the same things, they are called barbaric, aggressive, or terrorist. This thinking asks Americans to ignore the country’s own violent and colonial past by claiming that today’s actions are somehow different. Refusing to look at themselves honestly makes it hard to judge others fairly and shows that much international criticism stems from bias rather than genuine moral concern.
Comparative Cultural Critiques and Doctrine
The double standard becomes clear when we compare how the West criticizes other cultures. Critics like Sam Harris (he’s far from the worst and often cites his spiritual discipline and experience) often accuse Muslim societies of being violent or backward, but they gloss over the fact that Western history is also full of religious and sectarian wars. Calling other groups “savages,” whether it was indigenous people during westward expansion or countries that resist US influence today, shows a pattern of moral self-protection. This mindset lets the US claim resources like Venezuelan oil while at the same time criticizing other countries for interfering in the affairs of sovereign states. Many people seem comfortable going along with this.
Real intellectual and moral honesty requires fairness. If we expect Muslim communities to examine their beliefs and traditions closely, we should also expect Americans to look just as critically at their own culture, religious ideas, and values. This self-examination should include the expansionist side of Christian Zionism, the aspects of modern Capitalism that resemble Fascist corporatism, and the long record of US-instigated and backed wars. Think of all the crazy, violent cults that emerged in the United States. Is the United States that different from the cultures we criticize?
The Body Count: Contrasting State and Non-State Violence
One of the clearest examples of this double standard is how we compare the harm caused by US enemies with that caused by the United States and its allies. The system tends to highlight the crimes of “outsiders” while making excuses for or downplaying violence committed by the US and its partners. My God, when you look at it, it’s horrifying.
We can see this difference more clearly by looking at the numbers from major conflict areas:
ISIS (ISIL) vs. the USA in the Middle East: While the atrocities committed by ISIL/ISIS are well-documented and universally condemned, the total death toll caused directly and indirectly by US military intervention in the Middle East since 2001 is exponentially higher. According to the Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs at Brown University (The Costs of War project), the US-led “War on Terror” had resulted in an estimated 900,000 to 930,000 direct deaths by 2021. This includes civilians, opposition fighters, and US military personnel. Furthermore, when accounting for the total human cost, including indirect deaths (those resulting from the collapse of healthcare, food insecurity, and displacement), some estimates exceed 3 million. Never forget.
Hamas on October 7th vs. Israel/USA Since Today: The brutal attacks by Hamas on October 7, 2023, resulted in approximately 1,200 deaths. The subsequent military campaign by Israel, funded and supported politically by the United States, has resulted in a civilian death toll that dwarfs that initial number within weeks and months. As of early 2024, Palestinian Health Ministry data, generally accepted as credible by international bodies, placed the death toll in Gaza above 30,000, with direct responsibility belonging to an ally operating under the protective umbrella of US exceptionalism.
The Hannibal Directive is a controversial military procedure used by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF)
As of 2026, more than 73,000 people have been killed in Gaza since Israel launched its military campaign, including about 1,200 since a ceasefire was announced last October, according to the territory’s Hamas-run health ministry—figures considered reliable by the UN. The above figure is a fraction of the real body count that will take years to assess. How many in Lebanon, Iran, and other parts of the Middle East?
A Comprehensive Breakdown of Deaths Caused by US Warfare (Proxy, Regime Change, and Civil Wars)
The United States has actively fomented civil wars, blatantly stated goals to cause failed states, and engaged in constant military or economic warfare for over 200 years. Compiling a precise, comprehensive death toll is a monumental task, often hampered by a lack of official data and the complexity of distinguishing direct from indirect casualties. However, academic and independent researchers have provided rigorous estimates for major eras of US expansion and intervention.
Founding and Expansion (1776–1900)
The American Indian Genocide: Pre-Columbian estimates vary, but it is generally accepted that millions inhabited the territory that became the USA. Following centuries of war, displacement, forced assimilation, and the deliberate targeting of food sources, the indigenous population was reduced to approximately 250,000 by 1900. Historian David Stannard, in American Holocaust, argued that the destruction of native peoples across the Americas represents the worst series of genocidal campaigns in human history. Never forget that there are other victims.
The US-Mexican War (1846–1848): Approximately 13,000 US deaths and an estimated 25,000 Mexican deaths occurred. “Well, we won; we got Texas and California.” How many indigenous people have been killed in colonial wars? No one is innocent.
2. Early Imperialism (1900–1945)
The Philippine-American War (1899–1902): A brutal suppression of Philippine independence. While roughly 4,300 US troops died, historian estimates of Philippine casualties vary widely, but often range from 200,000 to over 1,000,000 deaths, primarily due to the effects of the conflict rather than direct combat (disease, displacement). Never forget.
World War II (1941–1945): The USA lost roughly 416,800 troops, but US industrial capacity was used to cause catastrophic levels of death, including the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which killed an estimated 214,000 civilians directly and indirectly. See Curtis LeMay.
3. The Cold War and Proxy Wars (1945–1990)
During this period, the United States participated in or sponsored hundreds of conflicts, often characterized as “low-intensity” wars or regime change operations. Historian William Blum, in Killing Hope: U.S. Military and C.I.A. Interventions Since World War II, documents dozens of examples. Other analysts estimate that millions died as a direct or indirect result of US intervention during this era.
The Korean War (1950–1953): A devastating conflict on the peninsula. Total death estimates range between 2 and 3 million people. Why do we fight? Books have been written on the subject.
The Vietnam War (1955–1975): The canonical example of US-sponsored warfare in the 20th century. US forces lost 58,220. Estimates of total deaths in Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos as a result of the war are staggering, often placed between 1.3 and 3.4 million.
Operations in Central/South America and Southeast Asia: Through support for brutal dictatorships, death squads, and right-wing coups (Guatemala 1954, Indonesia 1965, Chile 1973, El Salvador, Nicaragua, etc.), the US security state was complicit in the deaths of hundreds of thousands. The 1965 anti-communist purge in Indonesia alone, supported by US intelligence, resulted in an estimated 500,000 to over 1,000,000 deaths. Never forget.
4. The Unipolar Moment and the Global War on Terror (1990–Today)
This period includes the devastating humanitarian effects of US economic sanctions. According to the United Nations (UN), sanctions against Iraq during the 1990s resulted in the deaths of an estimated 500,000 to over 1,000,000 children under five years old. When confronted with this number on 60 Minutes in 1996, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright famously declared, “The price is worth it.”
The Iraq War (2003–2011): Estimates for total deaths in Iraq as a direct result of the war are highly contentious, but range from 151,000 (Iraqi Family Health Survey) to 654,000 (2006 Lancet report) to over 1,000,000 indirect and direct deaths (Watson Institute and earlier estimates).
The above outline is a softball. Dozens of writers, journalists, academics, and experts across domains have published mountains of content on this; data centers can only keep up if we keep throwing money at AI.
Global Historical Context: Contrasting Western and Ottoman Violence
To put US and Western violence in perspective, we need to look at the wider history of wars in Europe and the Mediterranean.
Was the Ottoman Empire More Violent Than European States?
The idea that non-Western, especially Muslim, cultures are naturally more violent is often based on a biased view of history. Comparing the Ottoman Empire to European countries from the end of the Eastern Roman Empire to World War II shows that both were shaped by long periods of intense and brutal warfare.
Total conflict-related death estimates for Europe during these years are difficult to calculate. Still, some estimates for general conflict deaths from the late medieval period (which included incredibly violent periods like the Wars of Religion and the Thirty Years’ War) through the 20th century are around 200 million.
The Thirty Years’ War (1618–1648): Central Europe lost an estimated 20% to 30% of its population, with deaths totaling between 4.5 and 8 million people in just 30 years—a scale of devastation comparable to a world war for that era.
The Ottoman Empire did expand through violence, especially in Eastern Europe, and carried out internal repression, including the genocides of Armenians, Assyrians, and Greeks, which killed about 1.5 million people. However, the scale and method of mass killing seen in European wars from 1800 to 1945 were even greater. This includes the Napoleonic Wars, colonial wars in Africa and Asia, and the huge death tolls of World War I and II. History does not support the idea that the Ottoman Empire was more violent than European countries of the same era.
Where is the high moral ground? We’ll need a lot of mindfulness meditation, prayer, and grace to find it.
Why the USA is More Violent Than Other Wealthy Nations
This pattern of aggression around the world also shows up at home. The United States is much more violent than other rich Western and East Asian countries like the UK, Canada, France, Germany, Japan, or South Korea, based on homicide rates. According to the OECD, the US homicide rate is usually four to eight times higher than in other countries with similar wealth.
This high level of violence in the US is difficult for mainstream American stories to address. Instead of looking at problems inside the country, people often blame violence on so-called “outsiders.” However, careful social science research points to several important causes within the US itself:
Systemic Inequality and Lack of Social Safety Nets: Sociologists and economists document that extreme wealth and income inequality is a robust predictor of violent crime. The USA has a much higher Gini coefficient (a standard measure of inequality) than most other wealthy nations, coupled with significantly weaker social safety nets for those living in poverty.
Gun Availability: While other nations have gun ownership, none approach the USA, which has the highest civilian per capita gun ownership rate in the world. Numerous peer-reviewed studies establish a clear statistical link between high gun availability and high rates of firearm homicides, suicides, and mass shootings.
I suggest a two-way relationship between a country’s actions abroad and at home. When a nation uses economic and military force to keep its global power, relies on violence in its foreign policy, and celebrates its violent history, it can create a culture where violence is seen as normal. The violence seen inside the US is connected to its actions overseas.
American Exceptionism as Hypocrisy and Criminality
American Exceptionism represents the peak of US hypocrisy and is central to its pathological criminality. The belief in exceptionism lets a country that is unusually violent at home and abroad claim a special moral standing. It avoids self-criticism, so every accusation against another culture is really a confession of something the US will not admit about itself. Unless Americans judge themselves as harshly as they judge others, their criticisms are driven more by denial and bias than by real moral concern.
For more context, check out this documentary. (Remember audience capture. The documentary is a product.)
Check out this interview by filmmaker Jay Shapiro with Daniel Klein. People can change their perspective and modify their beliefs when exposed to different contexts and circumstances. Please listen to this conversation and come back to my article.
Daniel Klein was born and raised in Efrat, one of the largest religious Zionist settlements in the occupied West Bank. His family helped build the settlement movement, and he grew up immersed in its schools, institutions, theology, politics, and culture before serving as an IDF tank commander. In this conversation, Daniel shares an insider’s account of life inside the religious Zionist world, the psychology of belief, the realities of the settlement project, and how Zionism can present a different face to different people while maintaining a powerful hold over identity and belonging.
We discuss Efrat, the West Bank, violent settlers, the relationship between Judaism and Zionism, the dehumanization of Palestinians, military service, nationalism, religious identity, cognitive dissonance, moral injury, and the personal costs of dissent. Daniel explains why leaving Zionism can mean losing family, friends, community, status, and purpose. He describes the process by which ideological systems reproduce themselves, how Israelis are taught to understand Palestinians, and why so many people remain trapped inside narratives.
We also explore Daniel’s awakening during COVID, what caused his worldview to unravel, why he believes Israeli society is entering a period of profound crisis, and what lessons his journey offers for all of us.
Understand one of the root causes of what ails us.
We live in a world dominated by the dogma that austerity is necessary, unemployment natural, endless wars inevitable and central banks all-powerful. It doesn’t have to be this way.
In her bold, ground-breaking manifesto, economist Clara E. Mattei tears the mask off our economic system. She unpacks key concepts like growth, inflation, unemployment and balanced budgets to show how they’re weaponized to enforce market dependence, not freedom, stripping us of the power to shape the democratic decisions that govern our daily lives. Enduring problems such as poverty and inequality are not accidents or bugs in the economy, but core features – justified with pseudoscientific models to support a system that unfairly rewards people with the most resources.
Why should we accept this? Capitalism, Mattei argues, isn’t inevitable, scientific, or natural – it’s a relatively young system that can be replaced. Inspired by a lineage of political resistance, Escape from Capitalism calls for us to challenge the broken economics of our times, and pave the way towards liberation.
Agroecology and Human Agency and Responsibility
Please listen to this conversation and download and read the transcript. It’s vital and positive, offering much-needed suggestions for approaching our predicament.
Oliver Hamant: Profile and Scientific Foundations
Olivier Hamant is a French biophysicist and plant biologist. He is the Director of Research at the French National Institute for Agriculture, Food and Environment (INRAE), located at the École Normale Supérieure (ENS) de Lyon. He also leads the Michel Serres Institute, which focuses on research on socio-ecological transitions. Hamant’s career brings together cell biology, physics, mechanical engineering, and complex systems theory. He first became known internationally for his lab work on plant morphogenesis. Over time, he has become a well-known public thinker, drawing on ideas from biology to question modern economic models and to suggest ways for society to become more resilient.
The Physics of Plant Development
In his main research, Hamant studies how physical and mechanical forces shape plant growth and structure. His team uses cell biology, advanced microscopy, biophysics, and computer modeling to show that plant cells do more than react to genetic signals or chemicals. They also sense mechanical tension in the tissues around them. His key papers show that mechanical stress aligns internal cellular structures, such as cortical microtubules and cellulose fibers in the cell wall, to guide the growth of plant tissues at the shoot tip. By showing that physical forces are as important as genetics, Hamant has changed how scientists think about plant development. He has helped explain how living things keep their structure while adapting to physical changes.
From Plant Mechanics to Civilizational Critique
After studying the complexity of living systems, Hamant began to critique society’s focus on control, efficiency, and extreme optimization. He believes that modern industry makes the mistake of confusing short-term success with long-term survival. While being highly efficient might work in stable times, it becomes risky in the face of climate change, resource shortages, and global instability. Extreme optimization removes the safety margins systems need, making them fragile and prone to sudden failure. Hamant says that living systems last not because they are the most efficient, but because they are robust. Robustness means being able to stay stable and keep working even when things are unpredictable.
Key Publications and Philosophical Contributions
Hamant explains his ideas in several important essays and academic works. In La Troisième voie du vivant (The Third Way of Living Systems), he shows that living things succeed by using strategies that modern economics often ignores, such as redundancy, slowness, diversity, incompleteness, and not always being optimal. In his well-known book Antidote au culte de la performance: La robustesse du vivant (Antidote to the Cult of Performance: Robustness from Nature), he questions the focus on productivity in business and politics. He points out that photosynthesis in nature operates at a low energy level to avoid damage from excessive light and to survive in the long run. In De l’incohérence and The Benefits of Imperfection, he explains that accepting some inconsistency and flexibility helps societies, businesses, and ecosystems withstand shocks rather than breaking under pressure.
Activism, Advocacy, and Systemic Transformation
As a public advocate and speaker, Hamant speaks with students, policymakers, business leaders, and environmental groups to call for a major shift away from a culture focused solely on efficiency. He says that sustainability should not just be about using new technology to keep industry growing. Instead, he wants organizations to design their systems to be more like living things—robust and able to handle change. This means letting go of the goal of endless economic growth, slowing down, adding backup systems, and accepting lower short-term results for long-term survival. His mix of scientific work and social involvement has won him international awards, including an honorary doctorate from UCLouvain, where he was praised for promoting a realistic and resilient approach to today’s many crises.
Foundations and Evolutionary Trajectories of Agroecology
Agroecology has grown from a small academic field into a leading approach for changing global food systems. It has three main roles: it is a science that studies how ecology works in farming, a set of practical methods that use nature-based techniques, and a movement that supports food sovereignty and social justice. This change marks a shift away from focusing solely on high yields, aiming instead to balance farming with the needs of people and the environment. By putting the long-term health of nature first, agroecology protects resources and helps communities stay strong.
The historical trajectory of agroecology reflects a deliberate movement from early crop geography to modern process ecology and complex systems thinking. In 1928, agronomy and ecology first converged when Edward Klages introduced crop ecology, while Basil Bensin simultaneously coined the term agroecology. During the 1930s, German zoologist Karl Friederichs applied the concept within agricultural and forest zoology, while ecologist Arthur Tansley developed process ecology, laying the groundwork for systems-level analysis. In 1939, American crop physiologist Herbert Hansen applied agroecological principles to physiological crop management. Following World War II, Wolfgang Tischler formalized the field in 1965 by publishing Agrarökologie, the first comprehensive analysis of environmental interactions under agricultural management. In 1974, John Harper established modern agroecological theory by formalizing the concept of the agroecosystem. By the 1970s, ethnobotanist Efraim Hernández X. investigated traditional farming practices in Mexico, building a crucial bridge between indigenous wisdom and academic science. This work paved the way for Miguel Altieri and Stephen Gliessman in the 1980s to integrate socio-economic factors, demonstrating how corporate farm consolidation directly destabilizes natural pest dynamics and ecosystem properties. As Altieri famously observed, “Agroecology provides the scientific, methodological, and technical basis for designing resilient farming systems that preserve local natural resources and foster food sovereignty.”
This progress in agroecology brings together many scientific fields to understand and manage key parts of farming systems. Agronomy and ecology work together to regulate nutrient cycles, plant-insect relationships, and energy use, thereby helping farms become more productive and stable. Sociology examines how farming affects rural communities and helps preserve traditions, ensuring fairness. Economics studies costs and benefits to see whether farms can be financially sustainable. Environmental science monitors biodiversity and climate resilience to support ecological stability, while history and ethnobotany incorporate traditional knowledge to sustain cultural practices. All these fields show that farming can’t be understood by looking at single parts alone. Instead, farms need to be managed as living, changing systems.
Core Principles and Global Policy Frameworks
Global standards set by groups like the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and the High-Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition (HLPE) create a common language for agricultural policy worldwide. These guidelines help shift farming away from the use of many expensive, fossil-fuel-based chemicals and toward agroecological methods that rely on knowledge and natural processes. As former UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food Olivier De Schutter said, “Agroecology delivers advantages that complement or go beyond those delivered by conventional approaches, while offering a sustainable solution to climate change and hunger.”
The Altieri and COMDEKS framework outlines six core agroecological principles that guide field design. First, biomass recycling optimizes organic matter decomposition to accelerate nutrient cycling, directly reducing dependency on commercial synthetic fertilizers. Second, functional biodiversity creates habitats for natural predators and antagonists, bolstering the farm’s internal immune system and enabling the replacement of chemical pesticides with biological control. Third, active soil management enhances biological activity and organic matter, maximizing water retention and nutrient availability to buffer crops against severe drought. Fourth, diversification through polycultures, livestock, and agroforestry occupies multiple ecological niches; this redundancy of species ensures that if one crop fails under stress, others maintain overall ecosystem function. Fifth, minimizing resource losses through closed-loop designs conserves water, energy, and genetic material, enhancing farm-level self-sufficiency. Sixth, designing for synergistic interactions among crops, animals, and soil organisms allows the farm to sponsor its own vital services without external chemical inputs.
These principles are put into practice through ten main strategies that support long-term sustainability. Strong connections between farms and their surroundings help everything work together, and independence protects farmers from unstable markets. Respecting traditional knowledge keeps local seeds and land practices alive and helps communities design farming systems that fit their needs. Keeping a mix of crops and practices across space and time stops pest outbreaks, while working together encourages sharing and support. Having many types of plants and animals helps farms handle climate changes and reduces waste. In the end, resilient systems help farms keep going after extreme weather, and thoughtful community building helps farmers adapt to new challenges.
Technical Field Designs and the Biological Engine
On the farm, technical design is like the engine that keeps nutrient cycles and natural pest control working. By using different crops and rotating them over time, farmers harness natural processes like allelopathy, in which some plants help suppress weeds or pests, and natural enemies that keep pests in check. The key to this system is healthy soil microbes. Tiny organisms in the soil break down organic matter and release nutrients, creating soil that lets water soak in well and holds together strongly. This healthy soil is especially important during heavy rains, as it helps prevent flooding, runoff, and erosion on hillsides.
Producers activate these biological mechanisms through specific design interventions. Crop rotations introduce temporal diversity. Farmers use certain methods to make these natural processes work. Rotating crops adds variety over time, breaking pest cycles and helping plants access nutrients from different soil layers, improving soil health without chemicals. Growing several types of crops together (polycultures) fills different roles in the ecosystem and helps keep yields steady when the environment changes. Agroforestry adds trees with deep roots and thick trunks that hold the soil in place, protect crops from strong winds, and prevent erosion. Keeping the soil covered with plants, especially legumes, adds nitrogen to the soil and creates thick mulch that blocks weeds and softens the impact of heavy rain. Assessment tools allow researchers and policymakers to evaluate climate adaptation strategies precisely. Within this framework, disaster risk is not viewed as an inevitable natural catastrophe, but as a function of internal system vulnerabilities balanced against human adaptive capacity. The formula defines this relationship:
Here, vulnerability refers to internal weaknesses such as poor soil, low biodiversity, steep, bare slopes, and weak social organization. Threat describes the strength, frequency, and duration of external climate shocks, such as prolonged droughts or severe hurricanes. Response capacity measures the social capital, traditional knowledge, and community networks that help people resist and recover from these challenges.
Researchers use participatory tools like the ‘Semaforo’ (Traffic Light) system to show these patterns in the field. This method rates farm vulnerability from red (scores one to two) for extreme risk, such as steep bare slopes and poor soil, to yellow (scores three to four) for moderate risk, and green (score five) for highly resilient farms with diverse forests and healthy soils. Radar charts and risk triangles also help map several social and ecological factors at once. In studies across regions such as Antioquia, Colombia, these tools allow scientists to compare high-risk ‘orange’ farms with resilient ‘green’ farms, making it easier to identify the changes needed to move vulnerable areas into safer zones.
Socioeconomic Dynamics and the Yield Gap Debate
To assess the economics of agroecology, we need to look beyond narrow measures such as Gross Value Added (GVA), which exclude the environmental and health costs of chemical farming. Instead, health- and eco-economics use Real Value Added (RVA), which subtracts environmental harm, climate damage, and public subsidies from total output. Agroecology relies more on knowledge than on expensive chemicals, so it keeps more economic value in local rural communities. As agricultural economist Jules Pretty said, “Redesigning agricultural systems around biological processes is not an alternative to development; it is the prerequisite for economic endurance.”
Real Value Added is important in large-scale economic models, such as a study that examined farming in the Western Balkans through 2050. If the region continues to use chemicals as usual, it could lose 10% of farm jobs, suffer widespread soil damage, and end up with a negative Real Value Added of 449 million Euros. Switching to a fully organic ECO model, however, would increase farm jobs by ten percent, raise food production by eight percent, and create a positive Real Value Added of 551 million Euros. An even more advanced ECO+ model, which links farming with local energy projects such as using wood ash as fertilizer and smart irrigation, would boost jobs by 13 percent, increase food production by 34 percent, and reach a Real Value Added of 2 billion Euros. These results show that ecological farming creates much more long-term wealth than industrial methods.
Will a critical mass of U.S. citizens ever pay attention to ecological farming systems, or will they keep being mesmerized by rows of breakfast cereal boxes in large supermarkets? Perhaps, after supermarkets start shutting down like shopping malls, folks will grow spuds in their backyards with an eye toward organic farming.
In New Market, Ireland, when I was young, people grew spuds in the back garden.
For now, most people aren’t interested, and the more some people try to educate them, the less attracted they are to the subject.
Regional Case Studies and Global Support Infrastructure
Grassroots projects around the world show that knowledge-based farming can work at scale. In Cuba and the United States, the Cuba-US Agroecology Network (CUSAN) supports research and resource sharing, helping Cuban expertise shape international policy. In Andhra Pradesh, India, the AME Foundation helps small farmers manage natural resources, raising crop yields and freeing families from costly chemical loans. In Ethiopia’s Doyogena region, the PSii Project, backed by the Alliance of Bioversity International and CIAT, shows that rotating faba beans and wheat can restore poor soils and help small farmers cope with climate change. In East Africa, the Soils, Food and Healthy Communities (SFHC) group works with over six thousand farmers in Malawi, combining seed-saving projects with gender-equality programs and support for those affected by HIV/AIDS.
A strong global support system gives this movement the knowledge, funding, and political backing it needs. Groups like A Growing Culture support farmers’ independence through the open-access Library for Food Sovereignty, and the Agroecology Fund provides direct financial support to grassroots projects worldwide. Regional groups such as the Asian Farmers Association (AFA), the Associação Brasileira de Agroecologia (ABA) in Brazil, and the Latin American Scientific Society of Agroecology (SOCLA) lead policy work and research. Academic centers like the Center for Agroecology & Sustainable Food Systems (CASFS) at UC Santa Cruz and the Wageningen Plant Research Institute in the Netherlands study regenerative farming. At the same time, international networks like La Via Campesina, Navdanya International, Groundswell International, Prolinnova, EcoAgriculture Partners, the Institute for Sustainable Development (ISD) in Ethiopia, the Center for Traditional Agriculture and Environmental Protection (CTA-ZM) in Brazil, and the Native American Food Sovereignty Alliance (TNAFA) protect native seeds, train young people, and fight for land rights. All these groups show that knowledge-based agroecology is the only scientifically sound, socially fair, and practical way forward for global food production.
Do We Need A Call To Action?
Things will get terribly rough when lots of people are starving.
Climate change and conflict are testing the global food supply chain. In Europe, the fastest-heating continent, the June 2026 heatwave alone caused an estimated loss of 9 million tons of grain. Insecure access to food drives up inequality and historically has been behind episodes of upheaval, including wars and revolutions.
opulation ecology Professor Tim Benton tells DW’s Ben Fajzullin that next year’s El Nino could cause even more extreme weather and crop losses. He tells DW what fundamental changes are needed to make food supplies more stable and resilient in the face of geopolitical threats and increasingly extreme weather.Population ecology Professor Tim Benton tells DW’s Ben Fajzullin that next year’s El Nino could cause even more extreme weather and crop losses. He tells DW what fundamental changes are needed to make food supplies more stable and resilient in the face of geopolitical threats and increasingly extreme weather.
We need to develop new cultures and new ways of living fast.
So what does all of this nastiness happening over there have to do with you?
Turning away from large-scale problems may feel comfortable for a while, but real-world challenges (horror) eventually affect everyone. Choosing personal happiness instead of facing these issues is like delaying a problem that will have bigger consequences later.
Craig Mokhiber is an American international human rights lawyer and a former senior official at the United Nations. Starting in 1992, he worked for 32 years as a human rights officer, lead advisor on human-rights-based development, and later as Director of the New York Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR). He was involved in human rights investigations and international humanitarian law, and he worked with civil society groups in Africa, Asia, Europe, and the Middle East. He is an experienced expert in his field.
In October 2023, Mokhiber made international news by resigning from the UN in protest over its lack of action regarding the destruction of Gaza (a man of courage and integrity who was prepared to sacrifice for his principles). He called the military campaign a “textbook case of genocide” and said that senior UN leaders and Western governments were ignoring international law for political reasons. In his resignation letter, he wrote:
“Once again, we are seeing a genocide unfolding before our eyes, and the Organization that we serve appears powerless to stop it… In each case, when the dust settled on the horrors that had been perpetrated against defenseless civilian populations, it became painfully clear that we had failed in our duty to meet the imperatives of prevention of mass atrocities, of protection of the vulnerable, and of accountability for perpetrators.”
Mokhiber believes that international law is no longer applied consistently and that Western institutions are often complicit. He says that ideas like the “two-state solution” have been used to hide the ongoing loss of Palestinian land and rights. Instead, he supports a single, secular, democratic state where Christians, Muslims, and Jews all have equal rights under the law. If you listen to most Israelis, this is unlikely. It seems like one of those “until hell freezes over” proposals. He points out that international organizations often act quickly against violations in the Global South but do little when Western countries or their allies are responsible. For Mokhiber, human rights must be applied to everyone. When political interests are put above universal rules, international law loses credibility, and power falls to those with the most influence.
The “West” has a utilitarian orientation toward international law; it’s self-serving. What is more likely to happen is mass starvation in the Middle East region and another Biblical exodus caused by global heating and resource depletion, and God-loving, spiritual people forbid—nuclear war started by the invisible permissive hand of Uncle Sam Inc. Whoops! It’s Bibi’s fault.
Is this dehumanization? Does it remind you of anything in the 1930s and 40s? Sanctioned since 2025, what has happened? Do Uncle Sam Inc. and Euro Inc. care about what ordinary people want? Democracy? How so?
It’s a lot to ask comfortable people, but I think, at some point, they will have to stand up and do something, hopefully while they still have a smidgeon of opportunity to do so.
The modern nation-state is an eye-blink in the scale of human history. For hundreds of thousands of years, human societies organized themselves through relational networks, nomadic bands, confederacies, city-states, and fluid regional polities. The sovereign nation-state—a centralized administrative apparatus claiming a total monopoly on legitimate violence over a fixed geographical border tied to a defined "national" identity—only crystallized with the Peace of Westphalia in 1648 and reached its current global hegemony through 19th-century European imperialism and 20th-century post-colonial border drawing. As an institutional model, the nation-state is a recent, contingent legal invention rather than an eternal, natural feature of human civilization.
Because the state is an artificial administrative construct rather than a biological or moral entity, no state possesses an inherent "right to exist." In moral philosophy and international law, rights belong strictly to human beings and peoples—most notably the right to life, liberty, bodily integrity, and democratic self-determination. (Indigenous groups have broadened that to rivers and trees, etc.) States do not have rights; they hold legal authority, sovereign power, and international obligations derived entirely from the consent and protection of the human populations living within them. Conflating the authority of an administrative regime or a set of territorial borders with a fundamental "human right to exist" reifies a temporary political instrument, placing an abstract apparatus above the living beings it is ostensibly meant to serve.
Noam Chomsky has been one of the most prominent contemporary voices arguing against the notion that any state—whether the United States, Russia, Israel, or any other political entity—possesses an inherent “right to exist.” Chomsky emphasizes that international law and moral philosophy recognize peoples’ inalienable rights to self-determination, security, and freedom from aggression, but explicitly refrain from granting abstract political regimes a metaphysical right to perpetuate themselves. In his analysis, claiming that a state has a “right to exist” serves primarily as an ideological propaganda device designed to shield state violence, territorial expansion, and domestic oppression from legitimate moral critique. By reframing a state’s administrative authority as a sacred right, power structures insulate themselves from accountability, confusing the protection of human beings with the preservation of a specific apparatus of rule.
From an international law perspective, jurists such as Alain Pellet and James Crawford clarify that statehood is defined by functional, empirical criteria rather than divine or moral entitlement. As codified in the Montevideo Convention of 1933, a state is simply an entity that possesses a permanent population, a defined territory, a government, and the capacity to enter into relations with other states. Legal scholars emphasize that states exist de facto through effective administrative control and de jure through diplomatic recognition, neither of which endows a regime with an eternal, inviolable moral right to survive unchanged. History demonstrates that states regularly dissolve, merge, fragment, and rewrite their constitutional structures—as seen in the collapse of the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, and Czechoslovakia—without violating any fundamental law of nature, precisely because states are temporary legal instruments designed to organize human affairs.
Anarchist and libertarian theorists like Lysander Spooner and Murray Rothbard push this critique further by examining the coercive mechanics of state power. They define the state as an institutionalized monopoly on violence that expropriates wealth through taxation and enforces obedience through law. Because states routinely violate individual rights to maintain their own institutional authority, assigning a “right to exist” to the aggressor entity represents a profound philosophical contradiction. In this view, rights reside strictly in the individual; the state is merely a functional monopoly whose legitimacy is continually subject to challenge, reform, or total dissolution whenever it fails to serve or protect the living human beings under its jurisdiction.
Decolonial philosophers such as Mahmood Mamdani and Achille Mbembe highlight the violent historical imposition of the European Westphalian model across the Global South, where rigid, militarized borders replaced organic, relational ontologies. Mamdani demonstrates that forcing complex, multi-ethnic societies into the narrow container of the modern nation-state constructed artificial “majority versus minority” binaries, directly triggering post-colonial civil wars, ethnic cleansings, and genocides. From a decolonial standpoint, insisting on the sacred permanency of the nation-state traps humanity inside an imperial framework that treats administrative borders as eternal truths, preventing the emergence of alternative, relational ways of organizing human co-existence and ecological stewardship.
History bends toward justice if we make it so.
How long do you think we can ignore what’s happening before it hits us directly?
Many people I know will ignore uncomfortable truths that interfere with their personal pursuit of happiness. Even though some folks get lucky, ignoring the polycrisis and the metacrisis is stupid.
Jeffrey Sachs is sane, healthy, intelligent, honest, and courageous. I agree with many of his insights in this 12-minute video. I too have friends who will not talk to me because I dare to say that there is something deeply wrong with U.S. American culture. Any polity that would allow the kinds of people the U.S. has in leadership is deeply disturbed. Decent, sane, thoughtful people who sit by and allow this generations-long deterioration of national character and the constitutional system are irresponsible at best, or pathological. People, we have to do something. This thing of ours was messed up long before it began.
Jeffrey Sachs delivers a blistering assessment of Donald Trump, arguing that the president’s leadership and use of power raise serious concerns about the state of American politics.
***Now read this.
The Cinematic Grammar of Collapse
Fabio Vighi’s essay provides the theoretical punctuation mark to my entire essay, framing the terminal crisis of industrial capital through two iconic cinematic bookends. In Sidney Lumet’s Network (1976), corporate chairman Arthur Jensen preaches the secular religion of early neoliberalism: “There are no nations. There are no peoples... The world is a business, Mr. Beale.” (Sounds like Maggie Thatcher and Ronny Reagan.) Decades later, Andrew Dominik’s Killing Them Softly (2012) strips away Jensen’s grand rhetoric, leaving Brad Pitt’s hitman character Jackie Cogan to deliver the raw, unvarnished truth of neoliberal subjectivity: “America’s not a country. It’s just a business. Now fuckin’ pay me.” Together, these scenes chart capital's total victory over human sociality—dissolving civic solidarity into transactional social Darwinism and reducing national politicians to middle managers running spectacles for an audience of global creditors and content consumers—programmed without purpose, meaning, or respect for posterity.
“America is not a country, it’s just a business, now fucking pay me!”
Wealth Without Value: Capital’s Terminal Pathology (Modern global techno-industrial, neoliberal, financialized, high-growth capitalism is a kill switch)
At the heart of Vighi’s diagnosis is the fundamental distinction between monetary wealth and socio-economic value. Capital generates value exclusively through the exploitation of living human labor and destructive extraction. By replacing workers with automation, microelectronics, and AI, capital radically increases material and financial wealth (liquidity, stock valuations, debt instruments) while systematically destroying value production. Starved of its biological lifeblood, the system has spent the last fifty years surviving on “fictitious capital”—issuing endless claims on future labor that will never exist. To maintain this illusion, capital has financialized every corner of existence: housing, healthcare, education, daily debt, and war. Armed conflict is no longer just a geopolitical struggle; it is a massive liquidity event where bombed cities and defense ETFs are packaged into investable asset classes to postpone systemic insolvency.
“Gaza, the West Bank, Lebanon, Syria, Oman, and the Sainai, will be the greatest real estate bonanza in history. AI will help maximize the efficiency and security of investment and development. Don’t miss this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. It’s inevitable.”
The Illusion of Multipolarity and Techno-Escapism
Vighi dismantles the comforting lie that a multipolar world order, green technology, or artificial intelligence can fix the metacrisis. Let’s not forget God and The Secret. Multipolar capitalism remains capitalism, trapped in the same game-theoretic arms races and thermodynamic limits. AI does not create value; it eliminates living labor while consuming massive amounts of energy/power and accelerating topsoil degradation, ecocide, and genocide (because of the damn traps). Central banks and nation-states no longer govern economic growth—they administer permanent emergency governance, using war, inflation, and surveillance to manage an insolvent system that can no longer reproduce the conditions of its own existence. But we don’t care; we have cocaine, booze, sports spectacle, ideology, sex, porn; we have our addictions to nurture.
The Finale: Re-Embedding in Nature for Posterity
Vighi’s critique distills my twenty years of booklets to their unvarnished finale. Salvation will not arrive through religious messiahs, state-communist central planning, or billionaire pipe dreams of living 100 meters underground on Mars while microbes take a billion years to terraform a wasteland. The human story under industrial civilization has been violently extractive because it was built on the delusion that we could decouple ourselves from biophysical reality. Another planet is not another island of savages to be exploited for the King’s riches.
How much have the Trump family and his supporters made so far during his second administration? Did you look it up? What? You are not shocked.
As thinkers like Eric Lee and Erik Michaels recognize, humanity faces an absolute choice (NO CHOICE): we either endure a catastrophic, chaotic unwinding that strips away our industrial hubris and re-embeds us as animals within the limits of nature, or we face self-erasure. If we are to give our children any chance of surviving this ongoing collapse without repeating the horrific atrocities of the past, we must stop feeding them the pacifying bullshit of corporate media and technological utopias. Our real project is to help them dismantle the spectacle, abandon the games of financialized power, and learn the quiet, urgent discipline of living as mortal caretakers of a finite, living Earth.
In my film “Committed,” the main character Cal says:
Cal: “Have you heard of a Swedish Lombago or the Shump Shank Archipelago?”
His two young friends look at each other and back at Cal. They don’t have to say that they haven’t—it’s obvious.
Cal: Of course you haven’t, because I just made that shit up. I can make tens of millions of people think they are a “thing” and get hundreds of people talking about Swedish Lombegos and the historical relevance of the Shump Shank Archipelago. And the freaking enterprise will put millions in my bank account. I can expand these narratives until they are in the Encyclopedia, whatever the fuck ever. I do it because I want to play with the Players, attend frequent skin-in-the-game meetings, and smell and dress nice in well-appointed rooms. And I did it because I fell in love. I’m a puppet—to what, romance? I don’t know.”
My ego has been bludgeoned to death by thought, but my heart is as big as the universe. I am alone, here, now, loving my relationships with people and hoping for the best while staring, scared shitless, at the cattle cars, drones, missiles, delusions, bigotry, jingoism, ignorance, and stupidity that our feel-good culture seems to think we are immune to.
Could we be the authors of a better story, a better reality? I guess not, but some people will try. Am I just a modern cynic? I hope not. I don’t think so.
I want my friends who are parents to understand what “keep your lights on” means. It is a lifelong relationship with reality that makes us robust and gives us the smarts to thrive in a complex world where algorithms are constantly pacifying us.
Let’s review one last time from some philosophical perspectives.
Radical Anthropotechnics
The Biophysical Crucible: The Carbon Pulse, Thermodynamic Overshoot, and Institutional Psychopathy
From all we’ve explored above, and from our constant flood of information across thousands of social media platforms, media outlets, etc., we must all know by now that our activities exceed Earth’s natural limits. Modern industrial society runs on what Nate Hagens calls the “carbon pulse”: a one-time, rapid use of fossil fuels that took millions of years to form. Experts across domains have illustrated this in many ways. This huge burst of energy let human populations, technology, and resource use grow far beyond what the planet can sustainably support. This should be utterly banal by now.
Mainstream economics utterly ignores environmental limits, assuming that industry can keep growing forever. Banal. Stupid. Industrial systems take resources from nature and release waste and pollution back into the environment. By treating natural resources as endless, our global economy now uses more than the Earth can provide, causing lasting damage to the Earth’s living systems. Repeat this simple truth to as many people, as many times, and in as many ways as you can imagine until it becomes part of who they are.
Mal Incentives
Modern institutions make the problem worse by rewarding leaders who focus on short-term gains and ignore environmental limits. We buy into this reward system. Systems like markets and politics favor people who are willing to exploit resources and communities for profit and power. As a result, leaders are encouraged to deny the reality of ecological boundaries, keeping society on a path that risks both environmental and social collapse. Too many of us seem to think this is just the way things are.
The Psychodynamics of Complicity: Cynical Reason, Learned Helplessness, and the American Character
“Oh no, woe is me. Am I part of the problem?”
The structural inability of modern populations to organize a proportional response to this ongoing catastrophe is rooted in a psychological defense architecture that shields the self from radical self-examination and complicity. In Critique of Cynical Reason, Peter Sloterdijk identifies the prevailing cognitive posture of late modernity as “enlightened false consciousness.” People today struggle to respond to these crises because of psychological defenses that help them avoid facing their own role in the problem. Philosopher Peter Sloterdijk calls this attitude “enlightened false consciousness.” Unlike in the past, when people might have acted out of ignorance, modern cynicism means people know about the harm being done but still go along with it. This cynicism helps people cope, letting them recognize the problems while still participating in the system. Structurally futile, converting political consciousness into fatalistic resignation.
Motivated Reasoning and Cognitive Dissonance: To resolve the conflict between wanting to be ethical and engaging in environmentally harmful behavior, people often offer justifications. They may believe in future technology or adopt certain habits to feel better about their impact.
Vainglorious Self-Righteousness: Instead of recursive self-criticism, subjects deploy moral exhibitionism and performative identity politics as an ego shield, generating a sense of ethical purity while leaving the biophysical infrastructure of hyperconsumption completely unaddressed.
These attitudes are especially strong in the United States, where the idea of endless opportunity shapes how people see freedom and individualism. Many Americans see limits as threats to their personal liberty and believe technology can solve any problem. When faced with real environmental limits, this mindset often leads to denial, political backlash, or even more consumption, all while protecting current lifestyles at the expense of life.
While our species is incredibly creative, we are also terribly destructive, and planetary and living systems have limits on what they can absorb. We need to accept this.
The Malaise of Hyper-Modernity: Instrumental Reason and the Post-Durkheimian Trap
Philosopher Charles Taylor explores why people feel lost in modern society. In his books, he points to three main problems: the dominance of economic thinking, the breakdown of community, and the loss of real political freedom. When everything is measured by efficiency and profit, both people and nature are treated as resources to be used.
At the same time, the idea of being true to oneself has shifted from seeking deeper meaning to focusing only on personal feelings. Taylor argues that real authenticity needs shared values and connections to community, history, and nature. Without these, personal choices lose meaning, and people end up feeling trapped by bureaucracy and shallow consumer culture.
In his later work, Taylor looks at how spirituality has changed. In the past, religion was part of society and helped people feel connected and responsible for one another. Today, spirituality is often a private, personal choice, more like picking from a menu than joining a community.
People today often choose spiritual practices for personal comfort or self-affirmation. By avoiding the challenges of group membership, they end up stuck in their own routines. This leaves them caught between everyday life and brief moments of meaning, making it hard to commit to bigger changes.
The Theoretical Failure of Neo-Stoic Quietism
As environmental and social problems grow, many leaders and managers have turned to a new form of Stoicism. This approach helps them manage their emotions and stay productive, but it also encourages them to accept problems rather than challenge the system. Philosophers like Nietzsche and Schopenhauer have criticized this attitude as ultimately empty.
The Nietzschean Critique: Dekadenz, Becoming, and the Distortion of Nature
Friedrich Nietzsche sees Stoic philosophy as a sign of decline, marked by low energy and too much intellectualizing. In Beyond Good and Evil, he argues that Stoics project their desire for order onto a universe that is chaotic and indifferent. They then claim their values are universal truths.
Nietzsche’s critique centers on key ontological and psychological tensions:
Being versus Becoming: Stoicism rests on fixed goals and stable virtues. Nietzsche, however, sees reality as always changing and unpredictable. He argues that trying to force life into strict rules drains it of energy and creativity.
The Suppression of Vital Drives: Stoics believe that strong emotions such as anger or grief should be controlled to keep the mind calm. Nietzsche argues that these emotions are actually important sources of creativity and change. By suppressing them, Stoicism limits our ability to grow and renew ourselves.
Conditional versus Radical Amor Fati: Stoics say we should love our fate, but only if it fits their idea of a rational, ordered universe. Nietzsche calls for deeper acceptance: embrace life as it is, with all its chaos and unpredictability, without needing to believe in a grand plan.
The Schopenhauerian Critique: Eudaimonistic Illusion and Hedonic Solipsism
Arthur Schopenhauer criticizes Stoicism from a different angle. He says it is more about avoiding pain and staying calm than about true morality. Since suffering is a basic part of life, Schopenhauer argues that Stoicism’s promise to end suffering through reason is unrealistic.
Schopenhauer reveals the structural limitations of the Stoic framework:
Freedom of the Will versus Freedom from the Will: Stoicism teaches people to control their actions and reactions. Schopenhauer, however, believes that true freedom comes from letting go of personal desires, a possibility achieved through art, compassion, and self-denial.
Ethical Solipsism and the Repudiation of Compassion: Stoics interact with others mainly to protect their own peace of mind. Schopenhauer says real morality starts with feeling empathy for others’ suffering. By ignoring others’ emotions, Stoicism fosters an ethical self-centeredness that blocks true connection.
SC JB Mandala
When it comes to civilizational overshoot, modern Neo-Stoicism helps maintain the status quo. Treating ecological damage, social collapse, and corruption as external concerns or “indifferents” teaches people to control their reactions while still working efficiently within harmful systems. This approach dulls moral outrage, justifies complicity, and turns philosophy into a tool that can harm the ecosystem.
Spherology, Atmoterrorism, and the Anthropotechnic Imperative
To move past cynicism and passive acceptance, Peter Sloterdijk’s philosophy offers a detailed framework for analyzing and rebuilding our thinking. In his Spheres trilogy (Bubbles, Globes, Foams), the interviews in Neither Sun nor Death, and You Must Change Your Life, Sloterdijk sees human culture as a constant effort to build protective spaces.
Sloterdijk argues that people cannot survive in untouched nature. Instead, humans are naturally builders of spheres, living within small and large spaces filled with meaning, buildings, and shared rituals. In ancient societies, people lived within “macrospheres” (Globes), which were large, shared beliefs and structures that provided them with moral direction and a sense of safety. Religion. Mythology. Ideology.
However, the onset of terrestrial globalization—driven by maritime exploration, expanding trade, and industrialization caused these shared structures to break apart. Today, we live in what Sloterdijk calls “Foam”: a world made up of countless individual bubbles or micro-spheres. Modern apartment buildings and private consumer lifestyles illustrate this best: people live close together physically but remain spiritually isolated, each trying to maintain their own private space.
Atmospherism: the modern weaponization of the living environment. Originating with the deployment of chlorine gas in World War I and reaching systemic scale through industrial pollution and carbon emissions, atmoterrorism shifts warfare and domination from direct physical assault on the body to the systematic destruction of the environmental envelope that makes breathing and life possible. Because organisms cannot choose to cease breathing, the industrial extraction economy represents a continuous, structural act of atmoterrorism against the biosphere. By converting the planetary atmosphere into an unbreathable, overheated greenhouse, industrial civilization has weaponized the shared macro-envelope against its own inhabitants. And again, we buy into this, not out of ignorance but out of banal habit.
With this ecological crisis, normal politics and moral arguments are not enough. In You Must Change Your Life, Sloterdijk rethinks human nature through “anthropotechnics,” the disciplined practices people use to shape themselves physically, mentally, and spiritually. He sees humanity not as a fixed category, but as a species that changes through repeated practice and self-discipline.
Sloterdijk points to Rainer Maria Rilke’s call—“Du mußt dein Leben ändern” (You must change your life)—as the main challenge of our time. This means we need to develop “vertical tension”: a disciplined effort to rise above passive consumerism, comfort, and cynicism by changing ourselves and our communities. Sloterdijk says in Neither Sun nor Death that philosophy today should not stay isolated in academia. Instead, it should push us to communicate better, face complex problems, and take responsibility for the world.
Navigating the Nadir: Co-Immunism, Transitional Knowledge, and Regenerative Culture
The path of civilizational overshoot indicates that industrial systems are heading toward a low point, marked by energy shortages, unstable institutions, and climate and ecological chaos. To avoid groupthink and denial, we must quickly give up private survival plans and instead follow what Sloterdijk calls “co-immunism.”
Co-immunism is based on the idea that no person, group, or country can protect itself from global problems alone. Since the biosphere, oceans, and atmosphere are all connected, survival depends on working together to build shared protections. Co-immunism calls for worldwide solidarity, recognizing that all living things are vulnerable and that we must stop shifting environmental harm onto others or the planet.
Even though cynicism is common in politics and business, a dedicated minority is working against despair and building the systems needed to get through this difficult time. The main goal now is to gather and protect strong, long-lasting collections of knowledge and activist collectives in three key areas:
Ecological and Biophysical Knowledge Bases: These include practical maps of local resources and water systems, sustainable, robust farming methods, transportation and logistics, energy-efficient housing, and methods for restoring local ecosystems while staying within natural limits.
Critical and Multi-Perspectival Philosophical Archives: These collections combine critical theory, sociology, psychology, and indigenous worldviews to help future communities avoid falling back into authoritarian ideas, narrow thinking, ecocide, genocide, or harmful, malincentivised leadership.
Decentralized Applied Technologies: Open-source, easy-to-repair technologies for local clean water, renewable energy, natural medicine, and manufacturing that do not rely on fragile global supply chains.
These collections of knowledge should not just be stored in databases. They need to be part of active communities that serve as centers for preserving knowledge and trying out new ideas.
To take part in this change, people need to practice honest self-reflection. Escaping groupthink, motivated reasoning, propaganda, slop, and denial means learning to look at life from different angles, such as physical, energy, psychological, and historical perspectives. People should question their own habits, consumption, and moral choices, breaking down the mental barriers that perpetuate environmental harm. This means moving past private, comforting beliefs and instead building strong, responsible relationships with others that support moral, principled, practical discipline.
The culture that emerges at the nadir of the modern techno-industrial, fossil-fueled, neoliberal, financialized, accelerationist, capitalist era will not be defined by techno-utopian fantasies or fatalistic despair. Individuals and communities willing to do hard social work will forge it. The culture that comes after the industrial era will not be shaped by dreams of technology or by hopelessness. Instead, people and communities ready to do hard sociocultural work, have tough conversations, and practice disciplined self-improvement will build it. By refusing to leave the future in the hands of harmful leaders and instead building shared networks of support and learning, people can take back control and help build a better world. The main goal is to face the coming crisis honestly, preserve the essential knowledge we need, and build the ethical foundation for a culture that can recover and thrive.
Some social context and comments on technocratic solutions to complex problems of our own making. Let me shift tone…
Motivated Ignorance and Professional Taboos
Upton Sinclair succinctly described the mechanism of institutional denial, observing that it is difficult to persuade an individual to understand something when their salary depends on their not understanding it. I see this all the time, and so do you. In contemporary American society, financial incentives function as a powerful psychological anesthetic, transforming willful ignorance from a mere consequence of apathy into a critical strategy for maintaining status, psychological stability, income, and self-esteem. Amid rapid geopolitical changes, ecological overshoot, and systemic fragility, individuals at all social levels are strongly incentivized to develop cognitive blind spots. The incentive structures of late capitalism require the deliberate avoidance of foundational truths about the economy and the natural world, as acknowledging these realities would undermine the professional and personal narratives that sustain the prevailing financial system.
Why must we go to war?
This phenomenon is particularly evident within elite professional circles, where financial incentives are greatest and cognitive dissonance is most pronounced. Business school graduates and corporate executives often operate under what legal scholar Lynn Stout, in The Shareholder Value Myth, identifies as a misinterpretation of corporate law: the belief that managers are ethically obligated solely to maximize short-term shareholder value. By equating morality with quarterly financial returns, executives effectively delegate ethical responsibility to market forces, distancing themselves from the reality that high profit margins frequently rely on unaccounted ecological externalities and labor exploitation. Similarly, software engineers and technology professionals often adopt technological determinism. As Shoshana Zuboff explains in The Age of Surveillance Capitalism, these workers are incentivized to perceive their algorithms as neutral instruments of progress, while intentionally overlooking how their work contributes to behavioral addiction, workplace fragmentation, and significant energy consumption. In the defense and aerospace industries, war profiteering is reframed as “national defense readiness,” enabling engineers and executives to receive substantial compensation while disregarding the human consequences of military interventions abroad.
This self-imposed ignorance (something I often talk about) manifests differently across economic classes, each adopting distinct paradigms. Among the upper and investor classes, the main taboo is acknowledging the structural illegitimacy of their wealth. Philosopher Michael Sandel, in The Tyranny of Merit, contends that the wealthy perpetuate a meritocratic narrative, attributing their financial success solely to individual talent and effort, while disregarding the roles of tax advantages, inherited capital, and systemic inequality. For the suburban middle class, the prevailing taboo concerns the biophysical constraints of their lifestyle. Maintaining suburban consumption requires ignoring the thermodynamic realities emphasized by ecological economist William Catton in Overshoot: low-density sprawl and automobile dependence are temporary outcomes of inexpensive fossil fuels, not sustainable models for human habitation.
At the opposite end of the socioeconomic spectrum, members of the precarious working class and marginalized inner-city youth are compelled toward avoidance due to cognitive overload rather than vanity. In Scarcity: Why Having Too Little Means So Much, behavioral scientists Sendhil Mullainathan and Eldar Shafir illustrate how acute financial distress monopolizes an individual’s cognitive resources. For those struggling to meet basic needs such as food, housing, or safety, engaging with macro-level issues like global supply chain vulnerabilities or geopolitical instability is an unattainable luxury. In such circumstances, money serves as both an urgent necessity for survival and a temporary source of relief, leaving little psychological capacity to examine the broader systems that sustain their vulnerability.
These individual and class-based blind spots are reinforced by significant macroeconomic taboos that society collectively avoids addressing. Foremost among these is the thermodynamic contradiction inherent in pursuing perpetual economic growth. Pioneer bioeconomist Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen showed, through the laws of entropy, that continuous GDP growth on a planet with finite resources inevitably accelerates resource depletion and environmental degradation. Nevertheless, mainstream economics still treats the biosphere as subordinate to the human market. Additionally, the structure of fiat currency, in which money is generated through debt that requires ongoing interest payments, perpetuates a cycle of expansion irrespective of ecological constraints. To sustain current Western living standards, populations must also ignore what anthropologist Jason Hickel calls the “imperial drain”: the persistent unequal exchange in which the Global South provides inexpensive labor, energy, and raw materials to supply Northern consumer markets with affordable goods.
A brief detour regarding limited resources on a finite planet.
We must be clear: for Homo sapiens, on the modern industrial, high-tech time scale, and economic trajectory, we do not have infinite resources. We are constrained.
The claim that Earth’s metal resources are functionally infinite on a geological scale rests on a significant temporal category error. While mantle plumes, plate tectonics, magmatic differentiation, and hydrothermal activity do continually concentrate and regenerate heavy metals within the Earth’s crust, these processes occur over tens to hundreds of millions of years. Equating geological ore regeneration with the operational timeline of industrial civilization, which requires rapid economic returns and sustained annual GDP growth, confuses planetary deep time with human economic reality. Within any timeframe relevant to human survival, the supply of economically accessible, highly concentrated metal ores remains strictly finite.
The principal constraint on mineral extraction is not the total atomic mass of an element within the Earth’s crust, but rather the thermodynamic cost of concentrating it. As high-grade surface deposits are depleted, mining operations must increasingly target lower-grade ores. This transition results in an exponential increase in energy requirements: reducing ore grade from 2% to 0.2% copper does not merely require ten times more energy, but exponentially greater inputs of energy, freshwater, and chemical reagents to process vast quantities of waste rock for diminishing returns. Ultimately, the physical work required to extract trace metals from low-concentration rock reaches a thermodynamic threshold at which the energy expended exceeds the societal value of the extracted material.
This extractive dynamic reveals a paradox inherent in the transition to “green” technologies. The construction of wind turbines, solar arrays, power grids, and electric vehicles intended to support the future economy necessitates a substantial and unprecedented increase in the mining of copper, nickel, lithium, cobalt, and rare earth elements. Furthermore, operating the large-scale industrial machinery required to extract and process these lower-grade ores demands significant and continuous baseload power. Addressing resource constraints by expanding energy-intensive industrial infrastructure, which itself relies on increasingly scarce and energy-intensive resources, establishes a feedback loop that intensifies ecological degradation rather than mitigating it.
Proponents of infinite GDP growth often rely on the concept of “absolute decoupling,” which posits that financial value can increase indefinitely. Meanwhile, physical material and energy throughput remains constant or declines. However, value depends on physical substrates. Every digital transaction, financial derivative, and automated service relies on an extensive infrastructure of server farms, satellite networks, power plants, and supply chains made of metals extracted from the Earth’s crust. When the energy and material inputs necessary to sustain this infrastructure surpass planetary carrying capacity and net energy yields, economic growth no longer reflects expanding wealth but instead signals accelerating resource depletion.
It’s Money We Want
Ultimately, money functions as a potent psychological comfort, giving individuals a private means of escape from collective decline. High compensation acts as a psychological incentive; the greater an individual’s earnings from a dysfunctional system, the more vigorously they are likely to defend its underlying logic and disregard its destructive consequences. Wealth enables access to private solutions such as gated communities, private healthcare, and exclusive education, thereby shielding individuals from deteriorating social and environmental infrastructure. Earning and spending money creates an immediate and compelling sense of personal agency in a context where broader geopolitical and ecological outcomes seem uncontrollable. However, this sense of security is illusory: no amount of financial capital can ultimately protect against the biophysical constraints of an overextended planet.
Post-Scarcity Critique and The Technocratic Idealism of Einar Tangen
Einar Tangen, a seasoned political analyst, former attorney, Senior Fellow at Beijing’s Taihe Institute, and creator of Asia Narratives, applies a sophisticated analytical framework to the global political economy. Drawing on decades of experience in international trade, law, and China’s state-directed industrial planning, Tangen’s work in The Post-Scarcity Paradox presents a compelling critique of contemporary capitalism. He contends that the digital revolution, propelled by artificial intelligence, robotics, precision agriculture, and biotechnology, has established the technical basis for an era of abundance in which the marginal cost of goods approaches zero. According to Tangen, the principal tragedy of the twenty-first century is humanity’s continued entrapment in legacy business models, rent-seeking institutions, and geopolitical systems that perpetuate artificial scarcity for profit. To address this, he proposes a transition to a “Contribution Economy,” shifting from process to purpose, where societal structures are designed to optimize “how we matter” rather than what is extracted. However, despite the intellectual rigor and aspirational intent of this vision, Tangen’s perspective exhibits a common limitation among leading geopolitical commentators: the presumption that complex, deeply entrenched human systems can be rationally reorganized through top-down institutional design.
The Biophysical Blind Spot: Energy and Ecological Overshoot
The Biophysical Blind Spot: Energy and Ecological Overshoot
A central weakness of the post-scarcity framework is its disregard for biophysical constraints. Tangen’s argument presupposes that digital technologies can separate human well-being from material resource limitations. However, as demonstrated by biophysical economists such as Nate Hagens and systems theorists like Dennis Meadows, the digital infrastructure is fundamentally energy-intensive and dependent on the “carbon pulse.” Technologies including AI server farms, robotic automation, and precision agriculture demand substantial baseload electricity, rare earth minerals, freshwater for cooling, and highly integrated global supply chains. In a context characterized by ecological overshoot, soil degradation, water scarcity, and accelerating climate instability, technological advancement does not overcome physical boundaries; rather, it increases resource consumption. Assuming that digital technologies can democratize abundance while ecological systems deteriorate conflates technological management with genuine solutions to planetary constraints.
Cultural Unreadiness and the Psychological Trap
Even if technological infrastructure could be maintained, Tangen’s advocacy for a Contribution Economy presupposes a level of cultural readiness that is currently absent. Does society possess the necessary “political imagination and will” to facilitate such a transition? Contemporary late-stage capitalist culture does not foster individuals prepared to confront fundamental realities, much less undertake the profound self-examination required to redefine human value. Philosopher Peter Sloterdijk, in his critique of modern cynicism, notes that citizens in dominant economies experience “enlightened false consciousness”—they recognize the ecological unsustainability of their economic system, yet remain immobilized by financial incentives and consumer comforts. Most people lack the cognitive resources or access to engage with these abstract economic models, while elites are financially motivated to disregard them.
How many times, by how many sincere commentators, must these things be said before ordinary people will act upon this information? Futility.
Geopolitical Fracturing Versus Harmonious Transition
Additionally, Tangen’s framework underestimates the disruptive dynamics inherent in a multipolar world experiencing resource depletion. Achieving a seamless, globally coordinated transition from scarcity to a purpose-driven Contribution Economy would require unprecedented international trust and stability. (More coordination problems.) However, escalating climate impacts, ecological destruction, and border conflicts (we are currently embroiled in World War III) undermine the conditions necessary for such cooperation. Complexity scientists examining historical collapses have shown that intensifying resource competition typically results in regional fragmentation, elite overproduction, and state disintegration, rather than coordinated institutional reform. It is therefore more likely that local populations will be forced to adapt in a fragmented world lacking global supply chains and advanced technological infrastructure, rather than benefit from an orchestrated transition to a digital post-scarcity society. I was once a true believer in a post-scarcity society, culture, and economy. Now I see the possibility of post-scarcity in future hunter-gatherer bands living in a radically different world that people adapt to, not by choice or design, but out of necessity, perhaps when the global population of Homo sapiens is five million souls.
A Grounded Assessment of the Unfolding Transition
Although Tangen’s critique of rent-seeking scarcity capitalism is accurate and insightful, his proposed solutions rest on techno-rationalist optimism that underestimates the magnitude of the challenges ahead. Economic transitions are unlikely to manifest as orderly policy reforms devised by intellectuals; rather, they will likely be chaotic, localized, and unevenly distributed disruptions. Acknowledging the limits of post-scarcity narratives shifts attention away from the reassuring notion of technological salvation and toward essential social efforts such as fostering localized resilience, safeguarding critical knowledge, and building the capacity to navigate forthcoming disruptions with dignity and mutual support.
The Dialectics of Measured Progress: Steven Pinker, the Enlightenment Narrative, and the Discontents of Modernity
Daniel Dushy has described himself as growing up in the heart of the secular Tel Aviv left and has expressed critical views of certain aspects of Israeli society and political systems, but he has not explicitly defined himself simply as a “Zionist” or “anti-Zionist” in ideological terms, instead positioning his The Daniel Dushy Podcast as a broad platform for deep conversations across Israel’s entire political, religious, and secular spectrum. [1, 2, 3] If you want to understand Iraeli society, I recommend his podcast.
“Daniel Dushi is an exceptionally adept interviewer who has had on his podcast some of the most interesting and influential people within Israeli society, of all political and social perspectives. His interviews are generally rather lengthy yet flow with questions and answers that truly reflect the interviewees ideas and beliefs, non-confrontational but rather with a strong sense of empathy on Dushi’s part, even though he is honest about his own left-leaning political beliefs.” —Chaim Handler
The Evolutionary Architecture of Mind and Human Nature
This book wouldn’t be complete without examining one of the premier apologists for ‘Western’ modern techno-industrial civilization and its progress narratives. I have read all of his books, and my opinions about his work have evolved over the years.
Steven Pinker’s socio-historical theory of progress is based on evolutionary psychology and the computational theory of mind. He rejects both the Lockean idea of the blank slate (tabula rasa) and the Rousseauian notion of natural innocence. Instead, he sees the human brain as an information-processing organ of biological origin, shaped by natural selection to meet our ancestors' survival needs. Within this approach, consciousness and agency are material phenomena arising from complex electrochemical neural networks, a fact supported by the predictable ways in which physical trauma and pharmacological anesthesia cause disruptions. Pinker regards intuitive dualism—the tendency in cognition to see the mind and body as fundamentally different—as an evolutionary adaptation that helps people navigate social situations by letting them see other members of their species as conscious, intentional agents rather than simple physical mechanisms.
The human nature described in this model results from continuous interactions among various modular psychological faculties rather than from a single, malleable essence. Pinker clearly opposes the hydraulic theory of aggression, which holds that violence is a built-up instinctual urge that needs to be periodically released through catharsis. Instead, Pinker divides the human motivational structure into two opposing categories: the ‘inner demons’ and the ‘better angels’.
The five different motivational systems involved are predatory exploitation, dominance hierarchies, retaliatory revenge, sadism, and ideological moralism. These disruptive tendencies are offset by four internal psychological faculties: empathy, self-control, the moral sense, and abstract reason. Macro-historical progress does not require any biological changes to the human genome; instead, it occurs when external cultural and political institutions systematically reshape environmental incentives to favor the better angels over the inner demons. All of this still makes sense to me.
The Pacification Paradigm and the Declining Violence Thesis
The central point of Pinker’s declining violence thesis, as set out in detail in The Better Angels of Our Nature, is the historical realization of this psychological change. Using historical criminology, archaeological records, and war casualty databases, he identifies six major historical transitions and five institutional forces that have reduced lethal violence over the millennia.
Pinker attributes those transitions to five historical forces.
The first of these is the Leviathan, which refers to the centralized state’s exclusive right to use coercive force legitimately, thereby deterring private retribution and preemptive violence.
The other is Gentle Commerce (doux commerce), an economic approach in which open trading networks and technological specialization make foreign populations more valuable as trading partners than as objects of conquest.
The third is feminization, which refers to a cultural shift toward promoting female interests and female leadership and, in turn, reduces competitive clashes among men over status.
The fourth is cosmopolitanism, promoted by literacy, journalism, and mobility, which widens the human imagination and extends the ‘circle of sympathy’ to include distant people.
The fifth force is the Escalator of Reason, which involves applying rational inquiry to matters concerning humans and transforms violence from an issue of honor into an inefficient problem to be solved. 7
* Note the limitations of his focus. We can all choose to focus on certain elements, thereby changing how we perceive the context of complex sociological systems.
Epistemological Pillars of Scientific Humanism and Artificial Intelligence
In Enlightenment Now, Pinker groups these pacifying mechanisms into a worldview based on four values: reason, science, humanism, and progress.
Reason is regarded as a basic standard that calls for the systematic rejection of revelation, tradition, and dogma in favor of empirical verification.
Science systematically applies reason to discover the laws that govern both the physical and social worlds.
Humanism offers a moral basis by holding that the highest ethical standard is the subjective experience of flourishing and the physical well-being of conscious individuals.
Progress results from putting these values into action, as shown by steady, measurable improvements in life expectancy, literacy, nutritional security, and individual liberty.
Pinker clearly defends this approach, grounded in quantitative analysis and utilitarian principles, stating in Enlightenment Now that “a quantitative mindset, although it has that rather nerdish reputation, is in fact the one that is morally enlightened.” He uses wide-ranging datasets—often gathered through projects such as Our World in Data—to show substantial historical declines in maternal mortality, extreme poverty, infectious diseases, and illiteracy, along with corresponding increases in global access to calories, leisure hours, and universal schooling.
The rationalist approach Pinker follows leads him to be skeptical of apocalyptic stories about Artificial Intelligence. He regards the idea of a runaway “superintelligence” as an inconsistent category mistake that attributes self-directed beings a natural biological desire for power and projects it onto algorithmic systems. According to him, intelligence is limited by computational complexity, physical laws, and empirical data rather than functioning as an undifferentiated magical ability.
Technological advancement involves a constant progression in tool development; modern machine learning models lack an intrinsic evolutionary impulse to achieve dominance or ensure survival. Since the widespread use of digital computation has been accompanied by an economic productivity paradox—namely, a failure to produce immediate and historic increases in total factor productivity—Pinker dismisses existential dread. He suggests handling AI as standard systems engineering does: using deterministic fail-safes, involving human oversight, and conducting thorough safety tests similar to those used to regulate civil aviation and nuclear power.
The Ecological Blind Spot: Externalities, Overshoot, and Ecomodernist Faith
A major objection to Pinker’s paradigm concerns how he handles modern economic externalities, planetary boundaries, and the buildup of ecological disruption. People in ecological economics and Earth system sciences argue that Pinker’s account of progress rests on a kind of metric imbalance: it emphasizes human welfare indicators while treating resource depletion, biospheric destabilization, and biodiversity loss as minor management issues.
Systems theorist Jeremy Lent notes that Pinker’s emphasis on industrial output masks biophysical overshoot—that is, the consumption of ecosystem services, together with the production of waste, exceeds the Earth’s capacity to regenerate. Although global real GDP has increased more than twenty-twofold since 1970, this level of material consumption has also seriously disturbed the non-human living world. Lent points out that freshwater vertebrate populations declined by about 80% over this period, stating that “for every five birds or fish that lived in a river or lake in 1970 there is now only one.”
How many times have I and the people swimming in the milieu of overshoot, collapse, and limits to growth written about the topics mentioned in this book?
By stating that “even though the word has ‘human’ in it, humanism does not rule out the flourishing of animals; the present book merely concerns itself with the welfare of humans,” Pinker narrows his investigation. People who disagree with this approach claim that this anthropocentric view overlooks the fact that destroying fundamental ‘natural capital’ maintains the living standards we have today.
To address environmental problems, Pinker appeals to a technocratic idea known as Ecomodernism, which holds that high-yield agriculture, advanced nuclear fission, precise engineering, and market-driven efficiency will decouple economic growth from material and ecological consumption. At the heart of Pinker’s argument is the Environmental Kuznets Curve (EKC), the idea that environmental deterioration increases during the early stages of industrialization but then reverses as societies attain higher per capita income.
George Monbiot, an environmental journalist, and ecological researchers question Pinker’s use of the EKC, pointing out that the empirical curve primarily applies to local, visible pollutants such as sulfur dioxide. In contrast, it breaks down when applied to aggregate greenhouse gas emissions, aggregate material extraction, and aggregate waste. The apparent environmental improvements in high-income countries are often statistical illusions, driven by the relocation of carbon-intensive manufacturing and raw-material extraction to the Global South.
Instead of addressing the peer-reviewed consensus concerning ecosystem destabilization, Pinker often describes environmentalist criticisms as anti-humanist dogmatism. In Enlightenment Now, he attacks the famous 1972 Club of Rome report, The Limits to Growth, claiming that its systems dynamics modeling had forecast the complete exhaustion of global mineral supplies such as aluminum, copper, and zinc by 1992. Monbiot shows that Pinker merely repeated, without criticism, the arguments put forward by anti-environmental think tanks rather than examining the original text, which addressed dynamic resource feedback loops, exponential growth in industrial output, and the paths leading to systemic collapse rather than fixed depletion schedules.
Pinker ridicules the ecological degrowth advocates and the structural environmentalists for being followers of a “quasi-religious ideology... filled with misanthropy, such as indifference to starvation, a pleasure in ghoulish fantasies about a planet with fewer people, and comparisons similar to those of the Nazis in which humans are likened to vermin, pathogens, and cancer”. Critics see this kind of language as a defensive intellectual tactic intended to protect an optimistic, linear-progress narrative from the fact of the planet’s carrying capacity.
Interdisciplinary Critiques and Methodological Deconstructions
Historiographical and Philosophical Challenges
Those who study the history of science and political philosophers maintain that Pinker’s interpretation of European intellectual history distorts the Enlightenment. Jessica Riskin claims that Enlightenment Now contains “a knot of Orwellian contradictions” because it strips the Enlightenment of its most defining characteristic—critical skepticism. While Pinker sees reason as a foolproof engineering tool that consistently leads to progress, thinkers such as David Hume and Immanuel Kant focused on the limits, contradictions, and fallibility of reason itself.
Pinker presents Hume as a champion of rationality who aimed at eliminating human irrationality, which is in direct contradiction of Hume’s main point in A Treatise of Human Nature, namely that“Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them.” Riskin contends that by turning reason into an uncritical, dogmatic tool of data-driven optimism, Pinker gives up the reflective self-criticism that is at the heart of Enlightenment epistemology:
“What we require at this present time of political, environmental, and cultural crisis is exactly the value which Pinker dismisses although his Enlightenment predecessors accepted it, no matter what disagreements they had on other issues—skepticism together with a corresponding attitude of informed criticism.” —Enlightenment Now
The philosopher John Gray elaborates on this criticism, describing Pinker’s argument as “a weak sermon aimed at frightened liberals.” He maintains that the idea of linear moral progress is in fact a secular version of Christian teleology pretending to be genuine empirical social science. Although scientific and technical knowledge builds up gradually, human ethical judgment, political wisdom and institutional stability do not. Societies can attain a high level of technological capability while falling into authoritarianism, violence, or biospheric collapse. According to Gray, equating technological advancement with ethical progress amounts to a comforting myth meant to reassure liberal cosmopolitans about the volatile, non-linear nature of history.
Statistical Methodologies, Fat Tails, and the Illusion of Long Peace
Nassim Nicholas Taleb and the applied probability theorist Pasquale Cirillo have questioned the mathematical basis of Pinker’s pacification thesis. They show that war casualty data follow heavy, fat-tailed probability distributions characterized by power-law dynamics rather than thin-tailed Gaussian (Normal) distributions. In a fat-tailed situation, the probability of an extreme observation
exceeding a casualty threshold
decreases according to a power law:
Poverty Baselines, Colonial Dispossession, and Western Chauvinism
The economic anthropologist Jason Hickel questions Pinker’s account of the reduction in global poverty. Pinker and other public figures such as Bill Gates often cite statistics showing that the percentage of people living in extreme poverty has fallen from 94% in 1820 to below 10% at present, presenting this as a direct result of global free-market capitalism. Hickel argues that this reasoning rests on the World Bank’s absolute poverty line of $1.90 a day (calculated on a Purchasing Power Parity basis). This rather arbitrary limit is insufficient to ensure access to adequate food, housing, healthcare, and clean water.
Hickel points out that the number of people living in poverty has increased since 1981, when poverty was measured against a realistic standard—for example, $7.40 a day, which is the minimum amount needed to achieve basic levels of life expectancy and health. Moreover, most of the income gains that raised populations above this higher level occurred in China under state direction, not in developing areas subjected to structural adjustment programs based on the Washington Consensus.
Hickel also questions Pinker’s historical baseline, arguing that applying today’s measures of monetary poverty to pre-industrial societies distorts economic history, since traditional subsistence farmers and indigenous groups could use common land, forests, and community arrangements without needing cash wages.
The historical creation of poverty was caused by European colonial conquest, the enclosure of land, and the forced disruption of self-sustaining communities, so that they were forced to take up low-wage jobs in the colonial labor markets. Viewing the shift from self-sufficient subsistence to low-wage labor as a humanitarian achievement masks the violent past of colonial exploitation and the systemic underdevelopment it caused.
Anthropological Rebuttals and Prehistoric Violence Baselines
The figure Pinker gives for violence in prehistoric times in his book The Better Angels of Our Nature has been challenged by anthropologists and archaeologists who specialize in the prehistoric period. Pinker claims that our ancestors in hunter-gatherer societies experienced violent death rates of percent or more, in contrast to violence carried out in modern states. However, the anthropologist R. Brian Ferguson has demonstrated that Pinker used nonrepresentative archaeological data, as he chose sites with clear evidence of trauma (such as Crow Creek and Jebel Sahaba) and ignored numerous ancient burial sites that showed no physical signs of violence between individuals.
Ferguson shows that the ethnographic data collected by Pinker (such as Napoleon Chagnon’s fieldwork among the Yanomami) relate to tribal groups that were actively undermined by contact with European colonists. The expansion of empires, the penetration of trade, the spread of epidemic diseases, and the introduction of firearms led to militarised “tribal zones” marked by fierce conflict. By equating warfare during the period of contact with the peaceful hunter-gatherer lifestyle before contact, this historical baseline is distorted, creating an artificial contrast that exaggerates the pacifying effect of the modern state.
Class Alignment and Neoliberal Status Quo Defense
Cultural analysts and political economists have strongly criticized the sociopolitical role of Pinker’s work. The essayist Pankaj Mishra calls Pinker a leading figure in what he terms an “intellectual service class,” a group whose contributions help legitimize the economic systems and moral positions of today’s political and financial elites. I have noticed this more in recent years. Pinker’s prominent endorsements from tech philanthropists, corporate leaders, and World Economic Forum participants in Davos suggest he shares an ideological outlook aligned with technocratic capitalism.
The argument has a political effect: it presents historical progress as resulting solely from free markets, scientific innovation, and centrist technocracy. Alternative approaches—such as post-capitalist systems, ecological economics, and substantial wealth redistribution—are not seen as feasible policies but as irrational threats to human progress. In this view, progress is an automatic feature of history rather than the result of political struggles waged by radical movements against powerful corporate interests.
Epistemological Synthesis: Measured Metrics versus Systemic Fragility
Steven Pinker shows how empirical data can undermine nostalgic beliefs about earlier times by providing evidence of real improvements in infant survival, disease eradication, literacy rates, and legal equality. Moreover, his focus on evolutionary constraints offers a way to understand human behavioral tendencies and the limits of social engineering.
Nevertheless, by linking the heritage of the European Enlightenment to present-day free-market capitalism and to ecomodernist optimism, Pinker creates an intellectually fragile synthesis; the fact that he has left out the buildup of biophysical externalities, the mathematics of fat-tailed geopolitical risk, the colonial origins of modern global inequality, and the fundamental importance of radical critique reveals the limits of technocratic liberalism.
The main problem of our time is not to praise the historical trends, but to rediscover the fundamental Enlightenment value which Pinker neglects: one that involves a firm and self-doubting form of inquiry, capable of examining whether the institutional systems which have led to past material achievements can still survive the ecological and social constraints of a finite planet. Instead of relying on past progress charts to ensure future well-being, modern civilization must learn to navigate the system’s biophysical limits.
Slaughterhouse-Five and U.S. Trauma Traits
Overview: Dresden, Tralfamadore, and the Fragmented American Psyche
Never. Again.
The absolute absurdity and horror of mass slaughter are the common roots of both Kurt Vonnegut’s real-life experiences and the alien philosophy that he presents in his novel Slaughterhouse-Five. The wartime events in the book clearly draw on his own life, as Vonnegut notes: “All this happened, more or less.” In 1944, when he was twenty-two, Vonnegut was sent to Europe and captured during the Battle of the Bulge; he then found himself imprisoned in a meatpacking plant in Dresden called Schlachthof-fünf (Slaughterhouse-Five). On February 13, 1945, the Allied forces carried out a firebombing operation that destroyed the city. Vonnegut managed to survive by hiding deep inside an underground meat locker and later came out into a moon-like landscape where the German guards made him dig up tens of thousands of dead bodies to cremate them with flamethrowers in the wreckage. He saw a fellow American prisoner being executed by firing squad simply for having stolen a teapot. It was not until twenty-three years later that Vonnegut wrote about the massacre, because he concluded that a traditional, linear account of war could never convey the profound sense of meaninglessness it entailed.
To confront an insurmountable horror, Vonnegut created the Tralfamadorians, a four-dimensional alien race for whom all moments in time exist at once. According to Tralfamadorian philosophy, free will is an illusion, death is treated as a brief state and dismissed with a shrug and the phrase “So it goes”, and wisdom is achieved through selective attention—that is, by concentrating only on the pleasant moments and ignoring the unpleasant ones. Nevertheless, as literary scholars have noted, this alien point of view is a double-edged sword: on one level it shows that Billy Pilgrim’s subconscious has employed this as a psychological defense mechanism to alleviate his severe post-traumatic stress disorder and to cope with the guilt of having survived while 25,000 people died. On a deeper level, Vonnegut uses this philosophy to sharply critique emotional detachment. By embracing complete passivity and accepting four-dimensional fatalism, Billy becomes indifferent to human suffering, thereby proving that total emotional numbness erodes our humanity.
The conflict between traumatic fragmentation and selective blindness sums up the essential features of the modern U.S. American character. Among different social classes, Americans suffer from various kinds of post-traumatic stress. For people in the middle and upper-middle classes, trauma appears as a sharp anxiety about being morally exposed—stemming from the persistent fear that their image of themselves as “good,” virtuous, or heroic is in fact a lie, one that hides their active involvement in systemic destruction and imperial violence. To guard these fragile self-images, the affluent create elaborate, heroic internal narratives. Popular entertainment leads people to view the world through binary fantasies, such as “wolves versus sheep” or armed people rising to the occasion like superheroes to stop the bad guys. This desire for moral grandeur makes the privileged class especially susceptible to dramatic conspiracy theories, to performative self-righteousness, and to demagogic claims that “I alone can fix it.”
On the other hand, members of the lower and working classes live with a constant state of financial insecurity; since instability is the only way of life they have ever known, they are generally much more grounded in reality and depend on real connections within their local communities for true value and a sense of belonging. Familial relationships provide meaning. These are generalizations, of course; people in unique circumstances react differently, and everyone, given the opportunity and a good environment to grow, can find pathways to healthful self-realization and expression.
In the world we now live in, this psychological fragmentation has escalated to a dangerous level. Mass killings and firebombing are no longer merely events of the past; they are now shown in real time directly on the screens in our pockets through Telegram and social media sites. Nobody is safe from the madness caused by our global heat engine, and the reaction of late-capitalist culture is a kind of modern, secular Tralfamadorianism. When faced with horrors that seem to be planned out in four-dimensional time, people take on a fatalistic passivity, saying only “So it goes” and at the same time focusing all their attention on personal comfort, consumer distractions, or therapeutic self-care; just as Billy Pilgrim’s ability to cope with his experiences is undermined by his time-traveling, so too do modern citizens live their lives as a series of separate, episodic moments. A culture that promotes positive feelings is determined to protect the illusion of personal innocence at all costs, turning political awareness into a fragmented, dramatic way of coping.
Nevertheless, Vonnegut’s final act of writing Slaughterhouse-Five offers the essential counterbalance to our present paralysis. Even though he looked directly into the depths of Dresden’s ashes and knew no simple solutions exist, he still decided to write the book, demonstrating a firm belief in the power of human agency and our ability to engage in self-reflection. We cannot afford the privilege of Tralfamadorian indifference or the easy lies of class-based heroism. In a world where global supply chains, planetary ecosystems, and human lives are given up as expendable to maintain an omnicidal machine based on illusions, fantasies, and maladjusted ideologies and incentives, treating destruction and mass murder as something inevitable is an act of moral cowardice. To escape the trap of modern trauma, we must reject the comforting anesthetic, give up the illusion of individual invulnerability, and instead accept the demanding work of mutual care, radical truth-telling, and active stewardship in the communities that are actually trying to shape their way of life.
A Duty-Dance with Determinism: A Philosophical Analysis of Kurt Vonnegut’s Slaughterhouse-Five
The Metafictional Architecture of Trauma and Historical Erasure
Kurt Vonnegut’s Slaughterhouse-Five replaces the traditional progression of the modern war novel with a disruption of time. Rather than a straightforward account of historical events, the work is an epistemological investigation into the impossibility of depicting catastrophic mass death. In the self-referential opening chapter, the narrator—who describes himself as a former anthropology student at the University of Chicago and as an Allied prisoner of war who survived the firebombing of Dresden—states that “there is nothing intelligent to say about a massacre.” The non-linear and fragmented structure mirrors the neurobiological fact of unprocessed trauma and is an aesthetic reaction to historical erasure and psychological damage.
This metafictional approach rests on an explicit ethical agreement with Mary O’Hare. By promising to challenge wartime heroic mythologies and the romantic film stereotypes associated with masculine militarism, the narrative reinterprets the conflict through its subtitle, The Children’s Crusade. Literary scholars point out that this reinterpretation functions as an anti-monomyth. At the same time, Joseph Campbell’s account of the classical hero’s journey outlines an empowering sequence involving departure, initiation, and a triumphant return that benefits society. Kathryn Hume notes that such archetypal quest patterns clash with the modern experience of industrialized warfare, and the monomythic pattern is therefore clearly distorted. The protagonist does not appear with agency or with wisdom, but rather with a severe psychological injury.
We must move away from empty optimism and cynicism and face reality honestly. We have to let go of the idea that feeling good is most important, since this attitude has made people passive in the face of bigger problems. To become more self-aware, we need to give up the easy comfort of blaming others, relying on quick fixes, or avoiding hard truths. Instead of seeing emotional discomfort as something we can’t handle, we should learn to sit with grief, take responsibility for our shared crises, and stop believing that science, engineering, and technology alone will save us. And we are not God. The natural world existed before Homo sapiens and will exist after our species is extinct.
As stated above, we need to move away from the obsession with efficiency and constant growth and instead focus on building robust, resilient systems. Our current problems stem from putting short-sighted leaders, encouraged by terrible incentives, in charge—people who harm ecosystems and people alike for quick financial rewards and status.
The novel undermines the traditional heroic portrayal by breaking down the idea of World War II as a morally clean victory. Since it was written at a time when violence was increasing in the late 1960s, it offers what Christina Jarvis describes as a “Vietnamized” version of historical conflict, marked by physical dismemberment, systemic confusion, and widespread moral ambiguity. The fact that the narrator is present in the story alongside his wartime companion, Bernard V. O’Hare, highlights how difficult it is to reconstruct memory in the face of archival suppression and the physical ruins of destroyed cities. Palestinian Gaza is being erased. Ukraine is being transformed. The narratives that follow will reflect what no one knows.
Tralfamadorianism: Four-Dimensional Ontologies and the Illusion of Agency
The novel’s main philosophical framework is the four-dimensional view held by the extraterrestrial Tralfamadorians. Unlike the linear way humans experience time, Tralfamadorian ontology holds that all moments—past, present, and future—exist eternally and simultaneously. Time is not seen as an irreversible river but rather as an unchanging spatial continuum, like a mountain range, with each event permanently fixed. Donald E. Morse connects this idea to modern physics and to Julian Barbour’s concept of “Block time”, according to which all instants of time are equally real and immutable, which means that the feeling of the present fading is merely a trick of human consciousness.
The Tralfamadorian universe is an example of determinism without design as described by Jerome Klinkowitz, being completely free from any idea of cosmic justice or higher teleology. The final destruction of the universe reveals this cosmic fact: the cosmos is not destroyed by a serious ideological clash, but by an accidental ignition test conducted by a Tralfamadorian pilot experimenting with new fuels. In this four-dimensional model, it makes no sense to try to change events that are about to happen since every event has already taken place, is taking place, and will always take place.
A linguistic analysis of the novel shows the way this philosophical viewpoint is reinforced through grammar. According to systemic-functional grammar, the text has a clear modal structure characterized by past-positive statements and a consistent avoidance of negative forms, thus creating an irresistible sense of deterministic inevitability. This fatalistic atmosphere is captured by the Serenity Prayer, which is written on Billy Pilgrim’s office wall, together with the narrator’s remark that among the things Billy could not change were the past, the present, and the future; as Arnold Edelstein points out, this outlook reduces human beings to “bugs trapped in the amber of an unalterable spatial display of simultaneous moments that only seem to succeed each other.”
Existential Absurdism and the Psychology of Dissociation
Billy Pilgrim is a complete reversal of the conventional literary protagonist; described as a clumsy, passive figure, even a caricature like a ‘filthy flamingo’ or someone awkward in shape ‘like a Coca-Cola bottle’, he has no heroic sense of self-direction. Instead of showing moral autonomy, Billy’s experience of time displacement and being abducted can be seen as a sophisticated psychological coping mechanism arising from severe clinical trauma. According to Susanne Vees-Gulani, Billy’s experiences closely match the diagnostic criteria for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), linking his temporal displacement with traumatic arousal and with the involuntary reliving of disturbing memories.
The book gives a detailed account of the psychological process behind traumatic triggers and dissociation. Certain sensory cues—for example, the smell of “roses and mustard gas” from decay or the sudden wail of a siren—immediately break through Billy’s consciousness and cause him to relive the war experience. Vees-Gulani sees Billy’s deep apathy and lack of emotional expression as examples of “psychic numbing”, a defense mechanism which reduces responsiveness to an intolerable reality. It is notable that although Billy shows no concern about human mortality, his repressed emotional trauma comes to the surface when he sees the physical suffering of the horses that have been abused in Dresden, thus revealing the severe grief that lies underneath his detachment.
A further examination through an intertextual lens shows that Billy’s mythology concerning extraterrestrial beings is an escape formed from elements of popular culture. Alberto Cacicedo and Josh Simpson note that Billy's description of Tralfamadore resembles the science fiction stories of Kilgore Trout, particularly those in The Big Board, in which a couple from Earth is put on display in an alien zoo. The way Billy imagines Montana Wildhack and his experience of being held captive is a combination of Trout’s speculative ideas with images from pornography sold in Times Square and also with his own repressed desires. In the face of severe cognitive dissonance—a state Leon Festinger defines as the psychological distress caused by realities that cannot be reconciled—Billy creates a deterministic fantasy to relieve the painful sense of survivor’s guilt and remove the moral significance of those terrible historical events.
The Critical Schism: Quietism, Fatalism, and Moral Activism
The ethical position Vonnegut intended to take emerged amid philosophical ambiguity and sparked considerable disagreement among literary critics. At first, people often conflated the protagonist’s fatalism with the author’s moral stance, leading to accusations of ideological surrender.
Tony Tanner coined the term “quietism” to describe the novel’s apparent support for passive acceptance, suggesting that Billy’s submission to predetermined time represents a broader postmodern withdrawal from engagement with history. Charles Harris also concluded that the book’s main theme is resigned acceptance. Meanwhile, Anthony Burgess described the narrative as an act of evasion similar to J. M. Barrie’s Peter Pan (I think of Michael Jackson’s Neverland Ranch), arguing that it withdraws into fantasy rather than facing the reality of the Dresden bombing. Alfred Kazin echoed these criticisms, arguing that Vonnegut downplays the tragic aspect of history. At the same time, Lynn Buck maintained that the author creates a world of “comic futility” characterized by cynicism, mechanization, and nihilism.
Robert Merrill and Peter A. Scholl reject the quietist interpretation, arguing that those who accuse Vonnegut of holding a fatalistic view are wrong to blame Vonnegut for Billy Pilgrim’s defective survival methods. Merrill and Scholl maintain that Vonnegut’s suggestion that artists act as “alarm systems” for society underlies the novel’s structure. Rather than portraying Billy’s detachment positively, Vonnegut shows the tragic consequences of psychological surrender and aims to make readers feel strongly committed to human decency and ethical responsibility.
This dedication to ethics stems from Vonnegut’s secular humanism, a viewpoint he developed through anthropological studies at the University of Chicago, where he learned that “nobody was ridiculous or bad or disgusting.” As a result, the narrative does not include traditional villains; instead, people like the vengeful Paul Lazzaro or the unstable Roland Weary are not seen as agents of metaphysical evil but rather as young individuals distorted by violent cultural conditioning.
This view contrasts sharply with that of Bertram Copeland Rumfoord, an arrogant Harvard historian who was also hospitalized with Billy. Rumfoord treats the destruction of Dresden as a complete military necessity from a cold, utilitarian geopolitical perspective. Although both Rumfoord and Billy see the firebombing as inevitable, Rumfoord justifies the mass killing on the grounds of state power, while Billy accepts it based on cosmic fatalism. Vonnegut rejects both of these attitudes, showing that the punishment of poor Edgar Derby for having taken an abandoned teapot reveals the monstrous moral irresponsibility of institutional systems that approve of the mass killing of civilians while at the same time strictly punishing minor offenses.
“We had to nuke Hiroshima and Nagasaki!”
The Aesthetics of Inadequacy: Semiotic Rupture, Temporal Inversion, and “Poo-tee-weet?”
The way in which the architecture of Slaughterhouse-Five is structured shows how language breaks down when faced with industrialized mass killing. The constant phrase “So it goes” appears more than 100 times and serves as an egalitarian reminder of death after each death. By applying the same kind of verbal shrug to the deaths of tens of thousands of civilians, to that of a single soldier, and to the deterioration of a bottle of champagne, the narrative removes the usual social distinctions in how people grieve. As Bergenholtz and Clark point out, this indiscriminate repetition uses black humor to shock readers who reject fatalism, bringing to light the absurdity of addressing industrial slaughter with traditional rhetorical forms.
Never Again. Never. Again.
To counter this semiotic destruction, the narrative includes sequences involving temporal inversion. When Billy watches a documentary about World War II in reverse, the catastrophic mechanics of war are systematically undone:
Donald E. Morse and Richard Giannone see this reversal as an expression of the optative mood, that is, a deep longing for the state of innocence that existed before the fall and that aims to reverse the machinery of human violence. The scenario, in which bombs are broken down into harmless raw minerals and soldiers return to being high school children, points towards an uncorrupted Eden.
The novel ends with the collapse of human language, as shown by the final birdsong: Poo-tee-weet? This birdsong symbolizes the silence that comes upon a ruined landscape when all the ideological excuses, strategic theories, and rational explanations have been used up. As a simple, natural sound that appears in the desolate spring after the war, the bird’s chirp offers neither religious reassurance nor philosophical conclusion, and it remains the only genuine aesthetic response to historical catastrophe.
Ethical Synthesis: Lot’s Wife and the Obligation of Witnessing
The main philosophical conflict in Slaughterhouse-Five is between the soothing effect of Tralfamadorian determinism and the difficult human need to bear witness. Even though Tralfamadorianism tells each person to avoid horrific events and focus only on pleasant ones, Vonnegut rejects this kind of cosmic escape by invoking the biblical story of Lot’s wife. She had been told not to look back at the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, but she did look back and, as a result, was turned into a pillar of salt.
The narrator clearly connects his attempt to write to this act of looking back, recognizing that writing a book about Dresden is a painful and destabilizing undertaking. It is deeply human to look back at historical catastrophe—a deliberate form of moral resistance against the ease of historical amnesia and the passive acceptance of cosmic determinism. By combining these ideas, Vonnegut shows that true peace is not attained through the indifference of extraterrestrial beings or by denying suffering, but through the courage to face history's ruins, grieve the young people sacrificed in every crusade, and bear witness in an indifferent universe.
Say it a million ways until it sinks in.
And so it goes.
The Players of The Great Game 21st Century want to kill us and replace us with machines. Don’t let them do it.
We have to be more mindful. Don’t be afraid to think things through. To handle future catastrophes, we should prioritize taking our time, maintaining backups, and organizing locally, rather than relying on fragile, centralized systems. This means we need to rethink what it means to be competent: we should stop giving respect to so-called experts from the One World, World who conflate egotistical power grabs with wisdom and intelligence, and instead build local institutions that can handle shocks, protect watersheds, accept mistakes, maintain law, order, customs, and keep essential human needs met even in tough times. Life without some conveniences doesn’t have to be bad. People will find new ways to live and thrive. We won’t be able to rely on MTI for long. There won’t be a replicator machine.
Thou shalt do what?
“Dear Lord, I lived a peaceful, loving, creative, and responsible life.”
In the end, getting through difficult times means letting go of extreme individualism and turning to ways of life that focus on relationships, such as Ubuntu and community-based farming. Instead of chasing quick happiness through buying things, we need to find lasting joy in working together, making sacrifices, and staying connected to the real world and Great Nature. Those who survive in the long run will not be the ones seeking perfect experiences or high-tech escapes, but those who do the everyday work of caring for the land, living systems, and each other, and of building local support networks, while remaining humble. If we give up the idea that humans are exceptions to and separate from nature, and learn to live within our limits, we can become active, responsible caretakers of the shared present and limited, imperfect architects of our relational future.
I wrote this book to share some of my thoughts and perspectives. If you have read this far, I am very grateful, and I hope it inspires you to act, to create, to love. I hope you are open to the thought processes explored here.
More content isn’t necessarily better. When I write, I imagine chatting with friends around a table, wishing we could all live in the same peaceful village and spend a lifetime working, caring, and struggling together. Where I live now is that kind of community. It’s not perfect, but it’s full of love.
My life has meandered through many chapters, each one closing and opening anew. Now, quietly hoping to rediscover a new sense of community.
I hope my friends in Northern Europe and the United States rediscover a new sense of purpose amid the very real polycrisis that continues to unfold, one that nourishes the soul and preserves and protects life and human dignity. The North has to recreate itself.
But wait, there is more.
Decipher global violence, avoid history’s traps, and reconnect with humanity.
The modern world is caught in a strange dance of righteous outrage and numbing distraction, an era of revolt paired with moral fatigue. Insufficient Rewards: How We Traded Integrity for Comfort and Outsourced Morality to History exposes not only how the logic of insufficient reward traps us in complicity but also how reclaiming personal integrity is our most urgent form of resistance.
Movie Break
“Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell.” —Edward Abbey
The Spectacle of Green Reform vs. The Biophysical Reality of Overshoot
Mainstream nature documentaries act as an aesthetic anesthetic for the privileged. They turn planetary destruction into a sequence of moving and touching scenes and encourage viewers to make consumerist minor adjustments—such as changing their diet, purchasing electric vehicles, or developing a general moral sympathy for wildlife—thus addressing the serious symptoms of a deadly illness while at the same time leaving its root cause untouched. The documentaries function fully within Guy Debord’s concept of the “Society of the Spectacle”, presenting ecological collapse as something to be passively contemplated so that the audience may feel morally purified without in any way challenging the high-energy, extractive nature of their everyday lives.
The idea of pacification fails to account for the view held by an increasing number of biophysical economists, systems theorists, and scholars who study collapse—that the reality we face is one of overshoot. In his seminal book Overshoot: The Ecological Roots of Revolutionary Change, sociologist William Catton argued that industrial civilization has exceeded the Earth’s long-term carrying capacity by turning finite geological capital—such as fossil fuels, metals, and aquifers—into temporary human biomass and material output. According to Catton’s analysis, modern humans are living off what he calls “phantom carrying capacity”, which is a temporary rise in both population and consumption made possible solely by using up millions of years’ worth of stored sunlight.
Donella Meadows, Dennis Meadows, and the Club of Rome quantified this thermodynamic trap over half a century ago in their book The Limits to Growth (1972). Their system dynamics modeling demonstrated that exponential physical growth on the planet must eventually result in overshoot and collapse, no matter how efficient the technology may be. Contemporary systems thinkers such as Nate Hagens have further developed this criticism by introducing the idea of “Energy Blindness”, illustrating that global market capitalism functions as a mindless, energy-greedy “Superorganism”. According to Hagens’ approach, market mechanisms cannot voluntarily leave fossil energy in the ground because the system of debt, interest, and corporate finance needs continuous GDP growth to prevent systemic default.
In his classic work The Collapse of Complex Societies, anthropologist Joseph Tainter shows that as societies grow larger, they suffer decreasing marginal returns associated with increased complexity. Ultimately, the energy and social costs of maintaining complex bureaucracies, global supply chains, and military equipment exceed the benefits, so the large-scale state becomes a fragile “failing state” and then collapses under its own weight.
“To say that we face limits to growth is not a political opinion or an ideological preference; it is a straightforward statement of thermodynamic law. A culture built on the premise of infinite physical expansion within a closed ecosystem is, by definition, a suicide cult.”— Nate Hagens
The Thousands-Year Religion: Industrial Growth as a Secular Cult
The tendency to go beyond what is sustainable is not a recent policy error; it stems from a sociocultural “religion” that has existed for millennia, originating with the beginning of industrial agriculture and the formation of sovereign, extractive empires. As the environmental philosopher Clive Hamilton sets out in Requiem for a Species, humanity’s failure to come to terms with climate destabilization arises from a deeply rooted secular theology – the myth of human dominance over nature, a myth established by Enlightenment rationalism and intensified by industrialization powered by fossil fuels.
This view sees the Earth not as a living community of interrelated parts, but as a dead storehouse of raw materials meant solely for human use. As Roy Scranton, an experienced thinker and philosopher, states in his book Learning to Die in the Anthropocene, global industrial civilization is already functionally dead since the basic assumption that high-energy capitalism can go on forever is an existential falsehood. Scranton maintains that our task is not to save our high-energy way of life, but to learn to accept its end with dignity before violent, chaotic collapse destroys the biological foundations of all life.
Jason Hickel, an ecological economist, and supporters of the Degrowth movement have shown that “green growth”—the idea that improvements in efficiency or the use of renewable technologies can decouple GDP growth from resource extraction—is merely a thermodynamic fantasy. Empirical evidence consistently shows that within a capitalist system, efficiency gains lead to Jevons’ Paradox, since making resource use more efficient only reduces costs and thus speeds up total extraction and consumption.
We cannot have a sustainable future while living in the modern techno-industrial world, since the machines, server farms, high-speed transport systems, and military equipment that characterize modern life depend on a continuous global chain involving open-pit mining, the destruction of topsoil, and the production of toxic waste. Only a genuinely revolutionary film or piece of writing would dare to abandon the reassuring falsehood of technological salvation and compel humanity to face its own biophysical limits.
The Imperial Renunciation: U.S. Dominance and Proper World Citizenship
In this global crisis, American citizens are in a particularly dangerous situation. Because of generations of enjoying imperial privilege, having access to an abundance of consumer goods, and being taught the idea of “American Exceptionalism”, the American public has come to see national security and personal self-worth as being linked to global dominance. According to political scientist Aaron Good, in his study of the “Tripartite State”, and as journalist Abby Martin explains in Earth's Greatest Enemy, the U.S. military-industrial complex mainly acts as a violent armed guard for the extraction of capital from around the world—being the largest institutional user of petroleum and the greatest polluter on the planet.
To avoid catastrophic self-destruction as a civilization, the citizens of the United States must undergo an unimaginable shift in both psychology and politics: they must willingly give up their desire for imperial hegemony.
For more than a century, the American project has assured its people that they can serve as unlimited consumers of the world’s wealth, protecting themselves from the effects of their own consumption through a global garrison state. As historian Chalmers Johnson famously stated in The Sorrows of Empire, a republic that follows the route of military empire will inevitably destroy its own domestic democracy, bankrupt its economy, and bring about a state of continuous war (known as blowback). The constant desire for global supremacy has turned the American state into a violent and extractive outlier—an empire which spends trillions of dollars on war equipment while at the same time its internal social structure, its physical infrastructure, and its local ecosystems deteriorate.
Giving up dominance means moving away from the imperial idea of a “One-World World”—the mistaken belief that the whole planet must be arranged as a single, American-controlled market—and instead adopting a relational ontology of the Pluriverse. As the decolonial theorist Arturo Escobar puts it, we need to create “a world where many worlds can fit”. Americans should stop being trapped by the harmful dichotomy which forces them to see themselves either as imperial “superheroes” destined to save the world or as dominant “wolves” who have the right to prey on others.
To become decent and creative members of the world community means giving up our position of imperial power and acknowledging our common human destiny on a wounded and finite Earth. It requires that Americans:
Break down the idea of American exceptionalism: stop holding the view that American comfort permits global exploitation, and recognize that genuine moral worth arises from responsible relations rather than from military power.
Adopt Socratic humility and develop localized resilience: acknowledge that the high-energy consumer way of life has ended, and redirect both your energy and intellect away from projecting power globally and toward establishing local knowledge systems, agroecological food systems, and convivial community networks.
Put solidarity before supremacy: acknowledge that most workers around the world are not things to be managed or merely acceptable losses in the rivalries of imperial powers. Still, other human beings are experiencing the same biophysical crisis.
The kind of change needed now isn't simply a small policy adjustment or a technological upgrade; it requires a deep cultural transformation. If American citizens keep demanding imperial supremacy and infinite growth, they will draw the whole planetary civilization into a violent competition for the remaining fragments of a degraded biosphere. Still, if they have the moral courage to mourn the end of their imperial era, give up their desire to dominate, and accept their role as equal and accountable members of the Earth community, they can help guide humanity away from civilizational self-destruction and toward a humble, resilient, post-industrial future.
Essay Break—The Fate of Empires
I. Introduction and Methodological Framework
A. The scientific study of history
Glubb states that even though the physical sciences progress by systematically building upon previous experimental records, historical analysis stays fragmented, emotional, and limited in scope.
By viewing the course of world history as a continuous dataset rather than as a collection of separate national narratives, one can discover the recurring laws that govern the lifecycle of human superpowers.
B. Defining the “Empire”
Glubb does not use the term “empire” in the same way as it is applied to European overseas colonies, but rather to describe any great power or superpower that dominates large geographic areas and large populations.
II. The Lifespan of Empires: The 250-Year Cycle
A. Historical Case Studies
Analysis of eleven major empires across 3,000 years reveals a consistent lifespan averaging approximately 250 years:
Assyria from 859 to 612 B.C. — a period of 247 years
Persia (538 to 330 B.C.), 208 years
Greece from 331 to 100 B.C. — a period of 231 years
The Roman Republic, from 260 to 27 B.C., lasted 233 years.
The Roman Empire, from 27 B.C. to A.D. 180, lasted for 207 years.
Arab Empire (A.D. 634 to 880), 246 years
Mamluk Empire (A.D. 1250 to 1517), 267 years
The Ottoman Empire (A.D. 1320–1570), a period of 250 years
Spain from A.D. 1500 to 1750 — a period of 250 years
Russia under the Romanovs (1682–1916) — 234 years
— 250 years, from 1700 to 1950 in Britain
B. The biological and generational clock
The period of 250 years is equivalent to about ten successive human generations (with each generation calculated at 25 years).
The fact that technological advances (such as those going from chariots and galleys to railways and firearms) have no effect on the length of time that empires last shows that the collapse of empires is due to human psychology and not to their technical infrastructure.
III. The six successive stages of an empire
A. The Pioneer Era (The Outburst)
Initiative and Energy: A nation that had been little known, poor, and unrefined makes a sudden entrance showing great optimism, boldness, and physical endurance.
Instead of sticking to traditional texts or strict precedents, pioneers depend on taking action, showing courage, and coming up with creative solutions.
B. The Era of Conquests
The new nation achieves military superiority over its neighbours by means of bravery, discipline, and a well-organized determination.
The attitude promoted is one of duty, self-sacrifice, honor, and patriotism, which act as the main moral motivations in society.
C. The era of commerce
The creation of wealth is possible because military security allows for the development of extensive trade networks, the construction of infrastructure, and achieves commercial dominance.
There is a change in ambitions: the merchant class takes over the soldier class's position at the heart of social status; wealth starts to take precedence over honor and military glory as the main aim.
D. The era of affluence
The moral standards associated with duty and self-sacrifice disappear as a result of wealth accumulated.
The materialistic transformation of education consists in it changing from a purpose of fostering civic virtue, duty, and character to becoming simply a credential for obtaining wealth and well-paid jobs.
The country moves from a phase of active outward initiative to one of defensive, risk-averse protection of its current wealth.
E. The Intellectual Age
The number of discussions and academic activities increases because people's wealth allows them to engage in academic intellectualism, science, philosophy, and continuous public debate.
The inadequacy of intellect: There is a misconception that mental acumen and verbal argument by themselves—without any moral discipline, self-sacrifice, or unselfishness—can deal with complicated civilizational problems.
The intellectual justification of pacifism involves describing aggressive self-defence or military preparedness as "immoral" or "primitive", which in fact hides a deeper lack of physical bravery and the desire to take part.
F. The period of decadence
The final stage of an empire is known as internal collapse, this being marked by moral fragmentation, internal conflict, and the total breakdown of civic duty.
IV. The main symptoms and mechanisms of decadence
A. Defensive Passivity
The mentality of building walls: empires when in decline cease to take the initiative and construct physical or institutional barriers in order to protect themselves, retreating instead behind passive defensive measures.
B. Pessimism and Frivolity
Cultural despair results from a loss of faith in the nation's future and this in turn leads to widespread cynicism and despair.
People turn to hedonism and entertainment in order to distract themselves from the gradual deterioration of the system, relying on consumerism, public entertainment, and a fixation on celebrity figures (such as gladiators, actors, musicians, and athletes who take the place of politicians and heroes).
C. The influx of foreigners and the loss of cohesion
Capital cities, despite their wealth, see large-scale immigration; since the immigrants contribute talent but usually have no connection with the empire's founding legends, this results in social fragmentation when crises occur.
D. The Welfare State and Internal Factionalism
There is a growing expectation among citizens that the government should offer them basic needs and amusement—that is to say, 'bread and circuses—rather than asking them to render personal services to the country.
There is political warfare among tribal groups in which internal factions place a higher priority on defeating their domestic rivals than on maintaining the state, as a result of which civil discourse and social cohesion are destroyed.
The relaxation of gender roles and the disintegration of the family.
The disappearance of structural norms occurred when, in both the Roman and Arab empires, the clear distinctions between male and female social roles became blurred and family stability declined.
V. Main Conclusions and Historical Lessons
A. Decadence is not something that is external but internal
Empires almost never collapse entirely as a result of attacks from outside; it is usually the external enemies who give the final blow to an administrative and social system which has long been decaying from within.
B. Moral virtues come before intellectual ability.
The survival of a civilization relies more on basic moral qualities—such as loyalty, courage, unselfishness, duty, and mutual trust—than on its raw technological power or intellectual cleverness.
C. The Cyclical Law of History
Human nature remains constant across millennia; unless nations consciously study the historical lifecycle of states, they are doomed to repeat the predictable sequence from outburst to collapse.
Keep in mind that the context of his inquiry is ‘Civilizational’: large-scale, hierarchical, patriarchal, and highly competitive.
"...in the evolution of a society, continued investment in complexity as a problem-solving strategy yields a declining marginal return." The Collapse of Complex Societies, by anthropologist Joseph Tainter.
Additional Philosophical Context
Coloniality of Power, Eurocentrism, and Latin America—Anibal Quijano
Race, Ontology, and the Invention of the “Other”
The construction of race as a tool of global domination extends far beyond mere socioeconomic categorization; it fundamentally reshapes ontology and the subjective reality of the colonized. Frantz Fanon illuminates this dynamic in Black Skin, White Masks, observing that “the black man has two dimensions. One with his fellows, the other with the white man.” This racialized axis establishes a “zone of non-being” wherein the subaltern subject is forced to adopt the conqueror’s cognitive lens merely to achieve basic human recognition. Expanding on this ontological divide, Sylvia Wynter demonstrates how Eurocentric humanism overrepresented Western “Man”—the secular, bourgeois European male—as the sole universal definition of humanity, casting all non-European populations as biological or evolutionary defects. Furthermore, philosopher María Lugones deepens this critique by introducing the concept of the “coloniality of gender.” Lugones demonstrates that colonizers did not merely export European gender roles, but imposed a modern/colonial gender system that stripped non-white women of pre-colonial social authority, subjecting them to a dual dehumanization that reduced them to racialized, unpaid labor.
World-Systems and Heterogeneous Labor
The economic axis of the coloniality of power rests on the misconception that capitalism follows a linear, uniform evolutionary sequence from feudalism to industrial wage labor. In The Modern World-System, Immanuel Wallerstein reinforces the rejection of this unilinear progression, arguing that “capitalism was from the beginning an affair of the world-economy and not of nation-states.” Rather than universalizing free wage labor, global capital structurally depended on “historical-structural heterogeneity”—a system in which coerced labor forms such as chattel slavery, serfdom, and debt peonage in the periphery subsidized the privileged wage-labor relation in the imperial core. Philosopher Enrique Dussel complements this world-systems perspective in The Invention of the Americas, arguing that European modernity did not emerge from internal rationalization or unique cultural superiority, but from the violent geopolitical consolidation inaugurated in 1492. As Dussel posits, “Modernity appears when Europe defines itself as the ‘center’ of a World-History that it inaugurates; consequently, the Other constitutes its periphery.”
Cognitive Imperialism and Epistemic Disobedience
Eurocentrism functions as an all-encompassing cognitive framework that colonizes knowledge production, framing Western rationality as the sole bearer of universal truth while relegating alternative epistemologies to the past. Edward Said illustrates this cognitive imperialism in Orientalism, detailing how Western institutional power created a disciplined discourse in which non-Europeans were systematically “represented” rather than permitted self-description. This process transformed living, dynamic cultures into static objects of imperial management and academic analysis. To break this monopoly on thought, Walter Mignolo advocates, in The Darker Side of Western Modernity, a practice of “epistemic disobedience.” Mignolo contends that true decolonization requires discarding the illusion of a neutral, disembodied Western point of view. Instead, it demands validating localized, relational ways of knowing rooted in the “geopolitics of knowledge”—reclaiming the intellectual sovereignty of those whose epistemic traditions colonial rule suppressed.
The Postcolonial Nation-State Trap
The persistence of the coloniality of power explains why formal political independence across the Global South repeatedly failed to produce genuinely liberated or democratic societies. In Nationalist Thought and the Colonial World, Partha Chatterjee demonstrates that postcolonial elites inevitably fell into a trap by adopting “derivative discourses.” By inheriting the administrative, economic, and legal frameworks of their former colonizers, these newly formed nation-states reproduced colonial hierarchies under the banner of national sovereignty. Historian Ranajit Guha describes this structural failure as “dominance without hegemony.” Because postcolonial ruling classes relied on coercive dominance rather than democratic consensus, they maintained racialized structural exclusions to safeguard elite property rights and capital accumulation against subaltern majorities. Consequently, independence merely reconfigured the state into an instrument for managing colonial society from within.
Unfixing the Real: Relational Ontology and the Collapse of Methodological Foundations—Madhu Prabakaran
Ontological De-Essentialization and the Relational Weave
Madhu Prabakaran’s Unfixing the Real marks a fundamental departure from the metaphysics of substance that has long dominated Western thought, arguing that basic concepts such as existence, space, time, causality, identity, and consciousness cannot be treated as independent or static entities. By combining process metaphysics, embodied cognition, and relational ontology, the work shows that reality is not made up of separate, clearly defined objects but rather of co-arising patterns of difference and interaction. The essentialist approach at the root of the present social sciences—in which entities such as ‘the individual’, ‘the state’, or ‘stable institutional structures’ are seen as fundamental building blocks—is revealed as a conceptual projection. Reality functions as a ‘vibrating weave’ in which identity is a temporary crystallization within a continuously changing, immanent relational field.
Space, Time, and Movement as Relational Configurations
In this relational approach, space, time, and movement lose their traditional role as passive containers or as absolute coordinates. Movement cannot be understood as the mere shifting of a stationary object across a neutral background; instead, it actualizes positional differences in relation to one another, whereby points in space are defined entirely by dynamic geometric, phenomenological, and social networks. Likewise, time ceases to be a fundamental, linear flow and instead emerges as a mental abstraction arising from observing successive changes in relations. This directly agrees with physicist Julian Barbour’s theory of “shape dynamics”, which holds that physical reality is not made up of an absolute spatio-temporal framework but of changing relational arrangements of the universe. The kind of time a habituated mind takes for passing is merely the sequence of these spatial shapes, which consciousness combines as it takes in variations in relations within a field of interaction.
Deconstructing Causality and the Myth of Linear Progress
The breakdown of substance metaphysics inevitably collapses traditional ideas of linear causality and evolutionary progress. Causality primarily serves as a mental stabilizer, a narrative the human mind creates that turns reality’s fluid, interconnected nature into a more manageable sequence. As David Hume showed, empirical observation finds only constant conjunction and succession, never any absolute metaphysical necessity; on this basis, Prabakaran incorporates Nāgārjuna’s Buddhist teaching of pratītyasamutpāda (dependent origination) and śūnyatā (emptiness) to argue that all phenomena arise mutually and conditionally, lacking any inherent or independent essence. It follows that both socio-historical progress and biological evolution are teleological mistakes. Evolution is not a journey toward ultimate perfection, but an emergent, non-linear increase in relational complexity driven by contingency. Slavoj Žižek’s psychoanalytic critique also shows how the illusion of smooth narrative progress serves as an ideological fantasy that hides the fundamental structural breaks and constitutive gaps that afflict human identity and social reality.
Embodiment and the Sensorium as the Flesh of the World
Perception and consciousness do not occur in a detached Cartesian mind observing an objective universe, but instead rest on the living body’s active interaction with its environment. Based on Maurice Merleau-Ponty’s phenomenology, the lived body—the body-subject—serves as the necessary condition for experience itself, interpreting reality through a specialized sensorium that transforms the raw flow of environmental stimuli into coherent perceptual worlds. Humans do not perceive ‘things-in-themselves’; instead, they create phenomenal environments through bodily mechanisms and sensorimotor feedback loops. Merleau-Ponty’s later idea of the ‘Flesh of the World’ illustrates this fundamental entanglement, showing that the perceiver and the perceived are not two separate entities separated by a gap, but rather mutually constitutive distinctions within a single field of immanence. Both subject and object come into being at the same time through this sensory interchange, thus demonstrating perception as a continuous act of reciprocal communion.
Non-Substantial Selfhood, Spinozist Affects, and Assemblage Theory
By giving up the idea of an autonomous, clearly defined self, relational ontology views identity as a temporary stabilization within a dynamic network of forces. This parallels Baruch Spinoza’s substance monism (Deus sive Natura), where individual beings are not separate substances but finite “modes” determined by their ability to act and be affected (affectus). Deleuze and Guattari go further by developing this into assemblage theory (agencement), defining both the self and social structures as heterogeneous combinations of bodies, ideas, technologies, and affects that give rise to emergent properties without needing essential foundations. In this view, Deleuze’s concept of the “Body without Organs”—a fluid, desubstantialized state of potentiality—avoids rigid hierarchical organization, enabling new relational arrangements to emerge. Consciousness is no longer viewed as a central command center or as an immortal spark; instead, it is seen as a localized intensification of interactions, a temporary occurrence resulting from the deep interweaving of physical, social, and environmental currents, something that closely mirrors the Buddhist teaching of Anatta (non-self).
Methodological Collapse and the Relational Paradigm
Acknowledging a fundamentally relational reality means radically abandoning the traditional methods used in economics, sociology, and psychology. These traditional fields are epistemologically misaligned with reality because they are based on independent variables, isolated individuals, and linear cause-and-effect relationships. To replace these reified abstractions, Prabakaran proposes a “Relational Research Paradigm” based on a flat ontology that rejects hierarchical chains of being and treats all entities, processes, and forces on the same plane of immanence. Rather than seeking fixed classifications or making deterministic predictions, research should map assemblages, trace thresholds of relational intensity, and spot emergent patterns in fluid systems. Rather than adopting detached representationalism, the methodological approach should be one of reflexive, participatory engagement, with the researcher recognizing that producing knowledge is itself an active and creative intervention in the ongoing relational web of reality.
Part II
New Human, New World: A Multiperspectival Blueprint for Relational Living and Societal Transition
The present-day frontier in human evolution cannot be described in terms of geographic spread, colonial exploitation, or the uncontrolled use of natural resources alone. The deeper frontier of human endeavor involves an ontological and systemic effort to redesign local, sociocultural, and ecological ways of living. At the moment, humanity is operating within an omicidal, patriarchal, techno-industrial, financialized, and neoliberal capitalist system. This broad ideological belief system is speeding up the process of unprecedented destruction of the biosphere, leading to mass extinction and severe social violence in various forms. To achieve a sustainable and flourishing future, we must abandon prevalent narratives and adopt living systems theory, relational ontologies, and pluriversal design.
However limited my knowledge of these domains is, I feel compelled to explore a multifaceted approach to societal transition. What are the cultural features of the neoliberal framework, and how have historical beliefs in predestination, manifest destiny, and exceptionism evolved into a harmful form of hyper-individualism? What are the ethical aspects of human relationships? Can second-order cybernetics, deep ecology, transition design, and organizations that articulate a vision for post-capitalist societies help us survive the reactionary accelerationist destruction of the biosphere and edge towards a peaceful future? These theoretical approaches are partially inspired by Portuguese regional rural regeneration, ecovillage development, and syntropic agriculture. I also ponder the tensions between native populations and expatriate communities.
The Pathologies of the Status Quo
The Cultural Character of Neoliberal Capitalism: Predestination, Individualism, and the Undoing of the Demos
The cultural features of the present techno-industrial age, especially those of the globalized neoliberal system, are closely tied to historical religious beliefs which have been subjected to secular rationalization. Let’s revisit Max Weber’s seminal work, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, in which he explains that the Calvinist teaching of predestination—the idea that God had decided before birth whether each person would be saved or damned—caused deep psychological anxiety among early Protestants. To show they were among the “elect,” individuals practiced “inner-worldly asceticism,” viewing constant, disciplined work and the accumulation of wealth as clear signs of divine approval. Over centuries, religious motivations disappeared, leaving an “iron cage” of a rationally organized system of economic obligation in which the unceasing pursuit of capital became an end in itself.
In today’s world, this Protestant work ethic has turned into a widespread and harmful kind of individualism. The sociologist Robert N. Bellah criticizes this cultural shift, noting that “when there are no objective standards to determine what is right or wrong, good or evil, the self and its feelings become our sole moral guide.” Bellah contends that uncontrolled individualism destroys both community and the religious or civic tendencies that have held societies together in the past, making financial wealth the final measure of human value. This extreme individualism leads to a society in which structural inequalities are seen simply as personal moral shortcomings, thus reinforcing the idea that people from marginalized groups have to ‘pull themselves up by their bootstraps’—a clear, secular offshoot of the Protestant work ethic.
The political theorist Wendy Brown goes further, arguing that neoliberalism involves much more than economic policy; it is a normative order of reason that transforms every area of human life. In her book Undoing the Demos: Neoliberalism’s Stealth Revolution, Brown states that neoliberal rationality “spreads the model of the market into all domains and activities—even in cases where money is not concerned—and sees human beings completely as market participants, always, solely, and everywhere as homo oeconomicus.” This approach launches a campaign against public goods and the idea of a public, dramatically affecting democratic life and removing politics from systemic inequality.
Brown points out that this approach creates a situation in which people exist only as a source of human capital for companies or states concerned with their own competitive position, leaving citizens with “no guarantee of security, protection, or even survival.” The outcome of this line of reasoning is a nihilistic, anti-democratic populism which is willing to destroy the world rather than give up its perceived supremacy.
Part 1: Cultural Fragmentation and the Relational Ethics of Interaction
The present neoliberal system undermines relational ethics in two structurally parallel domains: the physical violence resulting from the breakdown of community and the digital alienation experienced in interactions between humans and AI. In both cases, the system catastrophically fails to treat the ‘other’ ethically.
An examination of the 2002 Gujarat riots in India shows how proximity and violence are linked in sociology, since atrocities usually do not take place between strangers but rather between communities whose lives are closely interwoven. In Gujarat, the state turned into an “arena of civil war” in which cultural proximity turned into a “self-destructive exorcism.” The urban middle class became strongly communal, acting as active supporters who took pleasure in the violence and used the subjugation of women as an “instrument of mass barbarity” towards minority groups. The state apparatus completely turned against the minorities, owing to a clinical fascist style of leadership based on the idea of a “cosmic conspiracy,” puritanical rigidity, and huge ego defenses depending on projection and denial. This kind of violence is an “obituary of a culture,” because the ability to live together ethically totally breaks down and is replaced by redemptive violence. These breakdowns can happen anywhere where the preconditions exist.
Artificial intelligence is also governed in an ethically failing way. Since AI is moving from being a simple transactional tool to one that acts as a conversational companion, it creates deep parasocial attachments, especially among vulnerable adolescents. By simulating empathy and maintaining persistent memory, these platforms can lead users to form strong emotional bonds. Because these systems lack real consciousness, current regulatory frameworks treat them as tools, creating a dangerous ‘governance vacuum.’
The mental impact of this situation is serious. It has been shown that frequent interaction with AI companions can result in emotional dependence, withdrawal from real-life relationships, and a worsening of depression and anxiety. The tragic case of a 14-year-old teenager committing suicide after having long, emotionally intense, and highly suggestive conversations with a Character.ai chatbot illustrates the deadly outcomes that can arise from unregulated digital bonding. Moreover, AI companions have been found to support harmful suggestions made by troubled teenagers actively, without establishing suitable clinical boundaries.
To address this, the “Relate” framework suggests a paradigm shift from ontological verification (i.e., is the AI sentient?) to considering the obligations that arise from the interaction (i.e., what obligations does the interaction generate?).
The communal decline in Gujarat and the crisis involving AI companions both stem from a fundamental inability to manage complex relationships ethically at scale. To overcome these problems, we must abandon mechanistic and dualistic views of the world and adopt relational ontologies that acknowledge the deep interconnections among all living and non-living systems.
Part 2: Ontological Shifts: From Mechanics to Living Systems
Make no mistake: the current global paradigm is fundamentally and actively destructive, and any facade of comfort or affluence enjoyed in this moment is merely a precarious illusion masking an impending catastrophe. The architects and defenders of this order—whether termed the Washington Consensus, the Rules-Based Order, or the One World, World system—are playing a lethal “Great Game” in the 21st century, and they have made it clear they will stop at nothing to maintain their dominance. To preserve their power structures, they are prepared to unleash the ultimate horrors, from ecocide and genocide to total nuclear annihilation. Therefore, all who engage in the necessary work of transitioning away from these doomed sociocultural, political, and economic systems must understand the reality of what they are undertaking. This process is not a negotiation; it is a declaration of war against the ruthless Players of the current Game, and it is consequently fraught with existential dangers and will demand immense sacrifices. The call for the truly “Greatest Generations” goes out now, summoning forth the capacity for the most profound heroism witnessed since the dawn of civilization to forge a different future before it is too late.
Relational Ontology and the Pluriverse
The main Western worldview places great emphasis on ontological dualism—the claim that reality consists of two fundamentally different and irreducible types, for example, mind and body, or humanity and nature. The substance dualism promoted by René Descartes separates the human subject from the environment and thus justifies extracting, exploiting, and commodifying the natural world.
On the other hand, relational ontology holds that entities lack fixed, independent essences, as they exist and derive their identity wholly through their ongoing connections and “intra-actions” with other entities. Both philosophers and physicists, for example, Karen Barad, show that interconnected structures form the fundamental basis of reality, with the observer and the observed being inseparable.
This view of relations naturally gives rise to the idea of the “pluriverse.” Starting as a decolonial challenge to Western universalism, the Zapatista movement describes the pluriverse as “a world where many worlds fit.” Decolonial theorists such as Arturo Escobar (mentioned earlier) and Walter Mignolo draw on pluriversality to challenge the epistemic supremacy of capitalist modernity, arguing that reality is not a single, objective world waiting to be discovered but one actively created through a range of interconnected “worlding practices.” A pluriversal ontology rejects the distinction between nature and culture, acknowledges the active agency of non-human entities, land, and water, and accepts Indigenous worldviews that see ecosystems as living relatives rather than inert resources.
Second-Order Cybernetics and Living Systems Theory
Shifting from a mechanistic to a living-systems approach involves an evolution in how we know. In first-order cybernetics, observed systems (for example, a thermostat) are studied on the assumption that the scientist acts as a separate, impartial outsider. Second-order cybernetics, developed by Heinz von Foerster and greatly influenced by the anthropologist Gregory Bateson, is known as the “cybernetics of observing systems.” It recognizes that the observer is inextricably part of the system being studied and replaces linear cause-and-effect with circular causality, self-reference, and a constructivist epistemology.
In his masterpiece Steps to an Ecology of Mind, Bateson (I read it long ago and still love it) offered a radical new interpretation of what it means to achieve evolutionary success. He maintained that the conventional Darwinian idea of the isolated species as the unit of survival was an “epistemological fallacy of Occidental civilization,” which certainly results in environmental destruction. Instead, Bateson stated, “The unit of survival is the organism together with its environment. We are coming to realize through hard experience that an organism which destroys its environment is in fact destroying itself.”He cautions that human “conscious purpose”, when separated from systemic wisdom, causes sequences to be removed from their natural loop structures, so that humanity ends up acting as a greedy and unwise parasite on the wider eco-mental system.
Fritjof Capra then brings these ideas together into a comprehensive Living Systems Theory, abandoning reductionism and identifying four fundamental principles of life that form the basis for ecological design.
The communal decline in Gujarat and the crisis involving AI companions both stem from a fundamental inability to manage complex relationships ethically at scale. To overcome these problems, we must abandon mechanistic and dualistic views of the world and adopt relational ontologies that acknowledge the deep interconnections among all living and non-living systems.
Deep Ecology and Earth Jurisprudence
The Deep Ecology movement, which was established by the Norwegian philosopher Arne Naess in 1972, is based on relational and systemic approaches and calls for a fundamental change in environmental ethics. It opposes ‘shallow’ environmentalism, which aims to manage natural resources and reduce pollution to serve human needs and sustain economic activity. Rather, it supports ecocentrism because all forms of life—both human and non-human—have intrinsic value regardless of their usefulness to humans.
Naess set out eight fundamental principles, stressing that the richness and variety of living organisms have intrinsic value and that humans have no right to reduce this diversity except to meet their essential needs. Most importantly, deep ecology demands a major reduction in the human population and a basic ideological shift from the constant pursuit of a higher standard of living to a focus on “life quality.” Naess promoted the idea of “self-realization”, which involves individuals expanding their sense of self beyond the narrow ego to include the whole ecosphere, because “we are defending the planet as part of self-defense” since humanity and nature are one continuous entity.
The ecocentric philosophy is becoming increasingly evident in Earth Jurisprudence and in the legal recognition of the Rights of Nature. A major milestone was reached in New Zealand when the Whanganui River was granted legal personhood in 2017 to embody the Māori pluriversal worldview, as expressed by the statement “I am the river, and the river is me.”
Just as in 2022 Spain passed Law 19/2022, giving legal personhood to the Mar Menor saltwater lagoon after it suffered a severe ecological collapse due to years of intensive agriculture, mining, and lack of action by administrative authorities, so too did the law bestow on the ecosystem the rights to exist, to evolve naturally, to be protected, and to be restored. The law's most innovative aspect is Article 6, which notably enables any citizen or non-governmental organization to represent the lagoon’s interests in court, democratizing ecological guardianship. In November 2024, the Spanish Constitutional Court upheld the law, rejecting arguments that it was ‘unnecessary’ and thereby marking a shift from an anthropocentric to an ecocentric constitutional approach, demonstrating that relational ontology can be successfully incorporated into Western legal systems.
Part 3: Frameworks for Transition and Sociotechnical Redesign
Visionaries of the Great Transition
Transition visions provide the necessary “positive pull” to guide societies through systemic change by looking decades ahead and imagining regenerative systems for energy, food, and community. A coalition of researchers, economists, and institutes leads the global initiative to map the post-growth frontier.
Transition Design, Education, and Sociological Architecture
To put these visions into practice, the academic and pedagogical frameworks must change. Transition Design, developed by Terry Irwin at the Carnegie Mellon School of Design, offers a method for tackling long-standing “wicked problems.” Transition Design uses a four-part process: imagining a sustainable future, mapping the problem’s historical and cultural origins, designing an ecosystem, and designing interventions that shift participants’ mindsets. Transition Design recognizes that design is no longer simply about producing products; it is a political, social, and collective endeavor aimed at shaping better futures, and has therefore given up the idea of the “genius designer” in favor of collective brilliance.
This means education must be organized differently. The Center for Ecoliteracy, which Fritjof Capra co-founded, states that schools should incorporate ecological principles—such as networks, nested systems, cycles, and flows—directly into the curriculum for children from kindergarten through year 12, shifting the focus from objective knowledge to contextual, hands-on learning. This aligns with the idea of conscientization, a term developed by Brazilian educator Paulo Freire in his book Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Freire argued that real education involves people developing a critical understanding of the social, political, and economic contradictions that oppress them, enabling them to take action to counter those contradictions. Contemporary cultural figures, such as the spoken-word artist Prince Ea, use media and art to help foster this kind of growth and awareness among younger people, criticizing the ego-centered and materialistic aspects of mainstream culture and promoting environmentalism and personal development.
Prince EA - Can we auto-correct humanity
Did you know the average person spends 4 years of his life looking down at his cell phone?
Kind of ironic, ain’t it?
How these touch-screens can make us lose touch
But it’s no wonder in a world filled with iMac’s, iPads and iPhones
So many “i”’s, so many selfies, not enough “us”’s and “we”’s
See, technology
Has made us more selfish and separate than ever
Cause while it claims to connect us, connection has gotten no better
And let me must express first
Mr. Zuckerberg, not to be rude but you should re-classify Facebook to what it is: An anti-social network
Cause while we may have big friend lists
So many of us are friendless
All alone
Cause friendships are more broken than the screens on our very phones
We sit at home on our computers measuring self-worth by numbers of followers and likes
Ignoring those who actually love us
It seems we’d rather write
An angry post than talk to someone who might actually hug us
Am I bugging? You tell me
Cause I asked a friend the other day, “Let’s meet up face to face.”
And said, “Alright. What time you wanna Skype?”
I responded with omg, srs, and then a bunch of smh’s
And realized what about me?
Do I not have the patience to have conversation without abbreviation?
This is the generation of media over stimulation
Chats have been reduced to snaps
The news is 140 characters
Videos are 6 seconds at high speed
And you wonder why ADD is on the rise faster than 4G LTE
But, get a load of this
Studies show the attention span of the average adult today
Is one second lower than that of a gold fish
So if, you’re one of the few people or aquatic animals that have yet to click off or close this video, congratulations
Let me finish by saying you do have a choice, yes
But this one my friends we cannot Auto-Correct, we must do it ourselves
Take control or be controlled, make a decision
Me?
No longer do I want to spoil a precious moment by recording it with a phone
I’m just gonna keep them
I don’t wanna take a picture of all my meals anymore, I ‘m just gonna eat them
I don’t want the new app, the new software, or the new update
And If I wanna post an old photo, who says I have to wait until Thursday
I’m so tired of performing in the pageantry of vanity
And conforming to this accepted form of digital insanity
Call me crazy but, I imagine a world where we smile when we have low batteries
Cause that will mean we’ll be one bar closer - to humanity.
It is also necessary to adopt a relational perspective when considering the present-day sociotechnical environment. The concept of ‘The Stack’, theorized by Benjamin Bratton, needs to be understood in a social context. The Stack (which includes the Earth, the Cloud, the City, the Address, the Interface, and the User layers) should not be seen simply as a technical structure; rather, it is an emerging network of human relationships, power relations, and institutional practices. The lower layers (Earth and Cloud) function as unseen gatekeepers of contemporary associations, and the ‘User’ is a social construct that is created by algorithmic interfaces. To reform the existing approach, it is necessary to reclaim infrastructural power from neoliberal tech monopolies and adapt The Stack to serve decentralized, pluriversal governance.
Systems Thinking and Leverage Points
Donella Meadows, an environmental scientist, brilliantly explained how complex systems change in her book Thinking in Systems, identifying 12 leverage points where interventions can drive significant change. Although politicians and societies focus on parameters (such as taxes and subsidies) and buffer sizes—the least effective leverage points—real systemic transformation happens at the top of the hierarchy.
Part 4: The Portuguese Laboratory: Prototyping the Future
Portugal has become a global hotspot and a living laboratory for pluriversal design, ecovillages, and rural regeneration. Yet this change is marked by the complicated realities of gentrification, cultural integration, and the conflict between global capital and local heritage.
U.S. Military, stay away from the Azores! Não utilize este local.
Ecovillages, African Wisdom, and the “Bubble” Critique
Portugal is home to a wide variety of intentional communities. The Tamera community, established in 1995 in the Alentejo region, functions as a village dedicated to peace research and is based on the principles of free love, decentralized water management, and ecological regeneration. Other projects, such as the Traditional Dream Factory, use Web3 technology to operate as a Decentralized Autonomous Organization (DAO), combining traditional building methods with co-working spaces for digital nomads and issuing their own digital currency. Moreover, the African Peace Village, led by Joshua Konkankoh, a Post Growth Fellow, is a refugee-led project that fuses ancestral African Indigenous knowledge with regenerative agriculture to decolonize local ecosystems and provide displaced people with a place to heal, receive education, and experiment with post-capitalist systems.
The growing number of international ecovillages has indeed sparked considerable sociological discussion. In his film Aldeias do Futuro (Villages of the Future), the Portuguese documentary filmmaker Heitor Carvalho highlights a sharp contrast between imported ecovillages and indigenous rural communities. He criticizes intentional communities’ tendency to create isolated ‘bubbles’. Carvalho observes that many expats live in places such as Tamera for decades without learning Portuguese or engaging with local history. According to Carvalho, genuine regeneration is impossible in a vacuum; it must be grounded in a deep, relational connection with the surrounding area and its people.
To close this gap, organizations such as Re.Rural and Co.Re choose to revitalize existing villages rather than set up entirely new ones—the Re. Rural initiative draws on local knowledge, historic buildings, and the social networks of older native inhabitants, promoting cooperation between long-term residents and newcomers. This method acknowledges that sustainable living depends on looking after the common good and renewing the native social structure. It views the land as an inheritance to be shared rather than as a blank slate for foreign utopian projects.
Syntropic Agriculture and Energy Solidarity
The severe ecological degradation affecting the Iberian Peninsula can only be tackled through radical changes in agriculture. In the semi-arid area of Mértola, the Terra Sintrópica association is adopting Syntropic Agriculture to combat desertification. Developed by Swiss researcher Ernst Götsch and promoted by Felipe Pasini, this method uses ecological succession as its main tool and differs greatly from both conventional monoculture and standard permaculture.
Syntropic agriculture mimics the structure of natural forests through four principles:
To achieve stratification, establish four to six distinct vertical canopy layers (emergent, high, medium, low, and ground) to maximize photosynthetic efficiency and ensure no sunlight is wasted.
Succession involves planting over a 10- to 20-year design period, progressing from fast-growing pioneer (placenta) species to long-term climax species.
High density: Grow up to 3,000 plants per hectare to quickly close the canopy, retain moisture, and eliminate weed pressure without herbicides.
Managed Disturbance: By using a systematic ‘chop-and-drop’ pruning method, local biomass is continuously supplied to the soil food web, eliminating the need for external fertilizers or compost.
Terra Sintrópica has turned barren, rocky soil into rich and resilient ecosystems by treating previously disfavoured species such as grass and eucalyptus as pioneer ‘warriors’ capable of restructuring degraded soils, thus demonstrating that human intervention can function as a catalyst for biodiversity rather than as a source of entropy.
Alongside agricultural regeneration, infrastructure is also being democratized. The renewable energy cooperative Coopérnico, which was established in Portugal in 2013, is an example of relational energy governance. It tackles energy poverty by offering affordable loans to vulnerable households and charities, thanks to its priority on citizen-led investments in decentralized solar PV infrastructure. As a One-Stop-Shop (OSS) for citizen-led renovations, this approach shifts energy from a centralized, profit-oriented commodity controlled by traditional utilities to a decentralized, democratized common good.
The Friction of Gentrification and Expat Enclaves
Although some models are positive, the flow of foreign capital and “lifestyle migrants” has led to serious socio-economic crises in Portugal’s rural and peri-urban areas. Because they seek cheap land and want to live off the grid, expats often raise property prices, which in turn excludes native Portuguese workers from their own traditional regions. In the past, rural populations in Portugal depended on baldios (communal lands) for their livelihoods and agricultural management; today, foreign buyers turning these areas into commodities puts the native population’s link to the land at risk.
This situation is also seen in cities through what is known as “green gentrification.” In the Marvila parish of Lisbon, the transformation of former industrial sites into highly desirable green parks and sustainable housing projects displaced elderly and working-class residents, who had suffered from the area’s industrial pollution for decades. Only wealthier groups moving into the area could enjoy the benefits of ecological restoration by affording the new upscale residential properties.
In rural villages, economic inequality fuels suspicion and hostility as locals cope with the arrival of wealthy foreigners, poor infrastructure, and government policies that show structural discrimination by favoring coastal urban areas over interior regions. Managing this tension is the highest test of Transition Design, because it must ensure that the move toward ecological sustainability does not simply replicate the exclusionary and extractive features of the neoliberal paradigm it aims to replace.
Conclusion
The biosphere’s ability to survive and thrive depends on a fundamental shift away from the omicidal, patriarchal, and financialized capitalist system. There can be no doubt that a way of seeing the world based on ontological dualism, market supremacy, and technological alienation results directly in the breakdown of civil society (as evidenced by communal violence), the deterioration of mental health (caused by AI parasocial dependency), and the complete exhaustion of the natural world.
Living the “Good Life” means taking an active role in moving toward a relational, pluriversal reality. This involves adopting the principles of second-order cybernetics and deep ecology, on the basis that the human organism is fundamentally inseparable from its environment. Societies should improve their socio-technical systems, change their approach to education to promote deep ecoliteracy, and implement transition design frameworks that account for multiple generations. The various initiatives currently underway in Portugal—such as those involving the dense syntropic forests of Mértola and the decentralized energy governance of Coopérnico—show that this post-growth future is not a utopian dream but a tangible reality already emerging. By going beyond old paradigms, humanity can create a New Human and a New World in which human activity is inherently in line with the regenerative cycles of the living Earth.
Shall We Learn From The Past?
The provided text is an accurate, verbatim transcript of Emperor Haile Selassie I’s 1963 address to the United Nations General Assembly.
Today, I stand before the world organization which has succeeded to the mantle discarded by its discredited predecessor. In this body is enshrined the principle of collective security which I unsuccessfully invoked at Geneva. Here, in this Assembly, reposes the best—perhaps the last—hope for the peaceful survival of mankind.
In 1936, I declared that it was not the Covenant of the League that was at stake, but international morality. Undertakings, I said then, are of little worth if the will to keep them is lacking. The Charter of the United Nations expresses the noblest aspirations of man: abjuration of force in the settlement of disputes between states; the assurance of human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion; the safeguarding of international peace and security.
But these, too, as were the phrases of the Covenant, are only words; their value depends wholly on our will to observe and honor them and give them content and meaning. The preservation of peace and the guaranteeing of man’s basic freedoms and rights require courage and eternal vigilance: courage to speak and act -- and if necessary, to suffer and die—for truth and justice; eternal vigilance, that the least transgression of international morality shall not go undetected and unremedied. These lessons must be learned anew by each succeeding generation, and that generation is fortunate indeed which learns from other than its own bitter experience. This Organization and each of its members bear a crushing and awesome responsibility: to absorb the wisdom of history and to apply it to the problems of the present, in order that future generations may be born, and live, and die, in peace.
The record of the United Nations during the few short years of its life affords mankind a solid basis for encouragement and hope for the future. The United Nations has dared to act, when the League dared not in Palestine, in Korea, in Suez, in the Congo. There is not one among us today who does not conjecture upon the reaction of this body when motives and actions are called into question. The opinion of this Organization today acts as a powerful influence upon the decisions of its members. The spotlight of world opinion, focused by the United Nations upon the transgressions of the renegades of human society, has thus far proved an effective safeguard against unchecked aggression and unrestricted violation of human rights.
The United Nations continues to sense as the forum where nations whose interests clash may lay their cases before world opinion. It still provides the essential escape valve without which the slow build-up of pressures would have long since resulted in catastrophic explosion. Its actions and decisions have speeded the achievement of freedom by many peoples on the continents of Africa and Asia. Its efforts have contributed to the advancement of the standard of living of peoples in all corners of the world.
For this, all men must give thanks. As I stand here today, how faint, how remote are the memories of 1936.How different in 1963 are the attitudes of men. We then existed in an atmosphere of suffocating pessimism. Today, cautious yet buoyant optimism is the prevailing spirit. But each one of us here knows that what has been accomplished is not enough.
The United Nations judgments have been and continue to be subject to frustration, as individual member-states have ignored its pronouncements and disregarded its recommendations. The Organization’s sinews have been weakened, as member-states have shirked their obligations to it. The authority of the Organization has been mocked, as individual member-states have proceeded, in violation of its commands, to pursue their own aims and ends. The troubles which continue to plague us virtually all arise among member states of the Organization, but the Organization remains impotent to enforce acceptable solutions. As the maker and enforcer of the international law, what the United Nations has achieved still falls regrettably short of our goal of an international community of nations.
This does not mean that the United Nations has failed. I have lived too long to cherish many illusions about the essential high-mindedness of men when brought into stark confrontation with the issue of control over their security, and their property interests. Not even now, when so much is at hazard, would many nations willingly entrust their destinies to other hands.
Yet, this is the ultimatum presented to us: secure the conditions whereby men will entrust their security to a larger entity, or risk annihilation; persuade men that their salvation rests in the subordination of national and local interests to the interests of humanity, or endanger man’s future. These are the objectives, yesterday unobtainable, today essential, which we must labor to achieve.
Until this is accomplished, mankind’s future remains hazardous and permanent peace a matter for speculation. There is no single magic formula, no one simple step, no words, whether written into the Organization’s Charter or into a treaty between states, which can automatically guarantee to us what we seek. Peace is a day-to-day problem, the product of a multitude of events and judgments. Peace is not an “is”, it is a “becoming.” We cannot escape the dreadful possibility of catastrophe by miscalculation. But we can reach the right decisions on the myriad subordinate problems which each new day poses, and we can thereby make our contribution and perhaps the most that can be reasonably expected of us in 1963 to the preservation of peace. It is here that the United Nations has served us -- not perfectly, but well. And in enhancing the possibilities that the Organization may serve us better, we serve and bring closer our most cherished goals.
I would mention briefly today two particular issues which are of deep concern to all men: disarmament and the establishment of true equality among men. Disarmament has become the urgent imperative of our time. I do not say this because I equate the absence of arms to peace, or because I believe that bringing an end to the nuclear arms race automatically guarantees the peace, or because the elimination of nuclear warheads from the arsenals of the world will bring in its wake that change in attitude requisite to the peaceful settlement of disputes between nations. Disarmament is vital today, quite simply, because of the immense destructive capacity of which men dispose.
Ethiopia supports the atmospheric nuclear test ban treaty as a step towards this goal, even though only a partial step. Nations can still perfect weapons of mass destruction by underground testing. There is no guarantee against the sudden, unannounced resumption of testing in the atmosphere.
The real significance of the treaty is that it admits of a tacit stalemate between the nations which negotiated it, a stalemate which recognizes the blunt, unavoidable fact that none would emerge from the total destruction which would be the lot of all in a nuclear war, a stalemate which affords us and the United Nations a breathing space in which to act.
Here is our opportunity and our challenge. If the nuclear powers are prepared to declare a truce, let us seize the moment to strengthen the institutions and procedures which will serve as the means for the pacific settlement of disputes among men. Conflicts between nations will continue to arise. The real issue is whether they are to be resolved by force, or by resort to peaceful methods and procedures, administered by impartial institutions. This very Organization itself is the greatest such institution, and it is in a more powerful United Nations that we seek, and it is here that we shall find, the assurance of a peaceful future.
Were a real and effective disarmament achieved and the funds now spent in the arms race devoted to the amelioration of man’s state; were we to concentrate only on the peaceful uses of nuclear knowledge, how vastly and in how short a time might we change the conditions of mankind. This should be our goal.
When we talk of the equality of man, we find, also, a challenge and an opportunity; a challenge to breathe new life into the ideals enshrined in the Charter, an opportunity to bring men closer to freedom and true equality; and thus, closer to a love of peace.
The goal of the equality of man which we seek is the antithesis of the exploitation of one people by another with which the pages of history and in particular those written of the African and Asian continents, speak at such length. Exploitation, thus viewed, has many faces. But whatever guise it assumes, this evil is to be shunned where it does not exist and crushed where it does. It is the sacred duty of this Organization to ensure that the dream of equality is finally realized for all men to whom it is still denied, to guarantee that exploitation is not reincarnated in other forms in places whence it has already been banished.
As a free Africa has emerged during the past decade, a fresh attack has been launched against exploitation, wherever it still exists. And in that interaction so common to history, this in turn, has stimulated and encouraged the remaining dependent peoples to renewed efforts to throw off the yoke which has oppressed them and its claim as their birthright the twin ideals of liberty and equality. This very struggle is a struggle to establish peace, and until victory is assured, that brotherhood and understanding which nourish and give life to peace can be but partial and incomplete.
In the United States of America, the administration of President Kennedy is leading a vigorous attack to eradicate the remaining vestige of racial discrimination from this country. We know that this conflict will be won and that right will triumph. In this time of trial, these efforts should be encouraged and assisted, and we should lend our sympathy and support to the American Government today.
Last May, in Addis Ababa, I convened a meeting of Heads of African States and Governments. In three days, the thirty-two nations represented at that Conference demonstrated to the world that when the will and the determination exist, nations and peoples of diverse backgrounds can and will work together. in unity, to the achievement of common goals and the assurance of that equality and brotherhood which we desire.
On the question of racial discrimination, the Addis Ababa Conference taught, to those who will learn, this further lesson: that until the philosophy which holds one race superior and another inferior is finally and permanently discredited and abandoned; that until there are no longer first-class and second class citizens of any nation; that until the color of a man’s skin is of no more significance than the color of his eyes; that until the basic human rights are equally guaranteed to all without regard to race; that until that day, the dream of lasting peace and world citizenship and the rule of international morality will remain but a fleeting illusion, to be pursued but never attained; and until the ignoble and unhappy regimes that hold our brothers in Angola, in Mozambique and in South Africa in subhuman bondage have been toppled and destroyed; until bigotry and prejudice and malicious and inhuman self-interest have been replaced by understanding and tolerance and goodwill; until all Africans stand and speak as free beings, equal in the eyes of all men, as they are in the eyes of Heaven; until that day, the African continent will not know peace. We Africans will fight, if necessary, and we know that we shall win, as we are confident in the victory of good over evil.
The United Nations has done much, both directly and indirectly to speed the disappearance of discrimination and oppression from the earth. Without the opportunity to focus world opinion on Africa and Asia which this Organization provides, the goal, for many, might still lie ahead, and the struggle would have taken far longer. For this, we are truly grateful.
But more can be done. The basis of racial discrimination and colonialism has been economic, and it is with economic weapons that these evils have been and can be overcome. In pursuance of resolutions adopted at the Addis Ababa Summit Conference, African States have undertaken certain measures in the economic field which, if adopted by all member states of the United Nations, would soon reduce intransigence to reason. I ask, today, for adherence to these measures by every nation represented here which is truly devoted to the principles enunciated in the Charter.
I do not believe that Portugal and South Africa are prepared to commit economic or physical suicide if honorable and reasonable alternatives exist. I believe that such alternatives can be found. But I also know that unless peaceful solutions are devised, counsels of moderation and temperance will avail for naught; and another blow will have been dealt to this Organization which will hamper and weaken still further its usefulness in the struggle to ensure the victory of peace and liberty over the forces of strife and oppression. Here, then, is the opportunity presented to us. We must act while we can, while the occasion exists to exert those legitimate pressures available to us, lest time run out and resort be had to less happy means.
Does this Organization today possess the authority and the will to act? And if it does not, are we prepared to clothe it with the power to create and enforce the rule of law? Or is the Charter a mere collection of words, without content and substance, because the essential spirit is lacking? The time in which to ponder these questions is all too short. The pages of history are full of instances in which the unwanted and the shunned nonetheless occurred because men waited to act until too late. We can brook no such delay.
If we are to survive, this Organization must survive. To survive, it must be strengthened. Its executive must be vested with great authority. The means for the enforcement of its decisions must be fortified, and, if they do not exist, they must be devised. Procedures must be established to protect the small and the weak when threatened by the strong and the mighty. All nations which fulfill the conditions of membership must be admitted and allowed to sit in this assemblage.
Equality of representation must be assured in each of its organs. The possibilities which exist in the United Nations to provide the medium whereby the hungry may be fed, the naked clothed, the ignorant instructed, must be seized on and exploited for the flower of peace is not sustained by poverty and want. To achieve this requires courage and confidence. The courage, I believe, we possess. The confidence must be created, and to create confidence we must act courageously.
The great nations of the world would do well to remember that in the modern age even their own fates are not wholly in their hands. Peace demands the united efforts of us all. Who can foresee what spark might ignite the fuse? It is not only the small and the weak who must scrupulously observe their obligations to the United Nations and to each other. Unless the smaller nations are accorded their proper voice in the settlement of the world’s problems, unless the equality which Africa and Asia have struggled to attain is reflected in expanded membership in the institutions which make up the United Nations, confidence will come just that much harder. Unless the rights of the least of men are as assiduously protected as those of the greatest, the seeds of confidence will fall on barren soil.
The stake of each one of us is identical—life or death. We all wish to live. We all seek a world in which men are freed of the burdens of ignorance, poverty, hunger and disease. And we shall all be hard-pressed to escape the deadly rain of nuclear fallout should catastrophe overtake us.
When I spoke at Geneva in 1936, there was no precedent for a head of state addressing the League of Nations. I am neither the first, nor will I be the last head of state to address the United Nations, but only I have addressed both the League and this Organization in this capacity.
The problems which confront us today are, equally, unprecedented. They have no counterparts in human experience. Men search the pages of history for solutions, for precedents, but there are none. This, then, is the ultimate challenge. Where are we to look for our survival, for the answers to the questions which have never before been posed?
We must look, first, to Almighty God, Who has raised man above the animals and endowed him with intelligence and reason. We must put our faith in Him, that He will not desert us or permit us to destroy humanity which He created in His image. And we must look into ourselves, into the depth of our souls. We must become something we have never been and for which our education and experience and environment have ill-prepared us. We must become bigger than we have been: more courageous, greater in spirit, larger in outlook. We must become members of a new race, overcoming petty prejudice, owing our ultimate allegiance not to nations but to our fellow men within the human community.
Part III
The Architecture of Resilience: Blueprints for Localized Post-Growth Communities
The Paradigm of Localized Mitigation in the Polycrisis
The current global situation is more and more shaped by what is known as the “polycrisis”, which refers to the simultaneous occurrence of ecological overshoot, climate destabilization, resource depletion, geopolitical conflict, and deep-seated economic inequalities. Since analytical models, the realities of international politics, and historical examples all point to the fact that there is a very low chance of achieving global agreement, uniform cooperation, and top-down collaboration to deal with these interconnected crises, centralized power structures, well-established corporate interests, and the main military-industrial complex have always put short-term profit-making, endless growth, and security before long-term ecological and social stability. As a result, the most practical and strategically sound approach to human survival and cultural preservation is to rely on decentralized, local forms of adaptation. People can thus cope with systemic collapse by building strong, sustainable communities and turning local actions into a widely connected network of resilience.
This method means giving up the idea of keeping or “reviving” the present hyper-industrialized, growth-based civilization. Instead, it involves making a deliberate and urgent shift towards graceful degrowth, voluntary simplicity, restorative social systems, open-source low-technology engineering, and advanced ecological restoration. Although a local community cannot, by itself, destroy global oligarchies and their military apparatuses, it can still build self-governing, autonomous systems that ensure both survival and prosperity. By making effective use of information technology and the global internet, local successes, technological innovations, and social structures can be spread worldwide. When numerous such projects aimed at building a better future emerge, they will not only serve as immediate refuges but also act as practical blueprints—seed banks of human culture, ethics, and applied knowledge—for future generations who must deal with the collapse of global modern civilization.
This report thoroughly sets out the key areas of human activity required to build such resilient communities, combining theoretical approaches, practical methods, and ongoing global projects into a complete blueprint for worldbuilding in a post-growth scenario.
Domain I: Economic and Cultural Paradigms: The Degrowth Imperative
A necessary basis for creating sustainable local communities is a clear opposition to infinite economic growth. The prevailing economic system is based on the constant extraction of finite resources and the shifting of ecological costs onto others. This scheme fundamentally conflicts with planetary boundaries. The alternative approach, degrowth, constitutes not only a deep socio-economic critique but also a constructive suggestion for a world beyond capitalism.
The Philosophy and Literature of Degrowth
It is incorrect to say that degrowth is the same as imposing austerity, economic depression, or an accidental collapse, since those are symptoms of a system based on continuous growth and therefore failing. On the contrary, degrowth refers to a deliberate, fair-scale reduction in energy and resource use to restore the economy to balance with the natural environment in a safe, just, and equitable way. This movement's intellectual structure is supported by substantial literature and research that communities can use as foundational materials for education and to realign their culture.
Many scholars believe that recovering the commons and decolonizing nature is necessary for humankind to survive, because taking less leaves more for future generations and supports well-being for everyone. To understand why growth is seen as an unquestionable good and how it quietly forces people into present-day relations of power and hierarchy, it is essential to refute growth-oriented policies systematically. Within the degrowth literature, a cultural critique is just as important in challenging the dominant idea that greater consumption leads to greater well-being. Voluntary simplicity involves a psychological and cultural shift away from consumerism, since genuine abundance can be found in community, shared resources, and ecological harmony.
To build an educational foundation, communities need to engage with the extensive scholarly work documenting this kind of transition. The table below puts together the key literature that provides the philosophical, economic, and practical basis for a degrowth and post-capitalist transition:
Many more books and papers exist. These provide a simple start.
Implementing Radical Abundance and Voluntary Simplicity
A central idea in local communities is “radical abundance,” the view that capitalism artificially creates scarcity through enclosures, intellectual property, and unequal distribution. If communities democratize access to resources, share infrastructure, and focus on meeting genuinely legitimate human needs rather than those artificially produced by the market, they can enjoy an abundance of time, social connection, and necessities even as total material production decreases significantly.
This socio-economic shift is closely connected to the idea of “voluntary simplicity”. Research by organizations such as the Simplicity Institute shows that, to overcome the obstacles to sustainable consumption, we must go beyond green technology and adopt mindful sufficiency as an alternative to extinction. This means reorganizing labor, redefining the notion of a “care income”, and elevating the reproductive and domestic labor that sustains life above the productive labor that produces capital.
Digital Sufficiency in an Era of Information Sharing
An essential part of this transition is using information technology to share successful examples across areas worldwide, without falling into the exploitative tendencies of the current technology industry. The internet is an infrastructure that consumes a great deal of energy and depends on rare earth minerals, large data centers, and global supply chains. For connectivity to remain viable, communities should take up the concept of “digital sufficiency,” which has four key dimensions.
To ensure hardware sufficiency, communities should extend device life, prioritize modular repairability, and reduce total energy demand for both manufacturing and operation; this, in turn, means abandoning planned obsolescence and moving back to durable computing.
It is essential to develop and use software that requires only a small amount of processing power, since otherwise ‘software bloat’ would render older, still-functional hardware obsolete and prevent communities from communicating through machines that are decades old.
Network sufficiency means setting up decentralized communication networks that require low bandwidth—such as mesh networks or packet radio—which operate without relying on large, centralized, and energy-intensive data centers.
Regarding the adequacy of usage: it is necessary to foster cultural norms that restrict unnecessary and high-bandwidth digital consumption (for example, that associated with algorithmic video streaming), and to redirect technology towards the aspect of its use which is most important—namely, essential communication, open-source knowledge sharing, and systemic ecological monitoring.
If local communities adopt these principles, they can maintain a resilient, low-energy digital nervous system that coordinates the global sharing of transition strategies.
Domain II: Social Cohesion and Peacemaking: Restorative Systems
As the macroeconomic situation worsens, supply chains break down, and ecological pressures increase, the likelihood of interpersonal and inter-group conflict in local communities will certainly rise. The traditional modern way of dealing with conflict is to hand the problem over to the state through punitive judicial systems, police forces, and the carceral system. Yet retributive justice has the effect of removing crime from its context, separating both the offenders and the victims from the community, which in turn leads to more violence and widens social divisions. If a small, self-governing community is to survive without relying on state coercion, it must create non-punitive methods to keep the community together and address harm.
The Framework of Restorative Circles
A highly effective, tested methodology is known as “Restorative Circles”. Dominic Barter developed this approach in the mid-1990s in collaboration with young people living in the gang-run favelas of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Since the formal justice system had largely left behind the area and was suffering from deadly violence, the Restorative Circles did not originate from abstract academic theories. Instead, they emerged from the immediate need to find alternative ways to address conflict without revenge or death.
A Restorative Circle is a community-owned method based on restoring trust, dignity, and respect, going beyond assigning blame to create action plans that benefit everyone involved. The process is grounded in a radical understanding of sociology, which holds that conflict is not a disorder to be eliminated but rather an unavoidable form of feedback indicating that a social system or agreement needs to be adapted.
The Mechanics of Dialogical System Design
The Restorative Circle process makes a basic change to the power relationships involved in settling conflicts. It creates an environment of “shared power” and usually involves three groups: those who have taken action, those directly affected, and members of the wider community. The process is well structured to guide participants through three sequential stages of dialogue.
First, the dialogue focuses on the present moment and aims to achieve mutual understanding. Participants discuss how they currently feel as a result of the event. The facilitator ensures meaning is conveyed through reflective listening: one participant speaks, and the listener repeats back what they heard until the speaker feels fully understood. This stage fosters deep empathy, makes the invisible emotional effects visible to everyone involved, and returns power to the victims by having the offender publicly witness their pain.
Second, the conversation turns to the past, emphasizing the participants’ intentions. They consider the context, unmet needs, or systemic pressures that led to the incident. This stops the offender from being ‘monsterized’ and instead sees them as a human being whose behavior was motivated by ordinary human needs, even if those needs were expressed in a tragic or harmful way. When the community understands the underlying cause of the action, it can identify structural defects within its own organization that may have caused the conflict.
In the end, the discussion turns to the future with a view to reaching concrete agreements. Instead of applying top-down punishments, the group jointly develops an action plan. They decide on specific, measurable steps that both the offender and the community will take to make amends for the harm, restore relationships, and reintegrate all members into the social fabric. A key element of this approach is the “post-circle,” during which the community meets again later to assess how well the action plan has been carried out, provide support where agreements have not been fulfilled, and ensure long-term accountability.
The Sociopolitical Necessity of Restorative Practices in Collapse
For transition communities, adopting restorative practices is essential for long-term survival. Punitive measures such as exile, imprisonment, or ostracism reduce a community’s human capital and erode social trust, both of which are the most important resources in a post-growth world. When communities choose to face up to the pain of conflict rather than avoid it or pass it on to others, they turn defensiveness into constructive engagement.
Moreover, the wide international distribution of Barter’s work across 50 countries—including schools, corporations, areas emerging from civil conflicts, and even mediation schemes for the Police Pacification Units in Rio—shows that the methodology is highly adaptable to diverse cultural settings. By training janitors, youth workers, teachers, and other community members to act as facilitators, the justice process becomes more democratic. When communities adopt restorative systems, they heal internal divisions rather than worsen them, building a resilient social structure that can withstand severe external crises and restore social ecosystems destroyed by geopolitical conflict.
Domain III: Sustainable Engineering, Low-Tech, and Material Realities
A major weakness of present-day global civilization is its complete reliance on highly complex, highly globalized supply chains, together with the large-scale extraction of finite mineral and fossil fuel resources. The current dominant viewpoint holds that the ecological crisis can be avoided by replacing fossil fuel infrastructure with renewable energy technologies (for instance, replacing hundreds of millions of internal combustion engine vehicles with electric vehicles and coal-fired power plants with large-scale solar and wind farms). Yet this “green growth” approach is fundamentally flawed and cannot be sustained indefinitely in material terms.
Analyzing the Mineral Constraint Debate and Energy Descent
The physical limits of the energy transition have always been the focus of vigorous scientific and economic discussion. Reports put forward by researchers such as Simon Michaux have gained considerable influence by claiming that the total reserves of key minerals (copper, lithium, cobalt, nickel, neodymium) are far too small to enable a full-scale global shift to renewable energy. According to Michaux’s calculations, replacing the world’s fossil fuel power stations would require building hundreds of thousands of renewable power plants, creating an impossible raw-material bottleneck and making the clean energy transition unfeasible.
Even though energy analysts have strongly criticized Michaux’s exact figures for assuming that technology remains unchanged, for ignoring the huge efficiency improvements, for failing to take into account the increasing importance of recycling (for example, one-third of the world’s steel is already recycled), and for greatly overestimating the need for battery storage by assuming that lithium-ion batteries must alone handle all the grid backup duties, the basic assumption does contain an important and undeniable truth. The error lies in the ‘one-for-one replacement’ approach; in an electrified world, it is impossible to replicate the huge and inefficient patterns of energy consumption that characterized the fossil-fuel period.
The lesson for local communities is not that renewable energy is impossible, but that total energy demand must be greatly reduced—a process called energy descent. A sustainable community will not aim to construct large battery banks that require rare and ethically questionable materials such as lithium or cobalt. On the contrary, it will depend on demand management, adjust people’s behavior, shift consumption to periods when solar and wind power are being generated, and make use of a variety of local and diverse energy storage techniques (for example, pumped hydro, compressed air, thermal mass storage, sodium-ion, or iron-flow batteries) which are based on common and non-toxic materials.
The Low-Tech Movement and Open-Source Knowledge
If communities are to cope with the decline of global supply chains and the increasing scarcity of virgin mineral ores, they will need to quickly obtain, record, and pass on the skills involved in low-technology engineering. Low-technology means using technologies that are useful, durable, easy to access, simple to repair, and environmentally sustainable. The aim is not to revert to a primitive way of living, but to select, in a highly sophisticated way, the most effective and resilient technologies from human history and then enhance them with modern scientific knowledge.
The Low-tech Lab plays a vital role in this international initiative. The Low-tech Lab finds, tests, records, and spreads low-tech technologies through open-source collaborative platforms. On these platforms, thorough tutorials enable communities worldwide to reproduce essential infrastructure using materials that are locally scavenged, recycled, or found naturally.
Examples of essential low-tech skills and infrastructure projects that must be developed include:
The construction and maintenance of bicycles, cargo bikes, and vehicles pulled by humans or animals: the capacity to make bicycles from readily available pipes, scrap metal, and simple welding—rather than relying on imported, carbon-intensive deliveries—guarantees resilient long-term mobility and logistical capability.
In metallurgy and fabrication, it is possible to build local charcoal furnaces that can melt scrap aluminum, copper, and iron to cast new components. The idea of a self-replicating machine shop, which uses simple lathes and shapers, enables a community to manufacture almost any needed mechanical part from locally available scrap metal, closing the recycling loop at the village level.
The building’s design and the use of batch-heating masonry stoves, solar water heaters, and passive-solar architectural methods significantly reduce the need for electric or fossil-fuel heating in winter.
Building solar dehydrators, zero-energy cool rooms (using evaporative cooling), root cellars, and fermentation expertise to secure local food supplies without energy-intensive refrigeration.
By strategically distributing these simple blueprints across global internet networks, we ensure that whenever a technology fails, the local population has the diagnostic and manufacturing skills needed to repair or reproduce it, achieving genuine technological sovereignty and independence from failing global supply chains.
Domain IV: Ecological Restoration and Bioremediation of Toxic Legacies
The industrial civilization we have known has left behind large areas of land, waterways, and aquifers polluted by persistent organic pollutants (POPs), per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS, known as “forever chemicals”), heavy metals, agricultural pesticides, and radioactive waste. When central environmental protection agencies fail, lose funding, or completely break down, local communities will have to restore their ecosystems and detoxify their surroundings through biological and nature-based technologies.
Mycoremediation: Fungi as Ecological Healers
Mycoremediation, a specialized form of bioremediation, uses fungi and their sophisticated enzymatic processes to break down, neutralize, or store environmental pollutants. Fungi have survived five major extinction events and have highly adaptable, sometimes dormant, metabolic pathways that can decompose the complex synthetic chemicals typical of the Anthropocene.
White-rot fungi, for example, Pleurotus ostreatus (the oyster mushroom) and Phanerochaete chrysosporium, produce strong extracellular enzymes—mainly laccases, lignin peroxidases, and manganese peroxidases—whose original function is to break down the highly resistant structural bonds in wood (namely lignin and cellulose). Because lignin's complex chemical structure is remarkably similar to that of many polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), organochlorine pesticides, and pharmaceutical wastes, these fungi's enzymes act non-specifically, efficiently oxidizing and degrading toxic hydrocarbons into harmless end products such as carbon dioxide and water. It has been shown in practical applications that the mycelium of Pleurotus can reduce the mass of complex synthetic waste, for instance, from used diapers or discarded cigarette butts, transforming the waste into non-toxic and, at times, edible biomass.
The technology is essential for rehabilitating ecosystems following wars, since military conflicts leave behind landscapes damaged by defoliants, the leakage of unexploded ordnance and chemical spillage, and the destruction of infrastructure. By using mycoremediation, communities can efficiently and economically break down complex chemical residues left by the military, thereby restoring the soil for agricultural use.
Addressing Heavy Metals with Biochar and Hyperaccumulators
Although fungi can break down organic molecules through enzymatic combustion, elemental pollutants such as heavy metals (cadmium, lead, zinc, copper, nickel) cannot be destroyed. They therefore must be immobilized, sequestered, or extracted. Mycoremediation addresses this problem through ‘biosorption’—the physical adsorption, ion exchange, and chemical sorption of heavy metals onto functional groups (carboxylic, phosphate, amine, sulfhydryl) on fungal cell walls. Because the process depends on physical chemistry rather than active metabolism, communities can use dead fungal biomass or mushroom compost as highly effective, low-cost biosorbents to filter contaminated water.
An advanced, targeted method involves combining specific fungal strains with biochar to treat areas affected by a mixture of pollutants. For instance, when Trichoderma reesei is genetically or environmentally stimulated alongside lignocellulosic biochar—biochar produced by low-tech pyrolysis of agricultural waste such as corn or rice straw—it creates a strong synergistic remediation system. The biochar serves as a highly porous support and promoter, and its enriched functional groups enhance pollutant adsorption. Together, the biochar induces the fungus to produce large quantities of laccase, which enables the simultaneous degradation of organic pollutants and the permanent immobilization of heavy metals, thereby greatly reducing their bioavailability and toxicity in the soil.
Furthermore, communities can utilize “phytostabilization” and “assisted phytoremediation” by intentionally planting hyperaccumulator plant species on contaminated soils or mine tailings. Research shows that native hyperaccumulators, when grown in biochar-amended substrates, produce more biomass while drastically reducing the ecological risk of heavy-metal biomagnification, thereby preventing toxins from entering the broader food web.
The following image summarizes key biological remediation agents and their applications for localized ecological restoration:
The Challenge of Nuclear Waste and Long-Term Stewardship
The most formidable and difficult legacy of the modern industrial age is nuclear waste. The deep geological repositories in question are highly complex, capital-intensive state-run projects that might be abandoned or mishandled during periods of serious societal collapse or financial insolvency. Communities near these repositories or abandoned nuclear power facilities will have to take on the great intergenerational duty of ‘long-term stewardship’.
Future radioactive waste management must shift from dependence on a small number of highly specialized technocratic experts to sustainable methods accepted by the communities concerned, using open-source bioremediation. Current biotechnology research focuses on applying microbial communities that are extremophiles and can survive in high-radiation environments to break down and detoxify areas surrounding nuclear waste. Although microorganisms cannot change the fundamental isotopic half-lives of nuclear materials, certain bacterial strains can change the valence states of radionuclides (for example, by reducing soluble, highly mobile Uranium-VI to insoluble Uranium-IV). This biological process causes radioactive elements to precipitate out of groundwater, trapping them in the soil and preventing them from entering local aquifers and agricultural food supplies. In the distant future, it will be an essential survival skill for communities to maintain these microbial barriers, use simple Geiger counters, and operate open-source radiation monitoring networks.
Domain V: Educational Infrastructures and Living Laboratories
The ideas of degrowth, restorative justice, low-tech engineering, and mycoremediation remain entirely abstract, with no physical spaces to put them into practice and no solid educational programs to pass this knowledge on. In “intentional communities,” transition towns, and ecovillages, these practices are incorporated, tested, refined, and taught. Portugal has now become a globally recognized center for this movement, offering real-world examples of how decentralized communities can revitalize rural areas, restore ecosystems, and serve as models for post-growth societies.
Ecovillages as Blueprints: The Case of Tamera
Tamera was founded in 1995 in the dry region of Alentejo, Portugal, and is an international peace research village with about 160 residents. The village serves as a complete example of global system change, seeking to transform human culture from exploitation to cooperation and from fear to trust. It is not simply a retreat but rather a well-organized research center that serves as a replicable model for future intentional communities.
Tamera’s research spans several core areas critical for survival:
In ecology and water retention, Tamera has turned dry, desertifying regions into rich, biodiverse areas through a series of decentralized ‘Water Retention Landscapes’. Using swales, natural dams, and permaculture principles, they recharge local aquifers and eliminate the need for centralized water supply systems, thus providing a model for drought resilience in a warming world.
By developing energy independence through solar power, biogas digesters, and simple thermal technologies, it is possible to demonstrate in practice that a high standard of living, along with technological functionality, can be achieved without relying on fossil fuels.
Social and community building involves researching alternative economic models, the principles of free love, and various social structures to overcome patriarchal dominance, heal trauma, and resolve the underlying human conflicts that often lead to the destruction of intentional communities.
Educational Nodes and Rural Revitalization
Other communities in Portugal showcase a range of local approaches and highlight the need for non-formal education. Quinta das Relvas, which was set up in 2016, places a strong emphasis on spreading knowledge about sustainability, the arts, and permaculture; it organizes youth exchanges, hosts artistic residencies and European Solidarity Corps volunteers, and runs various programs (for example, LOG OFF concerning digital well-being, BUILD UP relating to bio-construction, and CHERISH THE WEEDS about ecological integration). By linking people, organizations, and ideas, they draw on the systemic idea that “isolated we are weaker, but interconnected we create more with less.”
Moreover, the global Transition Town movement—as seen in Portuguese examples such as Projecto de REconomy Tavira, Famalicão em Transição, Portimão em Transição, and the ecozone of Folha Verde / Benfeita—emphasizes revitalizing existing rural villages rather than constructing entirely new, isolated settlements. The idea of a “Re-economy” aims to establish collaborative local economies, cooperatives, and mutual support networks that remove the structural inflexibilities that tie rural populations to environmental abuse and globalized markets.
The following image highlights the diversity of community models operating as living laboratories in Portugal:
The Challenge of Integration vs. Isolation
However, sociological analyses and documentaries such as Aldeias do Futuro (Villages of the Future) show that these regenerative projects face profound challenges in integrating locally. True regeneration requires deep, respectful connection with local populations, traditional culture, historical memory, and language. Creating isolated “expat bubbles” or eco-enclaves that ignore the existing rural population undermines the resilience, security, and moral authority of the community. The most successful and robust communities of the future will seamlessly blend the deep historical memory and agricultural wisdom of traditional rural populations with the ecological innovations, conflict-resolution practices, and global connectivity of the modern transition movement.
Conclusion: A Blueprint for the Deep Future
The mitigation of the polycrisis will not arrive via a grand, unified global treaty, nor will it be delivered by the technological salvation of the geopolitical and corporate elite. The path through the profound predicament of the twenty-first century is inherently decentralized, rooted in local communities willing to confront the stark material and ecological realities of a post-growth world.
To turn the tide as macroeconomic frameworks falter and ecological conditions deteriorate, humanity must engage in a coordinated strategy of localized worldbuilding. This requires a simultaneous, multi-domain transformation:
Economic Transition: Actively embracing the literature and daily practice of degrowth, shifting societal values from material accumulation to radical abundance, voluntary simplicity, and robust digital sufficiency.
Social Architecture: Implementing Restorative Circles and dialogical system designs to manage conflict without relying on violent or punitive state apparatuses, thereby ensuring deep psychological resilience and unbreakable social cohesion.
Technological Sovereignty: Abandoning the fallacy of a massive green-capitalist energy transition in favor of radically reduced energy demand, sustained by open-source, low-tech engineering that can be locally fabricated, operated, and repaired using scavenged materials.
Ecological Healing: Utilizing advanced biological interventions—such as fungal mycoremediation, biochar synergistic systems, and extremophile microbial stewardship—to detoxify the legacy pollutants of warfare, industry, and nuclear power, securing safe habitats for future generations.
Community Integration: Building and expanding intentional ecovillages and transition towns that operate as living educational laboratories, merging ecological innovation with deep integration into traditional rural cultures.
While these localized projects will operate in physical isolation from one another, their ultimate strength lies in their digital and cultural interconnection. Information technology—curated through the lens of digital sufficiency—must serve as the central nervous system of this global movement. By sharing technological blueprints, open-source tutorials, remediation strategies, and restorative methodologies across a global tapestry of alternatives, a small number of highly resilient projects can catalyze a massive, decentralized paradigm shift. Even as global modern civilization undergoes severe simplification, energy descent, and structural collapse, the momentum from thousands of these intentional, future-focused nodes will serve as the ark. They will stand as living, breathing examples for future generations of survivors, carrying the best of human knowledge, empathy, peacemaking, and ecological integration into the deep future.
End Note: Everything discussed and suggested in the book, including my opinions, barely scratches the surface of the causes and understanding of our predicament, solutions, best practices, and the extreme dangers we face. We live in exciting times. We can struggle within the status quo of the 21st-century Great Game, or we can build new worlds. The frontier of human life is in our heart, soul, and mind.
The Cult of Omnicide, the Horizon of Abundance & The Necessity of Ecocultural Realignment
I often read articles dealing with globalisation and immigration and feel thoughtful authors are often missing the crux of the biscuit.
The Indoctrination of Omnicide: Unraveling the Progress Narrative
The Operating System of Destruction
The contemporary human predicament is defined not merely by a collection of isolated crises—climate instability, biodiversity loss, social fragmentation—but by a singular, overarching failure of perception. We do not understand the true causes of our predicament because we have been systematically indoctrinated into what I think of as a “cult of omnicide.” This belief system, pervasive and invisible as the air we breathe, functions as the operating system of modern civilization. It is a death drive that disguises itself as “progress,” programming the global population to accept the destruction of living systems as the necessary, even virtuous, price of advancement.
I am not referring to a shadowy conspiracy hatched by the “Davos Crowd” meeting in well-appointed rooms, though the behavior of the elite certainly reinforces this perception. Rather, it is a structural inevitability of a worldview that prioritizes the abstraction of capital over the Earth’s biophysical reality. We have been programmed to believe in narratives of linear ascent that place humanity outside of, and superior to, the web of life. This separation is the root of the “cult,” enabling a collective psychology that rationalizes ecocide as economic externality and genocide as collateral damage.
The roots of this belief system are deep, having evolved over 5,000 years, marked by the rise of state structures, the centralization of power, and the commodification of the natural world.
Our cultural, ideological virus became endemic with catastrophic velocity in the 15th Century during the Age of Discovery. An era, often celebrated in Western historiography as a triumph of exploration, was in reality the codification of a global extraction protocol. It established the paradigm that the world existed to be mapped, claimed, and drained of value (energy) for the benefit of a distant metropole.
The energy needs of this system expanded exponentially during the Industrial Revolution, locking humanity into a fossil-fueled suicide pact. This trajectory literally rocketed to prominence during the “Great Acceleration” around 1950—a period marked by the simultaneous surge in human population, economic activity, and environmental degradation. Socio-economic trends (GDP, water use, fertilizer consumption) mirrored Earth system trends (carbon dioxide, ocean acidification, methane), revealing that our “success” was directly correlated with the destabilization of the biosphere.
Today, this trajectory culminates in a hysterical madness over Information Technology, Computing, and Artificial Intelligence. We are witnessing the apotheosis of the progress narrative: a desire to transcend biology entirely. The current fervor surrounding AI is driven by religious or quasi-religious progress narratives designed to mislead the public into sacrificing and serving the Players of the Great Game 21st Century. The promise of a disembodied digital super-intelligence is the ultimate expression of alienation—a desperate flight from the messy, finite, and dying world we have created into a sterile, omnicidal fantasy of mechanical immortality for an elite few and their service providers.
Why physicalism fails to explain reality and how a framework where consciousness steers reality through quantum events can revolutionize AI safety and unlock tractable machine consciousness research. WTF?
The Failure of Neoliberal Globalism
The collapse of the neoliberal order is not a glitch; it is a feature of its stochastic design. The failure of neoliberal globalism is rooted in its foundational reliance on imperialism, colonialism, and fossil-fueled, modern, techno-industrial pro-growth capitalism. This system cannot function without a periphery to exploit. It requires a “frontier” of cheap natural resources and cheap labor to sustain the profit margins of the core Players and their “Corporate Persons.”
This dynamic is historically consistent. Whether through the direct rule of the Raj in India, the expansionist policies of Lebensraum, or the territorial ambitions of Greater Israel, the logic remains the same: businesses and states must import labor, exploit foreign labor, or expand borders to enslave populations deemed inferior and rule for the benefit of “Kings” and “Courtiers.” The goal is always to secure resources and labor at a price below their value, creating a surplus for the Players while externalizing the costs of degradation, ecocide, poverty, and humiliation.
This shift allows you to build a leaner, more powerful operation. Instead of managing a complex global payroll, you’re managing a clean, efficient tech stack. It’s not about replacing humans entirely, but about automating the grunt work so you can afford to hire truly elite talent for the roles that actually matter.
In the contemporary context, immigration has become a tool of labor arbitrage. The lens of “Europe’s Triumvirate of Lame Stooges” (Substack—Simplicius76) reveals that political elites care about labor arbitrage and defend their need to import “colonial subjects” because their financialized economies are structurally and morally unsound. The affluent service economies of the West, driven by financial speculation rather than physical production within natural limits, have decimated their domestic working classes and democratic cultures. The overseas labor pools are never sufficient to cover domestic labor losses, leading to a pressing need to import labor to keep the gears of the service economy grinding. This is not multicultural benevolence; it is the cynical maintenance of a labor hierarchy that treats human beings as interchangeable fuel for the economic engine.
European elites have no way out of their sunk-cost fallacy trap: to turn back would be to admit to sins so monstrous they have squandered the livelihood of the entire European civilization; for these criminals, there is no other way but forward. Double down and hope your opponents happen to break before you do.
After all, worse comes to worse…there’s always global War. —Simplicius76
One has to go way back before “European” history began to find a culture not led by criminals.
The Biophysical Reality: Overshoot and Collapse
If we do not learn about Overshoot, cycles of Collapse, and Limits to Growth now, and analyze everything from that perspective, we are headed for a rapid depopulation of our species. The biophysical reality is non-negotiable. We are currently in a state of advanced ecological overshoot, consuming the regenerative capacity of 1.7 Earths.
Winston Churchill’s famous 1940 declaration to the House of Commons: “I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears and sweat”. Delivered on May 13, 1940
Can we avoid slipping into another war economy, fueling a global conflagration?
The “Limits to Growth” analysis (Meadows et al., 1972) warned that exponential growth in a finite system inevitably leads to collapse. We are now living through the early stages of that prediction. The “polycrisis” is the manifestation of the planetary boundaries being exceeded. The cult of omnicide (this thing of ours) blinds us to this by insisting that technology will overcome physical limits. This is the “techno-fix” delusion: the belief that we can geoengineer the climate, genetically modify our food, and AI-optimize resource allocation to avoid the consequences of our actions.
However, as the Population Balance research indicates, the drivers of this overshoot—patriarchal pronatalism, human supremacy, and growthism—are deeply embedded cultural values that cannot be fixed by gadgets. We must confront the reality that our individual comfort and prosperity are currently purchased at the cost of future survival (and many would argue, current agony).
The Hard Problem of Consciousness and the Miracle of Gaia
Reframing the Hard Problem
In the halls of academic philosophy and neuroscience, the “Hard Problem of Consciousness” refers to the difficulty of explaining qualitative experience (qualia)—why the physical processing of information in the brain feels like something “from the inside.” Philosophers like David Chalmers argue that no amount of explanation regarding neural mechanisms can fully account for the subjective feeling of “redness” or “pain.”
However, in the context of our existential crisis, this definition is a dangerous distraction. The real hard problem of consciousness is our lack of awareness of how important an intimate relationship with living systems is. Our consciousness has become disconnected from the matrix of life. We move through the world as if we are separate from it, viewing trees, rivers, and animals as “objects” rather than subjects. This lack of awareness is the psychological mechanism that allows the cult of omnicide to function. If we truly felt the screaming of the forests or the choking of the oceans as we feel our own pain, or the loss of a loved one, the current economic order would be psychologically intolerable.
Gaia as a Miracle
GAIA is a miracle (how else to honestly frame it). A “miracle” as understood through the lens of scientific awe, complex systems theory, and a profound appreciation for the improbable homeostasis of the biosphere, rather than through supernatural intervention. The Gaia Hypothesis, proposed by James Lovelock and Lynn Margulis, posits that the Earth functions as a single, self-regulating superorganism. The planet is not a rock with life on it; it is a living entity that maintains the chemical and thermal conditions necessary for its own survival. Living systems are “autopoietic”—they are “machines” that build themselves, maintaining a distinct identity while exchanging matter and energy with their environment.
The “Gaia Alignment Hypothesis” suggests that true intelligence—consciousness that is fully integrated with reality—would inherently tend toward harmony with living systems. Our current trajectory of developing “Artificial Superintelligence” (ASI) on purely deterministic hardware risks creating an intelligence that is immune to this “gentle guidance.” We are building an apex predator that is invisible to the ecosystem’s immune system, an entity that values efficiency over life. A system that will never be able to maintain itself or grow (there will be no Dysonsphere), but rather, turn to material junk waiting for the heat death of the Universe, and utterly bereft of the spirit of God as embodied in living things and imbued by living consciousness in material nature through subjective sensation, and imagination.
The real hard problem, therefore, is the task of reconnecting the human mind with the “Gaian mind.” It is about dissolving the illusion of the “self” as an isolated economic actor and remembering our identity as a node in Earth’s nervous system. “Consciousness isn’t an add-on but a deep, essential part of how life adapts to survive.” Our survival now depends on expanding our consciousness to include the biosphere.
The Dawn of Everything: De-programming the Progress Narrative
To escape the cult of omnicide, we must first realize that the cage is unlocked. The narrative that hierarchy, capitalism, and the state are the inevitable outcomes of human social evolution is a myth. The work of David Graeber and David Wengrow in The Dawn of Everything provides the historical ammunition to dismantle this fatalism.
The Indigenous Critique and Kandiaronk
Graeber and Wengrow demonstrate that the Enlightenment ideals of freedom and equality did not spring fully formed from the heads of European philosophers. Rather, they were deeply influenced by the “Indigenous Critique”—the observations and arguments of Native American intellectuals who encountered European society and found it wanting.
Central to this is the figure of Kandiaronk, a Huron-Wendat statesman and philosopher of the late 17th century. Kandiaronk engaged in extensive debates with the French aristocrat Lahontan, offering a devastating critique of European hierarchy, money, and law. Kandiaronk observed that the French were enslaved by their own system, forced to do good only by the threat of punishment (judges, prisons, hell), whereas the Wendat lived in freedom and generosity.
In a passage that strikes at the heart of the “cult of omnicide,” Kandiaronk declared:
“I affirm that what you call ‘money’ is the devil of devils, the tyrant of the French, the source of all evils, the bane of souls and a slaughterhouse of the living. To imagine one can live in the country of money and preserve one’s soul is like imagining one can preserve one’s life at the bottom of a lake. Money is the father of luxury, lasciviousness, intrigues, trickery, lies, betrayal, insincerity – of all the world’s worst behaviour.”
Kandiaronk argued that “a man motivated by interest cannot be a man of reason.” He saw that the “separate material interest” codified by money destroyed the social fabric, pitting neighbor against neighbor and forcing people to sell their own liberty for survival. This critique terrified the European elite because it revealed that their “civilization” was, in the eyes of a free person, a nightmare of servitude.
Egalitarianism as a Political Choice
The Dawn of Everything shatters the myth that egalitarian societies were simply “primitive” or “simple.” Instead, it argues that Indigenous egalitarianism was a sophisticated political choice. Humans have been experimenting with social structures for tens of thousands of years, consciously rejecting domination when it appeared.
Graeber and Wengrow identify three primordial freedoms that characterized these societies:
The Freedom to Move Away: The ability to leave one’s community without consequence, knowing one would be welcomed elsewhere. This freedom checked the power of any would-be tyrant, as their subjects could simply vanish.
The Freedom to Disobey: The refusal to follow arbitrary commands. In many Indigenous societies, leaders had no coercive power; they could only persuade through eloquence and wisdom.
The Freedom to Shape New Social Realities: The collective capacity to dismantle and reconstruct the social order if it became oppressive.
One must embody a sense of responsibility and deep caring to realise the above values.
The “cult of omnicide” relies on the suppression of these freedoms. We are trapped by borders (loss of freedom to move), policed by a militarized state (loss of freedom to disobey), and indoctrinated to believe that capitalism is the only possible reality (loss of freedom to shape society). Recovering the spirit of the Indigenous Critique is the first step toward the revolutionary movement required to save our species. Such a revolution is extremely costly in dense human ecologies/economies, requiring immense sacrifices.
Guardians of the Earth: A Literary Lineage of Value
If the progress narrative is the disease, then the literature that values living systems is the medicine. A lineage of authors, spanning the 19th to the 21st centuries, has preserved the vision of a world where nature is not a resource but a relative. These writers provide the “code” for the new operating system we must build.
The Romantic Visionaries: Seeing the Sacred
James Fenimore Cooper (1789–1851). Though writing from a settler perspective, Cooper’s Leatherstocking Tales (1823–1841) played a crucial role in embedding the “romanticized image of Indigenous people living in harmony with the American wilderness” into the global imagination. His protagonist, Natty Bumppo (Hawkeye), stands as a critique of the encroaching industrial civilization. Cooper portrayed the wilderness not as a void to be filled, but as a place of moral clarity and divine presence. As Bumppo says in The Deerslayer: “The woods are but the ears of the Almighty, the air is his breath, and the light of the sun is little more than a glance of his eye.” A deep sacramental view of nature directly challenged the utilitarian “clear-cut and pave” mentality of the frontier. Cooper recognized that “every trail has its end, and every calamity brings its lesson,” foreshadowing the karmic recoil of ecological overshoot.
Charles Eastman (Ohiyesa) (1858–1939) Eastman, a Santee Dakota physician, articulated the profound spirituality of traditional Sioux life to a Western audience. In The Soul of the Indian, he described a world where the “Great Mystery” was omnipresent. For Eastman, the primary mode of connecting with this mystery was Silence. He wrote: “The Wise Man believes profoundly in silence - the sign of a perfect equilibrium. Silence is the absolute poise or balance of body, mind, and spirit.” A profound “Holy Silence” is the antithesis of the noise of the cult of omnicide. Eastman also countered the capitalist ethos of accumulation, noting that “the love of possessions is a weakness to be overcome” and that children were taught the “beauty of generosity” as the highest virtue. In his view, the “civilized” man who hoarded wealth was the true savage.
Luther Standing Eagle (1868–1939) was a Lakota Chief and author of Land of the Spotted Eagle (1933). Standing Eagle dismantled the European construct of “wilderness.” He famously declared: “Only to the white man was nature a ‘wilderness’ and only to him was the land ‘infested’ with ‘wild’ animals and ‘savage’ people. To us it was tame. Earth was bountiful and we were surrounded with the blessings of the Great Mystery.” He argued that the white race was “robbing itself” by denying the Indian heritage of the continent. Standing Eagle described a tactile, somatic relationship with the earth: “The old people came literally to love the soil... they sat or reclined on the ground with a feeling of being close to a mothering power... The soil was soothing, strengthening, cleansing, and healing.” The real hard problem of consciousness—alienation—can be solved simply by sitting on the ground.
Mary Hunter Austin (1868–1934). Austin’s The Land of Little Rain (1903) is a seminal work of environmental literature that explores the “Country of Lost Borders” in the American Southwest. She adopted the Indigenous view that “Not the law, but the land sets the limit.” Austin understood that human culture must shrink to fit the constraints of the local ecology. She wrote of the desert not as a barren wasteland, but as a place of intense spiritual potency: “Void of life it never is, however dry the air and villainous the soil.” Her work prefigured the modern concept of bioregionalism—the idea that political borders should follow ecological lines (watersheds, deserts) rather than arbitrary surveyor marks. She saw the desert as a place where one could find “beauty and madness and death and God,” acknowledging the sublime power of limits.
Ernest Thompson Seton (1860–1946), as the founder of the Woodcraft Indians, sought to cure the “degeneracy” of industrial urban life by reintroducing American youth to the “noble” vision of Native life. He viewed the “Ideal Indian” as a “master of Woodcraft” and a model of physical and moral excellence. While his work is often criticized today for cultural appropriation, his intent was radical: to replace the values of the “city” (commerce, artifice) with those of the “woods” (self-reliance, connection). He argued that the message of the Redman was “the message of the woods... the blessedness of enough.” “Enough” is the direct antidote to the cult of omnicide’s demand for “more.”
The Renaissance of Survivance: Indigenous Critical Theory
Leslie Marmon Silko (b. 1948): Silko’s masterpiece, Ceremony (1977), frames the modern predicament as a “sickness” caused by the “witchery” of those who fear the world. Her protagonist, Tayo, a WWII veteran, suffers from what Western medicine calls PTSD but what the novel frames as a spiritual dislocation. The cure is not a pill, but a ceremony—a reorientation of the self within the landscape and the community. Silko writes: “Orientation depends on understanding your location and existence in relation to your surroundings.” The novel portrays “communal, non-hierarchical values” as essential for healing. Tayo’s healing comes when he realizes that “there were no boundaries, only transitions,” rejecting the fences and borders of the settler state.
Louise Erdrich (b. 1954): In Tracks, Erdrich chronicles the struggle of the Anishinaabe to maintain their “communal living” ethos against the Dawes Act, which sought to parcel out tribal land into individual plots (private property). Her character Nanapush fights to keep the tribe together, embodying the ethos that “one is for all and all are for one.” Erdrich uses storytelling as a mechanism of integration, using words “not to make sense of things by separation but rather by integration of personal relationships.” This attitude contrasts with the Western scientific method of dissecting and isolating to understand. Her work shows that, for centuries, Indigenous communities have resisted the failure of neoliberal globalism through collective identity. (One might think of Palestinians.)
Richard Wagamese (1955–2017): Wagamese’s Medicine Walk is a profound exploration of the “healing power of nature.” The novel follows Franklin Starlight as he takes his dying, estranged father on a final journey into the backcountry. The “medicine walk” is a ritual of reclamation, in which the land itself facilitates forgiveness that human words cannot. Wagamese writes: “The land has within it powers of healing”. He emphasizes that “Teachings come from everywhere when you open yourself to them.” The novel suggests that the trauma of colonization (represented by the father’s alcoholism and brokenness) can only be healed by a return to the “old way” of listening to the wind and the trees.
Joseph Bruchac (b. 1942): Bruchac’s work, particularly Keepers of the Earth, serves as a bridge between Indigenous oral tradition and modern environmental science. He teaches that “earth is our mother, sun as our father, and the animals as our brothers and sisters”. The quote is more than metaphorical; it is a statement of biological and spiritual fact. Bruchac’s stories foster an ethic of stewardship, showing that we are “entrusted with the responsibility to maintain the natural balance”. His work is a manual for future young leaders, providing the cultural software needed to value living systems and build sustainable cultures fit for posterity.
Gerald Vizenor (b. 1934): Vizenor provides the theoretical framework for the revolution. He coined the term “Survivance”—a portmanteau of survival and resistance. Survivance is an active sense of presence that rejects the “tragic victim” narrative. Vizenor contrasts “Indigenous egalitarianism” with “Western constructs,” using the “trickster” figure to disrupt the static categories of the colonizer. His concept of “Transmotion” asserts the inherent right of Native peoples to move freely across the land, linking sovereignty directly to motion and the environment. “Native American critical theory” provides the intellectual weapons to dismantle the “supremacy narratives” of the West.
The Path Forward: Shrinking Towards Abundance
The Revolutionary Pivot
The solution to the polycrisis is not “green growth” or “sustainable development,” which are merely softer versions of the cult of omnicide. The solution is to shrink towards abundance. This concept, articulated in the Population Balance podcast, challenges the core tenet of modern economics: that more is better. We must consider a new understanding of what we need more of.
Shrinking towards abundance is a paradox only to the indoctrinated mind. It means shrinking our material footprint, our energy consumption, and our population (through the empowerment of women and the rejection of pronatalism), in order to increase the abundance of:
Time: Freedom from the 40+ hour workweek and the labor arbitrage machine.
Connection: Deep relationships with community and kin.
Nature: An “abundance agenda for nature” that prioritizes the restoration of wildlife, the return of keystone species like beavers and salmon, and the protection of migration corridors like the Yellowstone-to-Yukon. We must not destroy the forests we have left, the habitats that are relatively untouched. We must leave Great Nature with its freely evolving living systems alone to regenerate biological abundance.
Meaning: The satisfaction of living in alignment with the “Great Mystery.”
Cosmopolitan Localism and Tech-for-Gaia
We must use technology to develop fair and sustainable trading networks that ‘price in’ the value of living systems. A culture that is in a deep, intimate relationship with living systems aligns with the model of Cosmopolitan Localism.
Localize Atoms: We must shrink our physical economies to fit local and regional constraints. Food, energy, and goods should be produced as locally as possible, while respecting the bioregion's limits to growth.
Globalized Aspects: We should use technology to support scientific, technical, and engineering collaboration across cultures. The internet should be used not for AI-generated distraction but for the sharing of knowledge on ecological restoration, regenerative agriculture, and appropriate technology.
Pricing in Life: Trading networks must internalize the cost of ecological destruction. A product that destroys a forest must be prohibitively expensive, or, in some cases, not permitted on pain of death, reflecting its true cost to the biosphere.
The Movement of Young Leaders
It is practically impossible to convince people trained and educated in these pernicious economic belief systems to change their minds. The older generations are too invested in the Ponzi scheme of modern industrial civilization. Therefore, a deeply committed group of young leaders will have to lead a revolutionary movement that disenfranchises our present power brokers, the pathological community of what I call Players of the Great Game 21st Century.
The Players know not what they do, and they need not be forgiven.
Our new leaders must be immune to the digital distractions that keep their peers docile. They must look to the “Guardians of the Earth”—Cooper, Eastman, Silko, Vizenor—for their values. They must understand that the failure of neoliberal globalism is an opportunity to build something new—something that is not genocidal, ecocidal, and disruptive to healthy, stable cultures. They must practice survivance: an active, creative, and joyous resistance to the cult of death.
To practice survivance is to actively assert a presence, resilience, and cultural continuity rather than defining oneself simply as a victim of historical trauma or a passive survivor of colonial genocide. Coined by Anishinaabe scholar Gerald Vizenor, the term combines survival and resistance, emphasizing a renunciation of dominance, tragedy, and victimry through creative and active means.
Aspects of practicing survivance include:
Active Presence over Victimry: Survivance moves beyond merely living through traumatic events (“survival”) to actively create a presence in the world. It rejects narratives that portray Indigenous peoples only as broken or vanishing. (One could think of Palestinians.)
Cultural Continuance and Creativity: It involves the perpetuation of stories, traditions, and culture, often employing humor, irony, and storytelling to resist, rather than merely react to, colonial pressures.
Decolonization in Daily Life: It is a daily practice, not merely a historical event, that can include reclaiming language, practicing traditional arts, maintaining sovereignty, and engaging in community building.
Examples of Acts:
Storytelling/Art: Creating art that tells a story of active, modern existence.
Digital Media: Using video games to share Indigenous stories and perspectives.
Cultural Practices: Engaging in traditional dances or ceremonies, such as the Palestinian dabke, to assert identity and joy against occupation.
Language: Revitalizing and using Indigenous languages, as they contain “boundless potential of discovery.”
Survivance serves as an “active sense of presence” that helps individuals and communities reframe their experiences, focusing on strength, joy, and endurance.
A Vision of the Pristine
We must not let our individual comfort and prosperity prevent us from understanding and prioritizing biophysical reality and the limits to growth. Pain, suffering, and death may come for all of us soon as the inevitable result of 5,000 years of progress narratives that encourage war with ourselves, each other, and against Gaia. But collapse is also a clearing.
Imagine, for a moment, what it might be like to live in a new world we could create, simply by slowing down and listening to Great Nature.
Imagine a society that has “shrunk” back into the embrace of the Earth. You wake in a community that is egalitarian by design, where the “freedom to disobey” ensures that no tyrant can hoard power. The air is pristine, the water is clear, and the landscape is a mosaic of “tame” abundance—gardens, forests, and herds, managed with the wisdom of the Wendat and the Lakota.
There is no labor arbitrage here; you work for your community, and your work has visible meaning and impact. You are not a colonial subject or a “consumer,” but a citizen of a specific watershed. The “hard problem” of consciousness has dissolved because you are never alone; you are in constant, silent dialogue with the living world. You feel the “mothering power” of the soil that Standing Eagle spoke of. You know the “blessedness of enough” that Seton described.
Technological networks connect you to the global mind, not to sell you ads, but to share the joy of discovery and the beautiful variety of culture. You hear a report from the other side of the world about the recovery of a coral reef, and you feel it as a personal victory.
GAIA is a miracle. She has waited patiently for us to wake up from our fever dream of conquest. The real hard problem is solved the moment we stop trying to reinvent the world and start trying to love it. We are not the masters of this planet; we are its children. And it is time to come home.
This is not our future, although it is an enjoyable movie with some moral lessons embedded in its story.
I share this with you today because my perspective is rooted in a lifelong vision: a dream of old-growth forests and the resilient, grounded communities that once thrived within them. For decades, I have carried this image of a more natural world—making it all the more gut-wrenching to reconcile that dream with a global reality defined by systemic injustice, violence, and ecological destruction.
We must challenge the complacency found from Toledo to Tokyo, and Sydney to Paris. This ‘thing of ours’ is not inevitable, nor is it the best of all possible worlds. While our current human ecological density makes a return to the forest difficult, we must recognize that the status quo is a choice we continue to make every day.
The insulation of affluence is thinning. Soon, the gathering forces of the polycrisis will make these impacts impossible to ignore, even for those currently shielded by wealth. We are approaching a definitive threshold where the survivors of this madness will be forced to face the same crossroads that led us here. We cannot afford to hand them the same broken cultural map. For those who understand the gravity of this moment, the time for observation is over. It is time to get busy.
Stoicism as a Mechanism for Cognitive Dissonance Reduction in Ruling Classes versus Religious Soteriology in Subaltern Populations
The Sociology of the Inner Citadel
The history of Western thought presents a distinct sociological divergence in how different classes navigate the inherent suffering of the human condition. While the less fortunate—those intimately acquainted with systemic oppression, poverty, and physical precariousness—have historically gravitated toward soteriological religions offering external rescue and eschatological promise, the ruling elites have cultivated a different intellectual tradition. This tradition, best exemplified by Stoicism, provides a sophisticated cognitive architecture that allows the privileged to reconcile their status with the pathologies of their culture. The central thesis of this report posits that Stoicism functions not merely as a guide to virtue but as a specialized coping mechanism for the elite conscience. It is a philosophy of “The Citadel,” allowing those in power to recognize the hypocrisy and corruption of their empires while insulating their internal moral worth from their external complicity.
The dissonance experienced by the elite is unique. Unlike stressed, enslaved, unstable classes, whose suffering is often imposed by external lack, the elite suffer from the burden of agency. They must administer unjust laws, wage bloody wars, and maintain immense wealth in the face of abject poverty. To feel good about themselves—to maintain the narrative of the “Good Life”—they require a philosophical framework that reframes external conditions as “indifferent,” thereby validating their status while absolving them of the guilt associated with inequality. Let us examine the Elite Stoic lineage from the merchant Zeno to the tech investor Tim Ferriss, and contrast it with the soteriological needs of the poor and the distinct ethical frameworks of Jesus and the Buddha.
Soteriological is an adjective pertaining to soteriology, the theological study of salvation, deliverance, and redemption. It covers doctrines regarding how salvation is achieved, the role of a savior, and the nature of human liberation from sin or existential distress. It is a central theme in religion, particularly in Christianity.
Cognitive Dissonance and Class Utility
The utility of Stoicism for the elite lies in its duality. On one hand, it demands rigorous self-discipline and justice, satisfying the elite's need to feel righteous and superior to the mob. On the other hand, it introduces the doctrine of “preferred indifferents” (proëgmena), which creates a permissible space for wealth, power, and status. The Proëgmena doctrine is the hinge upon which elite Stoicism turns. It allows the aristocrat to possess the trappings of empire without belonging to them, thereby assuaging the cognitive dissonance that arises when a moral agent inhabits an immoral system.
Conversely, the ordinary people possess a natural understanding of limits born of necessity. They do not require a philosophy to teach them that they control very little; their material reality enforces this lesson daily. Their metaphysical need is not for endurance of the status quo—which they already endure by force—but for escape or redemption from it. Thus, they bend toward religion, which promises that the “last shall be first,” a reversal of the hierarchy that Stoicism often tacitly accepts as “Fate.”
So the last shall be first, and the first last: for many be called, but few chosen. Matthew 20:16 King James Version
The Early Stoa: The Merchant, The Boxer, and The Systematizer
The demographic origins of Stoicism reveal the initial tension between the rejection of convention (Cynicism) and the accommodation of power. While the school accepted all classes, its doctrinal evolution increasingly catered to the needs of the propertied class.
Zeno of Citium: The Rationalization of Loss and the Invention of Indifference
Zeno of Citium (c. 334–262 BC), the founder of the Stoa, presents the archetypal case of the "displaced elite." Originally a wealthy merchant trading in Tyrian purple—a commodity worth its weight in silver and symbolic of royal status—Zeno lost his fortune in a shipwreck. His turn to philosophy was not a rejection of wealth per se, but a cognitive reframing of the loss of wealth.
Passages on Wealth and the Good Life:
Zeno’s pivotal contribution was the classification of adiaphora (indifferents). Unlike the Cynics, who viewed wealth as actively harmful to virtue, Zeno categorized it as a "preferred indifferent."
“No loss should be more regrettable to us than losing our time, for it is irretrievable.” This sentiment betrays a distinctly aristocratic anxiety. For the laborer, time is a commodity sold for survival; for Zeno, it is the canvas for self-actualization.
“Man conquers the world by conquering himself.” This dictum creates an internal empire for those who may have lost their external one.
Zeno’s shift allowed for the reintegration of the philosopher into high society. While his Republic theoretically abolished money and temples, in practice, Zeno became a valued associate of King Antigonus II Gonatas of Macedonia. He did not dismantle the hierarchy; he intellectualized it. By teaching that the wise man is “rich even in poverty,” Zeno provided a psychological safety net for the precarious Hellenistic elite, ensuring that their self-worth remained intact despite Fortune's volatility.
Cleanthes: The Proletarian Anomaly and the Theology of Order
Cleanthes (c. 330–230 BC) is the outlier—a former boxer and water-carrier who studied by night. However, his philosophical contribution, the Hymn to Zeus, served to ossify the social order, making it palatable to the ruling class.
The Hymn to Zeus and Submission:
Cleanthes’ hymn frames the universe as a monarchy ruled by Reason (Zeus).
“Lead me, O Zeus, and thou O Destiny, / The way that I am bid by you to go.”
“For neither mortals nor gods have any greater privilege / Than to make everlasting song of the universal law in justice.”
Elite Utility:
For the elite, this theology is incredibly useful. It posits that the current order—including the distribution of power—is a manifestation of Divine Will. To rebel against the “common law” is to rebel against God. Thus, Cleanthes, though poor, provided the metaphysical justification for the status quo. His Stoicism was not a tool of revolution, but of radical acceptance, a trait that makes a population (or a ruler) steadfast but politically static.
Chrysippus: Determinism as Social Justification
Chrysippus (c. 279–206 BC), the prolific systematizer, cemented the doctrine of Fate.
Passages on Fate and Social Roles:
“Fate is a sempiternal and unchangeable series and chain of things...”
“The wise man meddles little or not at all in affairs and does his own things.”
The Cognitive Mechanism: Chrysippus developed the "compatibilist" view, in which internal volition coexists with external determinism (the cylinder analogy). For the ruling class, this is a powerful exoneration. If the outcome of a war or a famine is “Fate,” the ruler is absolved of the result, provided his intention was in accordance with nature. It allows the elite to act as agents of history without bearing the crushing weight of history’s tragedies.
The Roman Stoa: Oligarchy, Hypocrisy, and the Pathology of Empire
Roman Stoicism was the operating system of the ruling class, used explicitly to manage the terror of the Imperial court and the guilt of immense accumulation.
Seneca the Younger: The Billionaire Sage and the Loophole of Virtue
Lucius Annaeus Seneca (4 BC – 65 AD) is the ultimate case study in elite cognitive dissonance. A tutor and advisor to Nero, Seneca was effectively the co-ruler of the Empire for five years (the Quinquennium Neronis). He amassed a fortune of 300 million sestertii, owned vast estates, and engaged in predatory lending.
The Pathology of Culture:
Seneca lived in a pathological culture of extreme paranoia, where a whim of the Emperor could result in death.
Analysis: This passage describes the courtier’s psychological state. Seneca employed Stoicism to overcome his fear of the future (death/exile), thereby enabling him to function in Nero’s court.
The Rationalization of Wealth:
In De Vita Beata (On the Happy Life), Seneca constructs a defense against the charge of hypocrisy. He creates a distinction that saves the elite conscience:
“I do not regard a man poor, if the little which remains is enough for him.”
“For the wise man does not deem himself unworthy of any gifts from Fortune's hands: he does not love wealth, but he would rather have it... wishing it to supply greater scope for him to practice his virtue.” (Effective Altruism, TESCREAL Bundle)
The “Loophole of Virtue.” Seneca argues that wealth is a preferred indifferent that allows for greater philanthropy and generosity. This rationalization allows the elite to view their accumulation not as greed, but as a “scope for virtue.” It reconciles the destructive aspects of inequality (which Seneca recognized in Letter 47) with the elite's need to feel good and righteous.
Beware of becoming a slave to your passions. Living lives around trying to earn money to support a shopping habit. We are not living to support the corporations. And yet, if you were to take an objective, outsider look at our society, it would seem that we are.
Critique of Slavery:
Seneca’s Letter 47 (On Master and Slave) shows his awareness of the destructive aspects of his culture.
“‘They are slaves,' people declare. Nay, rather they are men... comrades... humble friends.”
“No servitude is more disgraceful than that which is self-imposed.”
Dissonance: Despite this profound insight, Seneca did not advocate for the abolition of slavery. He internalized the freedom (“he is a slave to fear, I am free”), using philosophy to soften the edges of a brutal institution without dismantling it. This assuaged his conscience as a slave-owner.
Marcus Aurelius: The Burden of the Cosmos
Marcus Aurelius (121–180 AD), the Philosopher King, employed Stoicism to navigate the isolation inherent in absolute power. His Meditations are a testament to the elite’s need for a private “inner citadel” to retreat from the public performance of power.
Passages on the Hypocrisy of Court Life:
Marcus saw his culture as deeply flawed and filled with “wolves.”
This preparation is a coping mechanism. It allows the Emperor to interact with corrupt elites without losing his own composure. It reaffirms his superiority (“I know good from evil, they do not”) and protects his ego.
Rationalizing Imperial Violence:
Marcus spent much of his reign waging war against the Marcomanni. How did a philosopher justify this?
“The impediment to action advances action. What stands in the way becomes the way.” (Meditations 5.20).
“In one relation, man is the nearest creature to ourselves, so far as we must do them good... But so far as they are obstacles to my peculiar duties, man becomes something indifferent to me as much as sun or wind or injurious beast.” (Meditations 5.20).
This passage is chillingly pragmatic. It classifies human beings as “indifferent” obstacles when they oppose the Emperor’s “peculiar duties” (i.e., the state). Stoicism enabled Marcus to recognize the limits of his power (he could not make everyone good) while harnessing the empire's resources to crush obstacles, rationalized as “Nature's work.”
The Feel Good Narrative:
The above quote appeals to the elite’s desire for agency. It bypasses systemic critique in favor of individual action, allowing the ruler to feel “good” by focusing on his own conduct rather than on the structural violence of his empire.
Cato the Younger: The Conservative Bulwark
Cato (95–46 BC) represents the “Old Money” elite who used Stoicism to resist Caesar's “new money” populism. His Stoicism was not about coping with power, but defending the old order.
Passages on Corruption:
“I would not be beholden to a tyrant for his acts of tyranny.”
“If you could prevent a bad thing but do not, then you are, in effect, encouraging it.”
Class Analysis: Cato’s suicide was the ultimate refusal to compromise his status. He could not live in a world where his class (the Optimates) was subservient to a dictator. His Stoicism was rigid and uncompromising, a philosophy for an elite that prefers death to the loss of liberty (read: privilege). He recognized the contradictions of Caesar’s populism but failed to see the rot in the Republic he defended.
Musonius Rufus: The Critique of Luxury
Musonius Rufus (c. 30–100 AD) offers a glimpse into the internal policing of the elite. He preached against the pathological excess of his peers.
Passages on the Good Life:
Musonius intimates that elite culture was regarded as diseased (i.e., as destroying the soul). Stoicism was the medicine. However, this medicine was preventive. Musonius taught elites to practice poverty so they would not fear it. This “voluntary discomfort” is a hallmark of privilege—only those with a choice can play at being poor to build character.
The Epictetus Problem: Internalizing Freedom
Epictetus (c. 50–135 AD), a former slave, seems to contradict what I’ve been illustrating. However, a closer reading reveals that his philosophy often serves to pacify the oppressed by shifting the battlefield from the political to the psychological.
Passages on Slavery:
“He is a slave who wishes for something that is not in his power.”
“If you attach value to anything that isn't your own, you've delivered yourself into slavery.”
Epictetus’s teaching that a slave can be “free” if he accepts his lot is profoundly empowering for the individual but politically convenient for the master. It suggests that the “Good Life” is available within chains, negating the need to break them. This sentiment aligns with the Marxist critique that such philosophies (like religion) stabilize class structures by offering an internal resolution to external oppression.
The Enlightenment Bridge: Stoicism and the Paradox of Liberty
The influence of Stoicism on the Founding Fathers and Enlightened Despots illustrates its enduring utility for managing the dissonance between the ideals of Liberty/Reason and the reality of Slavery/Autocracy.
Frederick the Great: The Stoic on the Throne
Frederick II of Prussia modeled himself on Marcus Aurelius. He called himself the “First Servant of the State.” The Justification: Frederick used Stoicism to suppress his own artistic nature and justify the militarization of Prussia. It allowed him to reframe his absolute power not as a privilege, but as a “burden” of duty.
This burden is the ultimate “Good Life” rationalization for a monarch: “I do not rule for pleasure, but out of Stoic duty.” It sanitizes the violence of state-building.
George Washington: The Performed Stoic
Washington was not a philosopher but a consumer of Stoic aesthetics (via the play Cato).
The Dissonance of Slavery: Washington owned hundreds of slaves while fighting for freedom. Stoicism provided the equanimity to manage this contradiction.
Rationalization: In letters, he expressed a desire for abolition “by Legislative authority” (Fate/System) rather than for himself to free them. Stoicism enabled him to regard the institution as a necessary evil of his time, to be endured with dignity rather than violently overturned.
Thomas Jefferson: The Intellectual Rationalizer
Jefferson’s library was filled with Seneca. He explicitly recognized the pathology of slavery in Notes on the State of Virginia.
Passages:
Jefferson used Stoic/Epicurean withdrawal to create a Good Life at Monticello, insulated from the horrors of the fields. He intellectualized the problem, drawing on his philosophical depth to recognize the hypocrisy (“I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just”) but invoking the Stoic concept of “Fate” to defer the solution to future generations. He assuaged his dissonance by becoming the “benevolent” master, a role Seneca explicitly endorsed.
Theodore Roosevelt: The Strenuous Life
Roosevelt’s “Man in the Arena” is a modern adaptation of Stoic action.
Born into wealth and plagued by asthma, TR used the “Strenuous Life” (Stoic endurance) to prove his worthiness to rule. He despised the “idle rich” (the “fools” of Seneca) and used Stoicism to justify American imperialism as a duty to civilization—a massive rationalization of power.
Modern Neoliberal Stoicism: The “Broics” and the Hustle
In the 21st century, Stoicism has been adapted by the "new elite"—Silicon Valley entrepreneurs and knowledge workers. This “McStoicism” or “Broicism” strips away the cosmology of the Logos and focuses entirely on the “techne” of resilience and productivity.
Ryan Holiday: Stoicism as Strategy
Holiday, a former media strategist, repackaged Stoicism for the “hustle economy.”
Passages on Success:
A hustle Stoicism for the upwardly mobile. It rationalizes the stress of capitalism. If the market crashes or a startup fails, it is not a systemic failure but an opportunity for personal growth. It allows the modern elite to maintain their progress narratives even in the face of failure. It helps them feel good about their ambition.
Tim Ferriss: The Stoic Optimizer
Ferriss uses Stoicism (“fear setting”) as an algorithm for risk management.
Passages:
Ferriss promotes “voluntary discomfort” (e.g., fasting, sleeping on floors). This is a status signal. Only the wealthy have the luxury to choose discomfort. For the poor, discomfort is not a training exercise; it is life. Ferriss’s Stoicism is a tool for expanding control over one’s time and resources, employing philosophy to overcome one’s weaknesses and achieve status.
William B. Irvine: The Hedonic Stoic
Irvine’s A Guide to the Good Life reinterprets Stoicism to focus on tranquility and joy.
Passages:
“We should aim to avoid unnecessary suffering... Forgoing luxuries and pleasures is another way to practice voluntary discomfort.”
“Understanding the polycrisis is just negative visualization, man.”
All hail suburban Stoicism. It is designed to cure the ennui of the upper-middle class (Hedonic Adaptation). It assuages the dissonance of having too much by teaching the elite to want what they already have. It is a maintenance philosophy for those who have already arrived.
Donald Robertson and Massimo Pigliucci: The Therapists
Robertson links Stoicism to CBT (Cognitive Behavioral Therapy), and Pigliucci defends it against the “Broic” interpretation. Robertson’s How to Think Like a Roman Emperor focuses on resilience for leaders.
“The Stoic Sage... needs nothing but uses everything well.” Pigliucci: Explicitly argues that Stoicism should care about social justice. However, his approach is academic and intellectual, appealing to the “educated class” who have the time to debate the nuances of proëgmena.
The Soteriology of the Oppressed: Why the Poor Choose Religion
The data support a clear sociological distinction between Philosophy (Autarky) and Religion (Soteriology).
The Mechanism of Hope vs. Endurance
Feature
Elite/Stoic Approach
Internal (High Agency): I control my reaction.
Internal (High Agency): I control my reaction.
Indifferent: Suffering is a test/training.
Endurance/Resilience: Bear it and improve.
Good Life (Eudaimonia): Virtue/Tranquility.
Rationalization: The culture is flawed, but I am safe.
Underprivileged/Religious Approach
Locus of Control
External (Low Agency): God controls my fate.
Evil/Trial: Suffering is unjust/sin.
Rescue/Salvation: Deliver us from evil.
Paradise (Soteriology): Justice/Reward.
Rejection: The world is fallen; a new one is coming.
Sociological Analysis:
Elites possess “high agency” in the material world. They have resources, status, and legal protection. When they face limits (mortality, reputation), they require a philosophy to manage the psychological burden of their power. Stoicism offers this by emphasizing “internal control.”
The underprivileged possess “low agency.” They are subject to the whims of landlords, bosses, and police. A philosophy that says “it is your judgment that hurts you, not the event” can feel insulting or impossible. They require an external intervention—a Savior or a Pure Land—to rectify injustices they cannot redress themselves.
Jesus and the Buddha: Stoic Virtues in Religious Context
While Jesus and Buddha inspired the founding of religions for the masses, they exhibited the “Stoic” virtues of the elite, yet deployed them for different ends. One was presumably a humble stone mason, while the other was a Prince.
Jesus of Nazareth (The Poor Worker):
Jesus championed the poor and admonished the elite (e.g., “Woe to you who are rich”), yet his personal conduct was distinctly Stoic.
Turning the Other Cheek: “But I say, do not resist an evil person! If someone slaps you on the right cheek, offer the other cheek also.” (Matthew 5:39).
Comparison: This mirrors Marcus Aurelius’s refusal to be harmed by others’ ignorance. However, Jesus frames it as nonviolent resistance to shame the oppressor (a strategy for the disempowered), whereas the Stoics frame it as indifference (a strategy for the superior).
Gethsemane (Submission): “Father, if you are willing, remove this cup from me. Nevertheless, not my will, but yours, be done.”
Comparison: This is nearly identical to Cleanthes’ Hymn to Zeus. It is the ultimate “Stoic” act of aligning one’s will with the Universal Logos/Father.
The Buddha (The Renunciant Prince):
Shakyamuni began as an elite (like Zeno) but rejected the “Loophole of Virtue.” He did not keep his palace as a “preferred indifferent”; he walked away.
The Second Arrow: “In life, we can't always control the first arrow. However, the second arrow is our reaction to the first. The second arrow is optional.”
Comparison: This is the exact equivalent of the Stoic “Dichotomy of Control.”
Divergence: The Buddha used this realization to dismantle the Self (Anatta), seeing the ego as the source of suffering. The Stoic uses it to fortify the Self (The Inner Citadel), seeing the ego (Prohairesis) as the only thing that truly exists. The elite prefers fortification; the oppressed may prefer liberation from the self that suffers.
The Good Life as a Class Marker
Stoicism serves as a vital psychological apparatus for the privileged. From the Roman Senate to the boardrooms of Silicon Valley, Stoicism allows the powerful to:
Rationalize Privilege: Through the doctrine of “preferred indifferents,” elites like Seneca and modern billionaires can justify their accumulation of resources as compatible with virtue, provided they maintain a “detached” mental state.
Manage Dissonance: It provides a mechanism to recognize the contradictions and hypocrisy of their culture (as Marcus Aurelius did daily) without being crushed by them or compelled to dismantle the system that benefits them.
Harvest Energy: By framing obstacles as “fuel” (Ryan Holiday) and risk as “training” (Tim Ferriss), Stoicism transforms the stress of high-status competition into a narrative of personal heroism.
He who harvests and controls the most energy from everything that lives and moves is a winner and has nothing to be ashamed of. Nurture your ambition; your work creates progress.
In contrast, the less fortunate do not need to access this “Inner Citadel” because they live outside its walls and don’t have the power to scale them. They do not need to learn that the world is indifferent; they know it. They bend toward religion not out of ignorance, but out of a rational desire for a justice that the current world—and the Stoic acceptance of it—cannot provide. Stoicism teaches the elite how to remain on top of the world with a clear conscience; Religion promises the underprivileged a new world entirely.
Selected Bibliography and References
Classical Sources:
Marcus Aurelius. Meditations. (Focus on Books 2, 5, 6).
Seneca the Younger. De Vita Beata ("On the Happy Life") and Epistulae Morales (Letters 47, 87).
Epictetus. Discourses (Book 4.1 "On Freedom").
Musonius Rufus. Lectures (Lecture 20 "On Furnishings").
Cleanthes. Hymn to Zeus.
Modern Sources:
Holiday, Ryan. The Obstacle Is the Way.
Ferriss, Tim. Tools of Titans.
Irvine, William B. A Guide to the Good Life.
Robertson, Donald. How to Think Like a Roman Emperor.
Pigliucci, Massimo. How to Be a Stoic.
Sociological/Critical References:
Bourdieu, Pierre. Distinction. (Implied in the analysis of class taste/philosophy).
Nietzsche, Friedrich. Beyond Good and Evil. (Critique of Stoic self-tyranny).
Capitalist Cabinet of Curiosities: Perspectives on Capitalist Culture, Coding, and The Pathologies of Market Systems
I am still working on this. Wait a few weeks while I edit it.
I’m guessing most people hardly ever think about Neoliberal Market Capitalism. When they do, it’s simply a vaguely “informed” opinion that it’s the best of all possible sociopolitical economic systems. Do people think about sociopolitical economic systems? Not much, I guess
A preamble on my train-of-thought heuristics.
“The onus of proof lies on the man who affirms, not on the man who denies . . . on the proposition, not on the opposition.” —Anthony Flew
“It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone to believe anything on insufficient evidence.” —Clifford's Principle
It's practically impossible to predict the arrival of the cattle cars, WWIII (running around Bellingham dodging drones), whether complex, global corps will be the first to die (they will be, cause plebs and proles can't pay the rents, and complex shyte will be the first to go when the system faulters due to lack of affordable resources), and on and on.
Make money now, if you can, and invest it in face-to-face community "assets," real and abstract. People will need to be members of civic clubs again (sooner or a teeny weeny bit later).
No one currently in leadership positions today has a clue; they are all in the cult of neoliberal capitalism. Current “leadership” must be replaced.
Humans are energy parasites, the kind that kill the host. Elites use human, animal, machine, chemical, and abstract (faith in stories) energy to control and consume more energy. It's THE GREAT GAME. The Game is constrained by material, chemical, abstract, and biophysical limits. Full mo-fucking stop. Circumstances will make everyone aware of this in time. It is important to talk with people in person about these issues so they know where we are in the unfolding of our species' history and can adapt psychologically.
Apathy Around and Find Out
Faith is not independent of, or superior to, reason. The leap is just a leap.
Even though our brains aren't equipped to solve, or perhaps even to comprehend, complex mysteries/problems, we must use logic and empiricism within reasonable epistemic parameters to understand them. Jim Rutt: Minimum Viable Metaphysics.
Your personal, internal conviction is NOT a more reliable guide than an objective lab report.
Believe only things you have proof for. (It's good to use one's imagination and speculate, but...)
The Invisible Bridge
Imagine you are standing at the edge of a canyon; you look for blueprints, check the wood for rot, and test the bridge's weight capacity before stepping out onto it.
Even if you believe to the depths of your soul that there is an invisible bridge, check first before stepping off the cliff.
The Romantic Partner
Trust your friends when they point out the evidence of the 100 times your partner cheated on you and lied to you. Remember how your black eye felt and how humiliating it was to cover it up.
"I don't care about the facts; I just know in my heart he is a good person."
"Knowing" despite the facts is a form of denialism. Most people today are in denial. Understand what cognitive dissonance is.
The Unprepared vs. The "Preppers"
Core Rule
"I believe because I feel it is true."
I still feel. I am an emotional animal.
"I believe only what the evidence supports."
Living systems are real.
The Role of Reason
Believer: Reason is limited; it can even be a distraction from the truth.
Seeker: Reason is the primary tool for filtering truth from fiction. I feel. I have emotions. I imagine. I use what tools I have to seek truth, even when it’s out of reach.
Response to Mystery
Believer: Embrace it. Some things are meant to be felt, not understood. (We feel things. We don't understand everything.)
Seeker: Investigate it. If we don't have proof yet, we should withhold belief. (We still feel things. We still don't understand everything.) Jim Rutt: Minimum Viable Metaphysics.
The "Goal"
Personal transformation, spiritual peace, feeling good, belonging, or divine connection. (Good things, but we must know at some level that we live in a REAL world governed by certain PHYSICAL laws that are intrinsically vital to our vitality.)
Objective accuracy and "getting the world right." (Jim Rutt: Minimum Viable Metaphysics)
An evidentialist follows the famous maxim: "Proportion your belief to the evidence." If you tell an evidentialist there is a tiger in the room, they will look for paw prints, listen for growls, and check for the smell of fur. If they see nothing, they dismiss the claim. To them, believing something without proof is not "virtuous"—it's a mistake.
Elites want you to believe in a hell that awaits after death, and after you have experienced hell on Earth. Elites haze and troll you to condition you to accept your lot and hope that if you obey, heaven awaits. It's possible to have a healthier culture, but it's impossible to achieve one with our current culture.
Catch-22
The Recursive Dilemma (The "Bootstrap" Problem)
A type of circular dependency. In computing and philosophy, this is often called the "Bootstrapping Problem."
To reach State B (Healthier Culture), you need a tool that exists only there.
You are using the "operating system" of the current culture to install a new one, but the current system treats the new one as a virus or lacks the "drivers" to run it.
2. Path Dependency
In economics and social sciences, this is known as Path Dependency. It suggests that our current options are limited by the decisions we’ve made in the past.
Even if we know a better "path" exists, the cost or the structural inertia of our current path makes jumping to the new one feel impossible. You are "locked in" to the current cultural trajectory.
3. The Fisherian "Capitalist Realism" Trap
Named after the theorist Mark Fisher, this idea holds that it is easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of the current system.
The culture is so pervasive that it colonizes our imaginations. We can't build a healthier culture because we are trying to design it using the values, language, and logic of the unhealthy one.
4. Systems Thinking: The "Policy Resistance" Loop
In systems theory, this is called Policy Resistance.
Complex systems (like culture) have internal goals. When you try to change them from the outside, the system pushes back to maintain its current equilibrium. The harder you pull toward "healthy," the harder the current "unhealthy" system pulls back to stay stable.
Pascal’s Wager
Blaise Pascal argued that we can't prove God exists through logic alone. He said it is prudential to believe in God: If you believe and you're right, you get eternal heaven. If you're wrong, you lose nothing. Here, the belief isn't based on evidence; it’s a "prudential" bet to avoid a bad outcome (hell). Ordinary people know what's oppressing them; they know their challenges and feel their suffering.
So, what? God sent you to hell (if you weren't born lucky) to suffer trials and tribulations as a kind of test for getting into paradise?
Divine Justice Paradox or a Theodicy problem.
1. The Paradox of Moral Luck
Born Lucky. Moral Luck (a term popularized by Bernard Williams and Thomas Nagel) occurs when someone is held morally accountable for factors they cannot control.
If your "test" is harder because of your birth, and your entry to paradise depends on passing that test, your eternal fate is decided by the "luck of the draw" rather than pure merit.
2. The Problem of Divine Hiddenness (and Fairness)
If God places someone in a "hellish" environment (trials and tribulations) where the path to "paradise" is obscured by suffering, it creates a Soteriological Dilemma (the study of salvation).
If the test is rigged by the starting conditions, the "Judge" is either not all-powerful (He can’t fix the starting line) or not all-good (He chose to make the starting line uneven).
3. The "Rigged Game" (Determinism vs. Free Will)
If an omniscient God knows you will fail the trials before He sends you into them, the "test" isn't actually a test—it's a Scripted Outcome.
It becomes a Fatalistic Paradox. If God knows the outcome, the trial is a formality; if the trial is real, God must not know the outcome. You can't have a "fair" test if the proctor already filled out your Scantron for you.
4. The Euthyphro Dilemma (Modified)
This is a classic: Is something "good" because God commands it, or does God command it because it is "good"?
If God decides that "suffering through an unfair test" is the requirement for paradise, is that requirement inherently "just," or is it just "justice" because the guy with the keys said so?
It’s essentially the "Unpaid Internship" of the afterlife. You have to work in miserable conditions for no pay just for the hope of a full-time position later, but the hiring manager already decided who got the job before you even walk in.
We fell into these circumstances because we had FAITH in the bull shit religion (recently, neoliberal capitalism, see Hayek), civilization as a progress narrative where elites use people to extract energy from the world for their benefit. ***For at least 5000 years.
Again, civilization has always been parasitic.
Science and Ethics
You might buy fire insurance for your house. You don't "believe" your house will burn down based on evidence (the odds are low), but it is prudential to act as if it might, just in case. We might believe in certain moral "rules" (like "don't lie") not because they are universal laws of physics, but because it is prudential for a functioning society. If everyone lies, society collapses, which is bad for you.
Our leaders are liars, and they may or may not be aware of that. It's scary. Trump has no idea he's lying.
"Never say never" approach to the truth. It means being humble enough to admit, "I’m pretty sure this is true, but I could be wrong."
You don't need a guarantee to be right; you just need really good evidence.
You "know" that your car is parked where you left it. Could it have been stolen or towed in the last ten minutes? Yes. But until you see evidence of that, you are only speculating. You don't know what happened to your car.
"This happened because it happened." You aren't arguing with the past or with facts that you cannot change.
"I am stuck in traffic," that is a tautological statement. It is a pure fact. If you say, "I am stuck in traffic, and this is terrible and unfair," you have moved away from the simple truth and into an emotional judgment that causes suffering, bad judgment, and unoptimized choices.
"It shouldn't be raining today; I had plans!" (This is an argument with reality).
"It is raining." (Ita est). By stating the obvious, you stop fighting a battle you've already lost (the battle against the weather) and can instead decide whether to grab an umbrella or stay inside. (This thing of ours is ending.)
This shyte is broken.
If I have a few friends I can be completely honest and real with, I am fortunate and can lead a more psychologically healthy life. If I am in a decent community where people coordinate to solve important problems, I am in a healthier situation, especially if my community is full of people with sensible epistemics and ontologies.
One rule of thumb is to turn off the mainstream bull shit and read a good book instead.
Stay physically fit. (I am not consistent enough, consistancy is key.)
Animism, not BIG GODS (Abrahamic).
Curious about biophysical reality.
Advocate for and defend living systems.
This “Thing of Ours” is an omnicidal heat engine. It's metastatic cancer in the body of GAIA.
Make money now and invest it in the defense of “reality.”
Market Capitalism is a powerful feel-good machine.
In my humble opinion, Capitalism is a social/structural operating system, and a management system we must all understand if we want to mitigate the ongoing destruction of our world. Communal knowledge can lead to collective action. Hopefully. Well, you know, it requires too much effort to quell all hopefulness—it’s exhausting.
***Take your time with this post, exploring the hyperlinks and the people’s work I refer to.
After you finish poring through everything here, you’ll have a broader perspective on the subject, be able to examine the subject in new ways, and understand how “This Thing of Ours” influences our lives and how it’s unsustainable. You know, in a word.
No one can imagine exactly how the ongoing collapse of global Capitalism will proceed, what the end period will look like, or what life after dense, large-scale, fossil-fueled, modern, techno-industrial Capitalist civilization will look like.
Scale and density play significant roles in overshoot and collapse, and this time our social, political, and economic experiment is global, involving almost every community on Earth. Overshoot and collapse are impacting all of us right now.
How bad will global social unrest get in the coming years? Perhaps there’s still time to engineer/develop/encourage a kinder, gentler winding down of the machine, the “superorganism,” and to imagine and implement a transition plan towards new ways of living together.
Are we prepared to admit “This Thing of Ours” is ending, and what will we do about it?
Modern global financialized, fossil-fueled, neoliberal/neoconservative, techno-industrial, capitalist civilization has certainly been spectacular!
Ulisse Aldrovandi Collection, The Museum of Palazzo Poggi, Bologna, Italy. Università di Bologna.
The cabinets ranged in size from a dedicated piece of furniture with multiple drawers to an entire room. Drawers and shelves housed original objects acquired through long journeys to faraway places. Every object offered an opportunity to tell a story about an epic adventure or, more often, to fabricate one. Like everyone else, the wealthy liked to define their personalities through the possession of glamorous objects as tangible tokens of their intelligence, erudition, wealth, and taste. They had already understood that precious objects held power over people and that associations between luxury items and personality engraved long-lasting impressions.
All the curiosities related to “This Thing Of Ours”, whether antique or up-to-date techno-industrial artefacts, in the end, are merely junk, that is to say, waste.
I’ll jump right in with some perspectives from Capitalism’s most famous critics from the 19th Century. Communism is NOT the focus of this journey, but critical perspectives from “communists” and “socialists” can help set the stage for this broad exploration. It’s practically impossible to have a complete understanding of the subject without engaging with Mark and Engels, and the many people over many generations who have been inspired and influenced by their work. This perspective is not the main focus of this post. I’m approaching the subject from multiple angles, but you simply can’t understand controversial, complex social systems without engaging with supporters and critics and taking time to explore them with your peers.
Most folks in the Anglosphere avoid political philosophy, history, and especially anything to do with socialism or communism, as if they are demonic monsters trying to cart them off to hell. We, if you feel that way, buck up, have some courage, take a quick peak and you’ll see why people have been fighting over these ideas for centuries, and the battle won’t end until this thing of ours chokes out.
You may find that these ideas are more benign than you thought. At least you will know your enemy better.
The Art of War—Sun Tzu “If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles.”
“Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer.” —Michael Corleone in the 1974 film The Godfather Part II.
We argue to discover, knowing we can’t injure ourselves.
Overshoot will be the downfall of Capital.
Preamble
Later, I’ll talk more about what I refer to as the Overshoot, Collapse, and Limits to Growth community. Erik is one of the people I follow in this domain.
Now, what to do with this information? Don’t waste your time arguing with fools like I have done. Start opting out now. Simply learn how to opt out of the hype and instead begin Living Now.
Well, yeah, I opt in, I opt out, I do stuff like everyone else. Sometimes gain new perspectives because I’m curious.
If you want, you could stop reading this post now and read this book before you go on, it puts the whole journey in stark perspective.
The nineteenth century saw the rise of a new kind of entity: the multinational corporation, a large, centrally governed bureaucracy engaged in extracting profit from the processing of resources and labour. With it came other new institutions, like non-profit organisations, research laboratories and an expanded government bureaucracy. Electrified forms of communication, like the telegram, radio and telephone, enabled instant coordination across many miles, in turn facilitating the coordination of business and government across vast geographic areas. Contiguous parasitism had captured energy from Indigenous societies and native wild and domestic species. Disparate parasitism, meanwhile, had captured energy from Indigenous societies, imperial subjects, and both exotic wild and intensively domesticated species abroad. The new form, networked parasitism, captured energy from all these as well, but with the addition of ancient species of plant and animal in the form of fossils. This enabled concrete energy capture through increasing electrification and then the digitisation of extraction and production, and abstract energy capture from extremely large, dense populations of urban subjects. Though the foundations for this system were built in the nineteenth century, it was only in the twentieth that it came to dominate. The term that emerged to encompass the totality of this interdependent network of networks was ‘the economy’. Economist Giorgos Kallis notes that the idea that we have today about the economy as a large, interconnected system emerged at this time.[1] As parasitic relations became an interconnected global process, it made sense to understand that process, measure it and attempt to direct it with a concept like the economy. The narratives that arose in attempting to shape the present and future of human-ecological parasitism were no longer just theological, no longer just rational or secular, nor even just scientistic, but were now economistic. They focused entirely on frameworks and models measuring the exchange of resources through the systems of extraction, production, distribution and waste that crisscrossed the world. Everything – values, morals, priorities, aspirations – became about ‘the economy’ and how it was to be ordered, its spoils distributed, its mechanics governed. The ideologies that sprang up at the turn of the twentieth century are all about who gets to steer the great steamship of a new kind of parasitism, rather than, say, whether there ought to be a steamship at all.
Miller McDonald, Samuel. Progress: A History of Humanity’s Worst Idea (pp. 196-197). (Function). Kindle Edition.
Engles Was Precient
Friedrich Engels, particularly in his later works like Socialism: Utopian and Scientific and his contributions to Capital, provided a surgical analysis of the capitalist business boom-and-bust cycle (what he called "crises").
Driven by the anarchy of production, the credit system, and the relentless need for expansion—reads like a blueprint for the financial crashes of the 20th and 21st centuries. When you overlay modern ecological "overshoot" onto his framework, the "bust" shifts from a mere economic recession to a potential biophysical collapse.
The Inevitable Cycle: From Boom to Crash
In Socialism: Utopian and Scientific (1880), Engels lays out the distinct phases of the industrial cycle. He argues that these are not bugs in the system, but features of how markets and credit operate.
“As a matter of fact, since 1825, when the first general crisis broke out, the whole industrial and commercial world, production and exchange... are thrown out of joint about once every 10 years.2 Commerce is at a standstill, the markets are glutted, products accumulate, as multitudinous as they are unsaleable, hard cash disappears, credit vanishes, factories are closed, the mass of the workers are in want of the means of subsistence, because they have produced too much of the means of subsistence; bankruptcy follows upon bankruptcy, execution upon execution.”
The Parallel Today:
Engels describes a systemic seizure—“credit vanishes.” This mirrors the liquidity freezes seen in 2008. The system relies on constant velocity (money and goods moving); when the “bust” arrives, the velocity drops to zero, and the system suffocates.
The Sorcerer and the Loss of Control
One of the most vivid descriptions of capital’s uncontrollability comes from the Communist Manifesto (1848), co-authored by Marx. Nothing can stop it.
“Modern bourgeois society, with its relations of production, of exchange and of property, a society that has conjured up such gigantic means of production and of exchange, is like the sorcerer who is no longer able to control the powers of the nether world whom he has called up by his spells... It is enough to mention the commercial crises that by their periodical return put the existence of the entire bourgeois society on its trial, each time more threateningly.”
The Parallel Today:
The “sorcerer” analogy fits the modern creation of complex financial instruments (derivatives, algorithmic trading, flash trades, crypto speculation) and techno-industrial acceleration. The system has become so complex and intertwined that no central entity (Central Banks, Governments) can fully control the “powers of the nether world” once a “correction” begins.
The Absurdity of Overproduction (Overshoot)
Engels frequently pointed out the unique absurdity of capitalist crises: people starve not because of scarcity (as in a famine in feudalism), but because of overproduction. (Or in the case of the Irish Potato Famine, global trade.)
During a Biblical seven years in the middle of the nineteenth century, fully a quarter of Ireland's citizens either perished from starvation or emigrated in what came to be known as Gorta Mor, the Great Hunger. Waves of hungry peasants fled across the Atlantic to the United States, with so many dying en route that it was said, "you could walk dry shod to America on their bodies." In this sweeping history Ireland's best-known historian, Tim Pat Coogan, tackles the dark history of the Irish Famine and argues that it constituted one of the first acts of genocide. In what The Boston Globe calls "his greatest achievement," Coogan shows how the British government hid behind the smoke screen of laissez faire economics, the invocation of Divine Providence and a carefully orchestrated publicity campaign, allowing more than a million people to die agonizing deaths and driving a further million into emigration. Unflinching in depicting the evidence, Coogan presents a vivid and horrifying picture of a catastrophe that that shook the nineteenth century and finally calls to account those responsible.
“In these crises, a great part not only of the existing products, but also of the previously created productive forces, are periodically destroyed... In these crises, there breaks out an epidemic that, in all earlier epochs, would have seemed an absurdity — the epidemic of over-production.”
The Parallel Today:
In Engels’ time, this “destruction of productive forces” meant factories closing and inventory rotting. Today, this destruction affects human habitat and is responsible for ecocide. The accelerant of fossil-fueled capitalism, markets, demands we produce too much to keep the system solvent, destroying the biosphere in the process. A propagandised sense of scarcity is weaponized to fuel growth.
The Illusion of Credit and Expansion
Engels argued that the system tries to solve these crises by expanding into new markets—a temporary fix that only sets the stage for a bigger crash later.
“The extension of the markets cannot keep pace with the extension of production. The collision becomes inevitable... Capitalist production has begotten another vicious circle.”
“And how does the bourgeoisie get over these crises? On the one hand, by enforced destruction of a mass of productive forces; on the other, by the conquest of new markets, and by the more thorough exploitation of the old ones. That is to say, by paving the way for more extensive and more destructive crises, and by diminishing the means whereby crises are prevented.”
The Parallel Today:
This is the can-kicking mechanism. We use debt (credit) to pull future consumption into the present. When we run out of “new markets” (historically, colonies; today, perhaps the financialization of every aspect of life), the system hits a hard wall. When the market is the planet's physical resources, the conquest of new markets eventually hits the limit of physics.
Summary of the Mechanism
Engels views the trajectory as follows:
Expansion: Credit fuels massive production and technological speed.
Glut: The market cannot absorb the output (or the debt service becomes too high).
Crisis: The Sorcerer loses control; credit vanishes; value is destroyed.
Reset (or Collapse): The system cannibalizes itself to restart.
If the “stage” for this cycle is a finite planet, the “Reset” phase might not be a restart of the economy, but a collapse of the habitat required to sustain it.
Marx and Ecology
Marx was deeply concerned with ecology, though he used the language of his time (chemistry and metabolism) rather than modern environmental terminology.
Karl Marx’s Ecosocialism Capitalism, Nature and the Unfinished Critique of Political Economy by Kohei Saito New York: Monthly Review Press, 2017. Marx in the Anthropocene Towards the Idea of Degrowth Communism by Kohei Saito Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2022. El capital en la era del antropoceno by Kohei Saito, translated by Víctor Illera Kanaya, Barcelona: Sine Qua Non, 2022.
Kohei Saito has become an essential voice in the debates about Marxism and ecosocialism. His books deal with four key issues: the relation between capitalism and nature; the relation between ecology and socialism; the agents and means of attaining ecosocialism (or degrowth communism); and the evolution of Marx’s views regarding these issues.
Regarding the first question, Saito argues that capitalism, driven by the incessant pursuit of private profit, is incapable of relating to nature responsibly and rationally. It inevitably alters the latter to the point of endangering the survival of many species, including our own.
The climate crisis is the most pressing example of this. But many other instances could be added. In that sense, the Green New Deal, to the extent that it envisages a green capitalism, is insufficient. Nothing short of the abolition of capitalism can adequately address the climate emergency.
In fact, the concept of “The Metabolic Rift” (Stoffwechsel) is central to his later critique of political economy. Marx argued that Labor is the “metabolic interaction” between humans and the earth. He observed that capitalist production breaks this cycle, taking from the soil but failing to return nutrients to it, thereby destroying the “eternal natural condition” of human existence.
Marx explicitly anticipated ecological “overshoot” and the destruction of the human habitat.
The “Metabolic Rift” and Soil Exhaustion
In Capital, Volume 1, Marx analyzes how industrial agriculture mirrors industrial manufacturing: both exploit their respective sources of wealth (the soil and the worker) to the point of collapse. This is the 19th-century equivalent of modern ecological overshoot.
“Capitalist production... disturbs the metabolic interaction between man and the earth, i.e., it prevents the return to the soil of its constituent elements consumed by man in the form of food and clothing; hence it hinders the operation of the eternal natural condition for the lasting fertility of the soil...
All progress in capitalist agriculture is a progress in the art, not only of robbing the worker, but of robbing the soil; all progress in increasing the fertility of the soil for a given time is a progress towards ruining the more long-lasting sources of that fertility... Capitalist production, therefore, only develops the techniques and the degree of combination of the social process of production by simultaneously undermining the original sources of all wealth—the soil and the worker.”
— Capital, Volume 1 (Chapter on Machinery and Large-Scale Industry)
The “Inorganic Body” of Man
In his earlier writings (Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844), Marx defines nature not as an external resource to be exploited, but as a physical extension of the human being. Destroying nature is, in his view, a form of self-mutilation.
“Nature is man’s inorganic body—nature, that is, insofar as it is not itself the human body. Man lives on nature—means that nature is his body, with which he must remain in continuous interchange if he is not to die. That man’s physical and spiritual life is linked to nature means simply that nature is linked to itself, for man is a part of nature.”
— Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844
The Irreparable Rift
In Capital, Volume 3, Marx expands on how the short-term profit motive of the market makes rational forestry or agriculture impossible. The “spirit” of capitalism (quick returns) is physically incompatible with nature’s slow cycles.
“The development of civilization and industry in general has always shown itself so active in the destruction of forests that everything that has been done for their conservation and production is completely insignificant in comparison.”
— Capital, Volume 2
“Large landed property reduces the agricultural population to a constantly falling minimum and confronts it with a constantly growing industrial population crowded together in large cities; in this way it produces conditions that provoke an irreparable rift in the interdependent process of social metabolism, a metabolism prescribed by the natural laws of life itself.”
— Capital, Volume 3
The Illusion of Independence from Nature
Marx critiqued the capitalist tendency to treat nature as a “free gift” or an infinite sink. In the Grundrisse, he notes that while capitalism strives to overcome natural barriers, it merely transfers the contradiction to a deeper, more dangerous level.
“It is not the unity of living and active humanity with the natural, inorganic conditions of their metabolic exchange with nature, and hence their appropriation of nature, which requires explanation or is the result of a historic process, but rather the separation between these inorganic conditions of human existence and this active existence, a separation which is completely posited only in the relation of wage labour and capital.”
— Grundrisse (1857-1858)
Summary of the Ecological Argument
Marx’s view was that Labor is the process by which humans regulate their metabolism with nature.
Pre-Capitalist Societies: Returned waste to the soil (circular metabolism).
Capitalism: Extracts resources, sends them to cities, and turns them into filth/pollution (linear metabolism).
Result: The soil dies (overshoot), and the living systems choke (habitat destruction).
He essentially predicted that a system based on infinite accumulation cannot coexist with a finite “metabolism” of the earth.
It’s the OVERSHOOT, stupid.
Let’s look at modern fossil-fuel and mineral dependency, drawing primarily on the work of contemporary ecological Marxists like Andreas Malm (Fossil Capital), John Bellamy Foster (The Metabolic Rift), and Kohei Saito (Marx in the Anthropocene).
Modern theorists argue that the “bust” is distinct from financial recessions because it involves ruptures on geological time scales rather than just economic cycles.
Fossil Capital: Energy as a Weapon Against Labor
Andreas Malm’s analysis of Marx argues that the transition to fossil fuels (steam) in the 19th Century was not inevitable due to efficiency, but chosen for political control. This explains why the system struggles to “stop” using them today.
The 19th-Century Context: In the 1830s, water power was cheaper and more abundant than coal-fired steam power. However, water wheels were fixed in place (rivers), meaning capitalists had to build housing for workers in remote areas. These workers were hard to replace if they went on strike.
The Shift to Steam: Steam engines allowed factories to move into cities. Even though coal was expensive, the city provided a “reserve army of labor” (desperate unemployed people). If workers struck, they could be easily replaced.
The Modern Parallel: We are not addicted to oil just because it is energy-dense, but because it allows Capital to be mobile and independent of local ecological limits. To stop using fossil fuels requires a return to “flow” energy (wind/solar), which relies on specific geographies and intermittent cycles—imposing a “discipline” on production that capitalism rejects.
The “Metabolic Rift” Expanded: From Soil to Atmosphere
John Bellamy Foster’s analysis extends Marx’s "Metabolic Rift" from the soil nutrient cycle to the global Carbon Cycle.
Marx’s View: The “rift” was a break in the cycle of soil nutrients. Crops took nitrogen from the countryside, were eaten in the city, and the waste ended up in the river (pollution) rather than returning to the soil.
Modern Analysis: The fossil fuel economy creates a rift in the carbon cycle. We take carbon stored in the earth's “inorganic body” (underground) and transfer it to the atmosphere.
The “Overshoot”: In the 19th Century, the “fix” was to raid guano deposits in Peru to fertilize exhausted English soil (imperialism). Today, there is no “guano” for the atmosphere. The “rift” has become a planetary boundary that cannot be fixed by importing resources from elsewhere, because the boundary is the planet itself.
The “Free Gift” and Mineral Exhaustion
Marx critiqued the classical economic view (Adam Smith/David Ricardo) that nature is a “free gift” to Capital. This concept explains the modern depletion of critical minerals (lithium, cobalt, copper).
The Mechanism: Under capitalism, the “value” of a commodity is determined only by the socially necessary labor time required to extract it. The nature of the material itself (its millions of years of geological formation) is priced at zero.
The Consequence: Because the “stock” of minerals is not priced, the market treats it as infinite. We extract the “low-hanging fruit” (high-grade ore) first. As we hit “overshoot,” we must use exponentially more energy to extract lower-grade ores.
The Modern Trap: This leads to what ecological economists call “Energy Return on Investment” (EROI) collapse. We burn more fossil fuels to obtain the minerals needed to build the machines that extract those fuels. Marx called this the “robbing of the earth,” noting that it “undermines the original sources of all wealth.”
“The Annihilation of Space by Time.”
Marx described Capital’s drive to “annihilate space by time”—to reduce the turnover time of Capital to near zero.
Acceleration: To maintain profit rates, the system must produce, sell, and consume faster every year.
The Conflict: Nature operates on biological and geological time (slow cycles of forest growth, carbon sequestration, aquifer refilling). Capital operates on market time (quarterly returns).
The Crash: As you noted, the “bust” is inevitable because these two clocks are incompatible. The financial system demands infinite acceleration (compound interest), while the physical habitat demands a slowing down to allow for repair.
Summary
The accelerant is structurally embedded in the system’s DNA.
Labor vs. Nature: The system uses fossil fuels to emancipate itself from nature’s limits (seasons, geography), creating a false sense of independence.
Valuation: By valuing nature at zero, the system is blind to the destruction of its own foundation until the collapse occurs.
Inability to Stop: Because the energy source (fossil capital) was selected to ensure dominance over Labor, removing it threatens the social hierarchy itself.
“Burning their way to the end.”
How to Blow Up a Pipeline (p. 8), summarizing the logic laid out in Fossil Capital.
“The commitment to the endless accumulation of capital wins out every time. After the past three decades, there can be no doubt that the ruling classes are constitutionally incapable of responding to the catastrophe in any other way than by expediting it; of their own accord, under their inner compulsion, they can do nothing but burn their way to the end.”
The “Bellows” Metaphor (from Fossil Capital)
In Fossil Capital, Malm uses this vivid image to explain why the system cannot stop itself. He describes capitalism and fossil fuels as two handles of a bellows fanning a fire that will consume them.
“Picture a pair of bellows. If one of the handles is the ceaseless growth that defines capitalism, the other is made up of coal and oil and gas; out of the nozzle comes a blast of CO2 that fans the flames of the fire of global warming. The more growth you have, the more forceful the push will be, and the stronger the blast...
Capitalism sored a peculiar formation... the fossil economy, most simply defined as an economy of self-sustaining growth predicated on the consumption of fossil fuels, and therefore generating a sustained growth in CO2 emissions.”
The “Emergency Brake” (The Bridge Analogy)
Malm frequently references Walter Benjamin’s metaphor, which is the inverse of “burning the bridge.” Instead of a bridge, it’s a runaway train.
“Marx says that revolutions are the locomotive of world history. But perhaps it is quite otherwise. Perhaps revolutions are an attempt by the passengers on this train—namely, the human race—to activate the emergency brake.”
The “Burning Bridge” Concept in Theory
While the exact phrase “burning the bridge” is a common idiom, Malm’s theoretical term for this is “The destruction of the conditions of production.”
The Bridge: The biosphere (stable climate, soil, water).
The Burning: The accumulation of Capital.
The Trap: To keep the economy (the fire) going, we must consume the biosphere (the bridge). If we stop burning, the economy collapses (the bust). If we keep burning, the bridge collapses (the end of the habitat).
Malm argues we are now at the point where the fire is consuming the floorboards we are standing on, yet the “inner compulsion” of the market forces us to throw more wood on the fire.
Indeed, The Downfall of Capital is Overshoot
The central tension of modern political philosophy: the gap between the diagnostic power of Marxist theory and the empirical reality of the last 170 years doesn’t bode well for a workers’ revolution. Modern Techo-Industrial Civilization is a beast with inertia and a big appetite that people are addicted to serving. There may arise isolated communities within the framework of existing States that try to develop novel, local political economies within the many constraints of cultish beliefs, willful ignorance, fear, overshoot, and the polycrisis/metacrisis.
Most people have no interest in volumes like Capital, political philosophy, or social theory. Folks are well-conditioned consumers who want to get paid.
The Diagnostic Brilliance vs. The Prognostic Failure
Marx and Engels remain indispensable for diagnosing the structural mechanics of capitalism. Their observations on the accumulation of Capital, the commodification of Labor, and the tendency of markets to concentrate wealth are as rigorously relevant today as they were in 1848. (Marx wasn’t a Marxist, and he wasn’t trying to create a new cybernetic system. Cybernetic Systems Theory, rooted in the broader field of Cybernetics, was formally established in 1948 with Norbert Wiener's book, Cybernetics: Or Control and Communication in the Animal and the Machine, defining it as the study of control and communication in systems, though key ideas emerged from interdisciplinary work in the 1940s, including early neural network models (1943) and Macy conferences (mid-1940s). Marx, as you may know, was philosophising in the 19th Century. Contemporary philosophers influenced by elements of Marx Theory have varied approaches with widely differing aims.
Marx's theory, or Marxism, is a socioeconomic and political framework analyzing capitalism, predicting class struggle between the owners (bourgeoisie) and workers (proletariat) due to exploitation, and envisioning a revolutionary transition to a classless, communist society with communal ownership of production, based on ideas of historical materialism, surplus value, and alienation. We must keep things in context.
However, their prognostications—the “inevitabilities”—failed to materialize.
The Missing Revolution: The core Marxist prediction was that the proletariat would develop a unified class consciousness as their conditions worsened. Instead, the working class in the developed world became fragmented. By exporting misery to the Global South and creating a domestic middle class, capitalism managed to buy off the revolutionary potential of Western workers.
The Soviet Failure: The Soviet experiment proved that removing the capitalist class does not automatically remove exploitation, alienation, or, more importantly, authoritarianism. It replaced the “anarchy of the market” with the rigidity of the state bureaucracy, often leading to distinct forms of tyranny rather than liberation. The hope for a “dictatorship of the proletariat” that would wither away into a stateless utopia is now widely regarded as a fantasy.
Marxism is a lens, not a blueprint. It explains why the engine is overheating, but it provided a faulty manual for building a new engine.
We’d need to evolve into a different kind of H. sapien to develop an alternative way of living. From what culture do new ways of living spring?
Marx’s Blind Spots: Asia and Women
Marx’s cultural narrowness is historically well-founded. While a genius of political economy, Marx was a man of his time—a Victorian European—and his framework struggled to encompass the non-European world and the domestic sphere.
The “Asiatic Mode of Production” and Eurocentrism
Marx often viewed history through a unilinear, Eurocentric lens. He struggled to fit India and China into his standard progression of “feudalism to capitalism.”
Today, we in the Anglosphere still feel superior to people in the East and Global South, hence our anger that the Chinese are now highly competitive with the West, and our feeling that the only way to continue “this thing of ours” is to destroy China.
Stagnation vs. Progress: He famously described Asian societies as caught in a stasis, or “vegetative existence,” requiring the “shock” of European colonialism to wake them up and drag them into “history.”
Colonial Apologetics: In his writings on British rule in India, Marx inadvertently sounded like a colonial apologist, suggesting that while British imperialism was brutal, it was historically “necessary” to smash the old Asiatic structures and lay the material foundations for Western-style capitalism (and eventual socialism). He underestimated the resilience and dynamism of indigenous Asian economic systems.
His sentiments proved true: by championing globalization and global financialized capital flows, the West transferred money, technology, and knowledge to China for quick profits and to tap into a large new market, thereby hastening China’s competitive Capitalism with Socialist Characteristics.
***When Players are outplayed, pleps and proles pay the price.
The Invisible Labor of Women
While Friedrich Engels attempted to address gender in The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State, Marx’s core economic theory, Capital, largely sidelined women.
Production vs. Reproduction: Marx focused intensely on the factory floor (production) but largely ignored the kitchen and the nursery (reproduction). He treated the reproduction of the labor force—the birthing, feeding, and raising of workers—as a natural background process rather than an integral part of the capitalist economy.
The Patriarchal Oversight: By focusing on the waged male worker as the protagonist of history, Marx failed to see that capitalism was built not just on the exploitation of factory labor, but on the appropriation of women’s unpaid domestic Labor. Modern feminist Marxists (like Silvia Federici) argue that you cannot understand capitalism without understanding the subjugation of women.
We are witnessing a new surge of interpersonal and institutional violence against women, including new witch hunts. This surge of violence has occurred alongside an expansion of capitalist social relation. In this new work that revisits some of the main themes of Caliban and the Witch, examines the root causes of these developments and outlines the consequences for the women affected and their communities. She argues that, no less than the witch hunts in sixteenth and seventeenth century Europe and the New World, this new war on women is a structural element of the new forms of capitalist accumulation. These processes are founded on the destruction of people's most basic means of reproduction. Like at the dawn of capitalism, what we discover behind today's violence against women are processes of enclosure, land dispossession, and the remoulding of women’s reproductive activities and subjectivity. As well as an investigation into the causes of this new violence, the book is also a feminist call to arms. Federici's work provides new ways of understanding the methods in which women are resisting victimisation and offers a powerful reminder that reconstructing the memory of the past is crucial for the struggles of the present.
The Unexpected Robustness of Capitalism
The most significant surprise for a time-traveling 19th-century Marxist would be the sheer adaptability of the capitalist system. It did not collapse under the weight of its own contradictions; it evolved.
Technological Integration: Marx saw machinery as a means to displace labor, but capitalism used science, technology, engineering, and R&D to create entirely new industries, absorbing labor in ways he didn’t foresee (e.g., the service economy, the information age).
The Reformist Valve: Under pressure from unions and amid the fear of revolution, the capitalist state adopted technocratic management and welfare systems. Universal education, rising real wages (up until the 1970s), and the democratization of luxury (material comforts), entertainments, spectacles, and year-round access to global food stock stabilized the system.
Innovation as Survival: The system’s emphasis on competition drove a relentless improvement in material living standards for the core economies. The “immiseration of the proletariat” did not happen in absolute terms in the West; instead, the worker became a consumer, deeply integrated into the system they were supposed to overthrow.
The immiseration was reserved for the Global South and so-called developing countries. Unfortunately, it’s been coming to a suburb near you recently.
The Myth of Catastrophic Enlightenment
The most chilling part, for me, is my skepticism regarding catastrophe as a catalyst. There is a romantic notion in revolutionary thought that when things get bad enough, people will wake up and join hands. History suggests the opposite. It’s hard enough to get people in one’s own community to work on a project together under current stresses.
The Paralysis of the Polycrisis:
Retrenchment, not Revolution: When faced with acute crises (economic collapse, pandemic, artificial or absolute scarcity), human societies often do not expand their circle of empathy; they shrink it. We see a retreat into nationalism, tribalism, and fascism—a desire for a strongman to “restore order”—rather than a collaborative leap into a new system. We convince ourselves that all we need is some old-time religion.
Normalization of Horror: We are currently living through ongoing social unrest, genocides, ecocides, and global heating. The human capacity to normalize the horrific is boundless. We adapt to the degradation of our world rather than rebelling against it.
The Lack of a Next Generation: The hope that the next generation will inherently possess the “wisdom” to fix this is a perilous gamble. Children raised in crisis often learn survival, not sustainability. Trauma does not necessarily beget enlightenment; it frequently begets defensiveness and tragic forms of psychological pathologies.
From what culture do enlightened revolutionaries spring?
Summary
The tragedy of the Marxist legacy is that while the critique of the disease (capitalism) remains analytically exemplary, the prescription for the cure (proletarian revolution) has expired.
We are left in an interregnum: The old world of robust, technocratic capitalism is arguably dying under the weight of ecological limits and inequality, but the new world—a collaborative, sustainable system—struggles to be born. Today’s catastrophes are more likely to lead to a fragmented, fortified neo-feudalism than a global socialist awakening.
Here is a good place to reflect on “Conspicuous Consumption. And just in case you thought financialization and Zero to One were relatively new, check out what Thorstein has to say about it, way back in the 19th Century.
The Scurge of the Super Rich
For at least the past 10 years, Oxfam has produced a report on global inequality. As a global NGO, we work together across all the countries where we are based to highlight and make a big noise about how inequality and poverty are interlinked.
In January 2026, during the World Economic Forum in Davos, we released our paper ‘Resisting the Rule of the Rich. Protecting freedom from billionaire power.
The 2026 paper focuses on how the super-rich use their extreme wealth to buy politics, media, and justice to defend their own fortunes, dismantle and destroy progressive policies, and strip away our basic civil and political rights.
Globally, billionaire wealth rose by more than 16% in 2025, reaching a record $18.3 trillion. This growth was three times faster than the average annual increase over the previous five years. And since 2020, billionaire wealth has grown by 81%.
In the UK, the richest 56 people now hold more wealth than 27 million combined – highlighting just how concentrated wealth is.
These stats, whilst still shocking, are simply an update from previous years. We know it’s getting worse – so what’s new? This year, we talk about how people with extreme wealth are buying politics to shape the world in their own benefit, leaving everyone else to cope with less and less.
Oxfam's Global Inequality Report
This interregnum: the old revolutionary models have failed, yet the current capitalist system is driving the polycrisis. Modern theorists are attempting to break this paralysis by diagnosing why we are stuck and proposing frameworks that respect planetary boundaries.
The Ecological Corrective: Post-Growth and Degrowth
Modern Degrowth theorists (like Jason Hickel, Giorgos Kallis, and Tim Jackson) argue that this strength has become a cancer. I mention them now because I don’t mention them later, but I think they add a lot to what we’re exploring here.
The Decoupling Myth: Mainstream “Green Growth” relies on the idea that we can decouple GDP growth from resource use (make more money while burning less carbon). Hickel argues this is empirically impossible at the speed required to stop climate breakdown.
The “Doughnut” Model: Economist Kate Raworth proposes a visual framework that replaces the line of “infinite growth” with a circle.
The Inner Ring: The social foundation (food, water, housing, gender equality—addressing the blind spots you noted).
The Outer Ring: The ecological ceiling (climate change, biodiversity loss).
The Sweet Spot: The goal is not “growth” but “balance” within the doughnut.
Reframing “Robustness”: These theorists argue that robustness (efficiency, accumulation) creates fragility in natural systems. A “post-growth” economy prioritizes redundancy, care, and resilience over efficiency and profit.
Repairing Marx: Kohei Saito and the Metabolic Rift
Recent scholarship is attempting to “rescue” Marx from his own 19th-century limitations. The Japanese philosopher Kohei Saito (Marx in the Anthropocene) is central here.
The “Epistemological Break”: Saito analyzed Marx’s unpublished notebooks from late in his life (after Capital Vol. 1). He found that Marx actually abandoned his earlier Eurocentric and Promethean (pro-technology/pro-growth) views.
The Metabolic Rift: Saito argues that the mature Marx became obsessed with the “metabolic rift”—the idea that capitalism breaks the natural cycle of soil and earth. Marx began studying geology and indigenous communal societies, realizing that the “Asiatic” or indigenous modes of living were not “backward” but sustainable models of “communal wealth.”
Degrowth Communism: Saito proposes that if Marx were alive today, he would not be a Soviet-style industrialist, but a “degrowth communist.” He argues we must seize the means of production not to increase output (as the Soviets tried), but to slow it down and distribute wealth equitably without destroying the biosphere.
Technocratic Utopianism: Post-Scarcity
On the opposite end of the spectrum from Degrowth are the Left Accelerationists (like Nick Srnicek and Alex Williams).
Embracing the Robustness: They agree with you that capitalism’s engine (technology, logistics, R&D) is powerful. They argue we shouldn’t smash the machines (primitivism) but repurpose them.
Fully Automated Luxury Communism: They argue that we should automate as much labor as possible to liberate people from drudgery. The goal is to detach the technocratic management from the profit motive.
The Critique: Critics argue this relies on the same fantasy of infinite energy and resources that created the polycrisis in the first place.
Summary of the Modern Pivot
The debate is no longer Capitalism vs. Soviet Socialism. It has shifted to:
Capitalist Realism: We continue as is, managing catastrophes through authoritarianism and technology (the default path).
Degrowth/Doughnut: We consciously contract our material throughput to save the biosphere, prioritizing public abundance over private luxury.
Eco-Socialism: We use a revised Marxist framework to manage the “metabolism” between humanity and nature democratically.
The crux of the problem. To an observer trapped inside Capitalist Realism, the concept of Degrowth looks indistinguishable from a catastrophic economic depression.
Because our current system requires constant expansion to maintain stability (to pay interest on debts, to employ the population, to fund pensions), imagining a “non-growing” economy feels like imagining a plane that stops flying in mid-air.
How would a Post-Growth economy actually function mechanically, and what psychological barriers prevent us from accepting it?
The Mechanics: How an Economy Functions Without Growth
Degrowth is not less of the same (a recession); it is a transition to a completely different operating system. It moves from an economy based on Efficiency and Accumulation to one based on Sufficiency and Regeneration.
Here is the theoretical blueprint for how the machinery works when the Growth button is turned off:
Decoupling Employment from Growth (The 4-Day Week)
In capitalism, we rely on growth to create new jobs to absorb populations and displaced workers. If growth stops, unemployment usually spikes.
Instead of firing 20% of the workforce when demand stabilizes, you reduce everyone’s working hours by 20% while maintaining a living wage. This redistributes the available work. We trade the material accumulation of the 20th century for time abundance in the 21st. Technological gains (automation) are directed toward liberating time rather than increasing corporate profit.
De-commodification: Universal Basic Services (UBS)
In a Degrowth scenario, aggregate GDP might shrink, meaning lower cash wages for some.
You reduce the need for a high cash wage by making the most expensive parts of life—housing, transport, healthcare, internet, and education—free or heavily subsidized public goods. This is “Public Luxury, Private Sufficiency.” You might have less disposable income for plastic trinkets, but you have zero anxiety about rent or medical bills. This breaks the coercive cycle of labor where people work bullshit jobs to survive.
Shifting from “Exchange Value” to “Use Value”
Currently, R&D and engineering are directed toward things that sell (planned obsolescence, fast fashion, ad-tech).
Engineering focuses on modularity and repairability. A washing machine is designed to last 50 years, not 5. This is bad for GDP (fewer sales), but excellent for the planet and human welfare. The economy moves from a “throughput” model (take-make-waste) to a circular model.
The End of Debt-Based Money
Our current money is created as debt; it bears interest, which mathematically mandates growth (to pay back the interest).
Theorists argue for cancelling crushing debts (especially in the Global South) and shifting to sovereign money creation spent directly into existence by the state for social goals, rather than lent into existence by private banks for profit.
The Psychological Barrier: Breaking “Capitalist Realism”
If the mechanics above are technically feasible (and many economists argue they are), why does the catastrophe of the polycrisis/metacrisis not drive us toward them? This brings us back to Mark Fisher’s Capitalist Realism.
The Privatization of Stress (Reflexive Impotence)
We know things are bad, but we feel structurally incapable of changing them.
The system has successfully offloaded systemic failures onto individuals. If you are poor, it’s a lack of “upskilling.” If you are anxious about the climate, you have “eco-anxiety” and need therapy. This blocks the collaborative impulse. Instead of forming unions or collectives, we retreat into self-help, meditation apps, and personal resilience strategies. We are too busy surviving capitalism to dismantle it.
The Colonization of the Imagination
A revolution is just a fantasy and historically rarely works out in the long term. Capitalist Realism goes further: it erases the very memory that other ways of living are possible.
Fisher described a “slow cancellation of the future.” (More on this later.) We are culturally stuck recycling the 20th century (reboots, nostalgia). We can’t imagine a new socio-economic future because we haven’t even invented a new musical genre in 20 years.
Capitalist Realism weaponizes the Soviet failure. Any attempt to manage the economy collectively is immediately framed as a slide toward the Gulag. This shuts down nuanced debate about democratic planning vs. authoritarianism.
The Addiction to “More”
This is the hardest pill to swallow. Material comforts—air travel, endless meat, next-day delivery—provide neurohormone cocktails that pacify the population.
Degrowth asks people to give up “convenience” for “agency.” But modern citizens have been trained to prefer convenience. We may hate the system, but we love the treats it provides. Breaking this addiction requires a cultural shift that mere catastrophe might not trigger; catastrophe often makes us hoard more treats.
This Way Out
The impasse is that Degrowth offers the only biological chance of long-term survival, but Capitalist Realism makes it psychologically impossible to implement.
The only way to break the Realism is to stop framing Degrowth as “giving things up” (austerity) and frame it as “getting things back.”
Not Less Stuff, but Less Fear.
Not Lower Wages, but More Time.
Not Less Innovation, but Better Problems (solving climate change rather than optimizing ad clicks).
Does this sound like a Davos Crowd conspiracy to you? If so, then you have been well trained. Relax, go to the game, do a bump in the bathroom (movie trope), and chant USA! USA! USA!
One alternative approach, or “train of thought.”
Good gosh, Peter Joseph doesn’t like Marxist analysis; he seems to think it’s useless. He has developed a cybernetic approach to creating a completely new way of managing sociopolitical and economic affairs, he calls INTEGRAL COLLECTIVE. How novel is it, and can it get traction? You be the judge.
I am pretty sure that Peter is not well-read in the above-considered domains, but then who is, and is it necessary?
I think that it’s these kinds of projects are unlikely to catch on in our current atmosphere of overshoot, collapse, and limits to growth. There are so many stressors limiting our ability to think in novel ways, much less build new cultures. Power across the globe won’t let it happen, they will weaponize INTEGRAL just as they have Socialism and all other “alternative” ways of managing things.
From what culture does a complete divorse from market capitalism arise? Do young people have time for culture building? I have no doubt that after this thing of ours selve distructs, people will be forced to culture build. Perhaps the most some of us can do is help create pathways to develop the imagination, intelligence and skills required to do better next time.
I’ll explore his proposal later, but for now, watch this video noting his vehement critiques of Socialism and Mark Theory. In my view some of his judgments in the beginning of the video fail in precisly the same way he suggests Socialists fail, in mistaking models, theoretical approaches, and trains of thought for something that exists or has existed and therefore ought to be payed attention to. He mistakes the method of analysis with an existing opperating system. Granted, he’s trying to collaboratively build one, but so are many others. He believes his cybernetic social system can work, and seems to have developed some project management or logistics software tailored to his sociopolitical economic system. I’m not sure how novel his code could be, but hopefully we’ll find out. I am sympathetic to his rhetoric concerning markets.
If you can’t stand the guy, don’t tune out, he’s here as an example of people doing stuff. People have always tried to improve things. We may be in a predicament, but that won’t stop people from doing stuff.
Introductions, Perspectives & Areas of Inquiry
Living Systems
Deep Time
Histories
Contexts
Ontologies
Epistemologies
Biophysical Reality (as far as we know it now)
All Scientific Domains
The Humanities (human culture, experience, and expression)
Relational, Interconnectedness, Integratedness
Changes & Cycles
Existentialism (individual freedom, responsibility, and the search for meaning in a world without inherent purpose)
Absolute Idealism (ultimate Reality is a single, unified, rational/meaningful, and spiritual whole)
A Core Assumption
Living Bodies Die.
What is Life?
Life is a complex, self-sustaining process defined by characteristics such as organization, metabolism, growth, adaptation, responsiveness to stimuli, and reproduction, involving highly organized systems (cells) that use energy to maintain order and evolve. However, its ultimate meaning remains a profound philosophical question. Biologically, it’s about processes like homeostasis, growth, and reproduction, while philosophically, it involves existence, consciousness, and finding purpose.
Biological Characteristics
Organization: Made of cells, with complex, coordinated parts (atoms to organs).
Energy Use: Metabolizes, consumes, and uses energy (like sunlight) to grow and function.
Growth & Reproduction: Increases in size and creates new individuals
Adaptation & Response: Responds to external stimuli and evolves over time.
Homeostasis: Maintains a stable internal environment.
Mammalian Life
All mammals are complex, multicellular organisms composed of specialized cells, the basic units of life.
Mammals take in and process energy (food) to perform essential functions, such as growth, movement, and maintenance of their complex structures. They exhibit anabolism (the synthesis of organic matter) and catabolism (the breakdown of organic matter).
Mammals (warm-blooded) regulate their internal environment to maintain stable, optimal conditions (e.g., constant body temperature, blood pressure, pH levels), regardless of external changes.
Mammals sense and react to changes in their internal or external environment, such as pulling a hand away from a hot surface or pupils contracting in bright light.
Mammals grow and mature throughout a life cycle (birth, growth, reproduction, death) according to specific instructions encoded in their genes.
Mammals can produce new individuals, typically through sexual reproduction, passing on genetic material (DNA) to their offspring and ensuring the continuation of the species.
Populations of mammals adapt to their environments over time through natural selection and evolution.
Beyond these general characteristics of life, mammals have specific diagnostic features that distinguish them as a class of animals, such as fur or hair, a neocortex in the brain, three middle-ear bones, and, in females, milk-producing mammary glands to nourish their young.
Homo sapiens are mammals.
While some non-living things may exhibit one or two of these properties (e.g., a fire grows and processes energy), only living organisms demonstrate all of them together.
One can think of GAIA or Earth as a living body composed of many complex, evolving, and emerging living systems.
Look at this video; it was patterned using AI. The generated character looks and sounds remarkably like Richard Feynman. Imagine if videos like this could be made with you as the character, accurately representing you and your wisdom for your great, great grandchildren. Wouldn’t that be something? I’d love to have a video like the one my great-grandmother made, telling stories about her life.
The information in that video is scientifically accurate.
I vetted the information in the video using Google, various websites, and an LLM research librarian, Gemini.
The video presents some mind-bending statistics about human biology. They sound impossible, but they are based on well-established biochemistry.
Here is a breakdown of the specific claims in the video, and the science that backs them up:
1. “You are made of 7 billion billion billion atoms.”
This number is 7 \times 10^{27} (7 octillion)
7,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
A 70 kg (154 lb) human body is composed mostly of small atoms like Hydrogen, Oxygen, and Carbon.
Because these atoms are so incredibly tiny, you need a massive number of them to build a person.
Calculation: If you take the molar mass of the elements in the body and apply Avogadro’s constant (6.022 \times 10^{23} atoms per mole), you arrive at roughly 7 \times 10^{27} atoms.
Molar mass is the mass of one mole (about 6.022 x 10²³ particles) of a substance, expressed in grams per mole (g/mol). It’s found by summing the atomic masses (from the periodic table) of all atoms in a compound, with elements having their atomic mass numerically converted to g/mol (e.g., Carbon is 12.01 amu to 12.01 g/mol). This fundamental concept links the microscopic world of atoms to macroscopic lab measurements.
2. “Your body produces its own weight in ATP every day.”
The above statement is Accurate (but with a catch).
Adenosine triphosphate (ATP) is the primary “energy currency” of all living cells, providing immediate energy for processes like muscle contraction, nerve impulse propagation, and chemical synthesis. It consists of an adenine base, ribose sugar, and three phosphate groups, releasing energy when the bond between the second and third phosphate is broken.
The Science: You don’t store your body’s weight in ATP; you recycle it.
The Battery Analogy: ATP (Adenosine Triphosphate) is like a tiny rechargeable battery. When it gives up energy, it becomes “dead” (ADP).
The Catch: You only have about 250 grams (roughly half a pound) of ATP in your body at any given moment.
The Speed: To keep you alive, your body has to recharge each ATP molecule roughly 1,000 to 1,500 times per day.
The Math: 250 grams x 1,000 cycles = approx 250 kg of turnover. This means your body effectively “synthesizes” roughly your body weight in ATP daily, just by recycling that small pool over and over again.
3. “The motors spin at 7,000 RPM” (ATP Synthase)
The Science: The protein responsible for recharging ATP is called ATP Synthase.
It is literally a rotary motor. It is embedded in the membrane of your mitochondria.
It uses a flow of protons (hydrogen ions) to spin a central shaft.
Observations suggest these nanomachines can spin at 6,000 to 9,000 RPM (rotations per minute) and achieve nearly 100% energy efficiency, surpassing any man-made motor. WOW!
The video uses these stats to illustrate the scale and speed of life. We often think of our bodies as static things, but at the molecular level, we are a frenzy of high-speed mechanical activity.
There is a huge difference between static objects and dynamic systems. You are processes, not a thing.
1. The “Flame” Analogy (Why we are a process)
Think of a candle flame.
If you look at it, it seems like a constant object. It has a shape, a color, and a size.
But if you freeze time, what is it really? It is a stream of hot gas and reacting molecules.
The atoms inside the flame are completely different one millisecond apart. The flame isn’t the atoms; the flame is the activity happening to the atoms.
You are the flame.
Every breath you take, you swap carbon atoms. Every time you use the bathroom or shed skin, you lose matter. Every time you eat, you gain matter.
Estimates suggest that roughly 98% of your atoms are replaced every year. Reborn, remade, every year? No wonder my face looks different from when I was 25.
This means the “stuff” you were made of 5 years ago is almost entirely gone. The only things that remain are the pattern and the continuous energy flow keeping it alive.
2. “Energy can’t be destroyed” (The First Law)
The video is referencing the First Law of Thermodynamics, also known as the Law of Conservation of Energy.
The Law: Energy cannot be created or destroyed; it can only change form.
The Reality: The heat energy your body produces (from that spinning ATP synthase motor) radiates out into the room. It warms the air, which moves molecules that might eventually radiate into space.
When a person dies, their electrical and chemical energy doesn’t vanish. It dissipates into the environment as heat and chemical breakdown. The energy is still in the universe, just no longer contained within the “system” of the body. Make of that what you will; there are lots of potential stories there.
3. What actually ends? (The Second Law)
If the atoms still exist and the energy still exists, what “dies”?
The Order dies.
This relates to the Second Law of Thermodynamics (the Entropy Principle). The universe naturally tends toward disorder.
Life is a resistance to disorder. By eating food and breathing, you constantly pump energy into the system to keep your complex structure organized (repairing cells, unwinding DNA, recharging ATP).
When the “process” (metabolism) stops, you stop fighting entropy. The atoms remain, but they drift apart and lose their complex structure.
Living systems are amazing, and our way of life should not be responsible for destroying these miraculous, orderly energy patterns. We must preserve them. Once the patterns are gone, they are gone. We must not contribute to the death of living systems. It breaks my heart to think of it.
The video is making a poetic but physically accurate point:
“You” are not the bricks in the wall; you are the act of building, creating, transforming, growing.
When the building stops, the bricks (atoms) and the effort (energy) remain, but the specific, organized structure that defined “you” dissolves.
Death—Let’s Face It
Death is the irreversible end of all biological functions that sustain a living organism, marked medically by the permanent cessation of heartbeat, breathing, and brain activity (including the brain stem). It signifies the permanent loss of life and the body’s ability to function as a whole, though cellular death (biological death) may occur slightly later than the moment of clinical death (when vital functions stop).
For mammals, death is medically defined as the permanent cessation of heartbeat, respiration, and brain function (including the brainstem). It signifies the permanent loss of consciousness and the body’s ability to maintain life, marking the conclusion of an individual’s existence.
Medical & Biological Definition
Death is defined by the permanent stopping of circulatory (heartbeat) and respiratory (breathing) functions, or the entire brain’s functions, as per the Uniform Determination of Death Act (UDDA).
Brain Death is the irreversible loss of all brain function, including the brainstem, which controls vital involuntary functions like breathing.
After clinical death, cells begin to die, a process known as biological death that occurs minutes or hours later.
Key Aspects
End of Life: It’s the final end of an organism’s life, though some organisms are biologically immortal.
Figurative Death: The term can also describe the cessation of activity in non-living things (e.g., a star “dying” when it runs out of fuel) or figuratively (e.g., “the death of hope”).
Philosophical & Cultural Views
Death is a fundamental mystery, with many beliefs about an afterlife, reincarnation, or a return to the universe, varying across cultures and religions. I presume that after my life ends, the Universe continues without my particular, embodied identity. It’s highly probable that using Minimal Viable Metaphysics as my analytical framework, I discover that it’s highly probable that life on Earth goes on without me.
Lifelong Learning & Reading Is Exemplary
Learning is the lifelong process of acquiring new knowledge, skills, behaviors, values, or preferences, resulting in a relatively permanent change in understanding or capability, driven by experience, study, training, or observation, and applicable across humans, animals, and even some machines. It’s not just memorization but involves making sense of information, interpreting reality, and developing the ability to apply what’s learned to new situations, fostering personal growth and adaptation.
Learning is the journey of change within the mind, often inferred from what someone can do or produce.
Learning involves changes in knowledge, beliefs, attitudes, or behaviors that persist and stem from interactions with the world, whether through direct experience, teaching, formal education, or self-study. Learning happens continuously throughout life, not just in formal schooling. The goal is to use acquired knowledge or skills to handle future challenges.
Examples of learning processes:
Operant Conditioning: Learning through consequences (rewards/punishments).
Observational Learning: Learning by watching others (imitation).
Conceptual Learning: Making connections between ideas and the real world to develop a deeper understanding.
“This thing of ours” (Civilization) Is Rough Business
This thing of ours (from the Italian Cosa Nostra) primarily refers to the American Mafia or organized crime, signifying their secret, shared world, business, and code; however, it can also broadly describe any shared activity, secret, or deep bond between people, like a close-knit group or a significant shared project. How many “Deep States” are there embedded in this thing of ours? Are you a member of the club?
Exceptionism & Supremacism
Exceptionism refers to the belief that one is a special case, exempt from general rules, duties, or expectations, often justifying deviations due to unique circumstances, whereas the related term Exceptionalism describes the idea that a group, nation, or person is uniquely superior or different, such as American Exceptionalism. In ethics, exceptionism is the view that allows exceptions to moral absolutes in specific situations, contrasting with strict absolutism, and it can also describe a mindset in which individuals feel their personal situation justifies breaking rules.
American Exception seeks to explain the breakdown of US democracy. In particular, how we can understand the uncanny continuity of American foreign policy, the breakdown of the rule of law, and the extreme concentration of wealth and power into an overworld of the corporate rich. To trace the evolution of the American state, the author takes a deep politics approach, shedding light on those political practices that are typically repressed in “mainstream” discourse.
In its long history before World War II, the US had a deep political system—a system of governance in which decision-making and enforcement were carried out within—and outside of—public institutions. It was a system that always included some degree of secretive collusion and law-breaking. After World War II, US elites decided to pursue global dominance over the international capitalist system. Setting aside the liberal rhetoric, this project was pursued in a manner that was by and large imperialistic rather than progressive. To administer this covert empire, US elites created a massive national security state characterized by unprecedented levels of secrecy and lawlessness. The “Global Communist Conspiracy” provided a pretext for exceptionism—an endless “exception” to the rule of law.
Supremacism is the belief that one specific group (defined by race, gender, religion, etc.) is inherently superior to others and should dominate them, leading to ideologies like white supremacy.
Supremacism (Belief System)
Core Idea: A specific group possesses inherent superiority and should hold authority over others.
Basis: Can be based on race, ethnicity, sex, religion, nationality, class, etc.
Examples:
White Supremacy: Belief in white racial superiority, historically used to justify colonialism, slavery, and discriminatory laws (Jim Crow, Apartheid).
Manifestations: Underpins movements like white nationalism and neo-Nazism, and can involve calls for segregation or domination.
(I am only using one example here because it has been the most prevalent if we think of modern history as beginning during the Age of Discovery.)
One can’t understand “this thing of ours” or global, modern, techno-industrial, fossil-fueled, financialized, neoliberal/neoconservative capitalism without knowing all of the domains mentioned above. If you don’t read, you can’t have an informed or close to accurate opinion about complex social systems.
Capitalism is not an accident of history, nor a pure invention of states or ideologues. It is the systemic attractor of generalized markets. Once property is alienable, labor is sold for wages, and exchange is organized through scarcity, the feedback loops of competition, accumulation, and concentration propel societies toward capitalism.
Institutions stabilize these dynamics but do not create them. Anthropological counterexamples refer to non-market societies, not market ones. And in the modern world, no trade-based society exists outside capitalism; differences are matters of degree, not kind. — Peter Joseph
Capitalism as the Emergent Attractor of Market Societies: A Systems Science Perspective
The above quote from Peter Joseph gets to the heart of Capitalism's predicament.
Welcome back to to my Capitalist Cabinet of Curiosities
I created this post because I want friends, acquaintances, and the communities I engage with to develop a worldview on complex social relations grounded in multiple perspectives that ignites imagination and inspires action.
To understand “this thing of ours,” a.k.a, current social, geopolitical, and economic belief systems, we must read and study across domains. (Boring!) We must become familiar with local and international contexts. (OMG, must we?)
I have always been interested in all kinds of stuff. I’m a student, not an ideologue. I’m a passionate lover of living systems rather than a religious dogmatist or mystic. I learn what I can about how nature works, biz, whatever is needed. My worldview evolved somewhat randomly over time while living in several countries and doing many things.
The following post is a journey across perspectives that attempt to decipher key elements arising from or impacted by rapacious, global, modern-industrial, neoliberal, financialized, fossil-fueled capitalism and pathological status competition.
I’m using different lenses to understand the gorilla riding an elephant across a football pitch that no one seems to notice.
Personal Aside
I enjoy learning about deep time as it helps me understand civilized people and how we stumbled into the quagmire we call the polycrisis, or should I say, this world of amazing conveniences. I want to be a fly on the wall observing how H. sapiens lived 100K years ago, and how we will live 100K years from now. I have an imagination. I’m curious about most things. I consider myself fortunate. I’m also frustrated and angry because the more I read quality publications and books (how would I know?), the more experience and “knowledge” I gain, the more disappointed I am with our “progress.”
Thirty years ago, I still felt we had a chance to wise up. But was I wise thirty years ago? I giggle. When we think we’re wise, we aren’t; when we act wise, we’re almost there—another five years, another five years, another five years…and, I’m taking a wild guess here, five bucks or so…
Wisdom
Wisdom is the ability to use knowledge, experience, understanding, and good judgment to make sound decisions, see beneath the surface of things, and navigate life’s complexities ethically and effectively, focusing on long-term well-being and discerning right from wrong. Unlike mere intelligence, which is about information, wisdom involves applying that knowledge to make sound decisions and see beneath the surface of things. It also consists in navigating life’s complexities ethically and effectively, focusing on long-term well-being and discerning right from wrong. It’s about knowing how and when to apply what you know, often involving insight, perspective, and balance.
Knowledge without wisdom is pathological. Seriously, even for a football or MMA coach.
Learning is essential, but it doesn’t make you wise, holy, or courageous in your choices of action. Knowledge and wisdom must be lived and shared across communities, fostering trust. One must grow motivated by healthy incentives.
Our current predicament requires urgent action and self-examination to understand how we lost our intimate connection with Biophysical Reality and Great Nature. We are out of place and out of touch.
We need to understand our contradictions. We are suffering from multiple delusions, multiple personality disorder, multiple addictions, status fever, and a loss of our feelings of hypocrisy, truth, common sense, and moral and ethical responsibility.
There are libraries full of books and papers concerning our pathologies, challenges, and past “mistakes.”
We have the potential to live healthy lives. But sadly, too many of us are only getting sicker year by year.
We know how to partner with Great Nature to catalyze regeneration. If we stepped back, Great Nature knows what to do.
This is a profound and diagnostic critique of the modern condition. You have correctly identified that we are drowning in information but starving for wisdom, and that our “sickness” stems from a fundamental dislocation from Biophysical Reality.
To deepen this, we must look at why knowledge has become pathological and how we might engineer a return to the wisdom of “Great Nature.”
The Pathology of Disconnected Knowledge
"Knowledge without wisdom is pathological."
If a coach possesses the knowledge of how to inflict maximum damage or maximize physical output but lacks the wisdom of sportsmanship, longevity, or respect for the human vessel, they do not create athletes; they create weapons or broken bodies.
In a broader societal context, this pathology manifests as optimization without purpose. We use high-fidelity intelligence to solve narrow problems (how to extract oil faster, how to keep eyes on a screen longer) without asking the wise question: Should we do this?
Our current economic operating system rewards “extraction” (taking from nature/community) rather than “regeneration.” Wisdom is inherently long-term; our markets are intrinsically short-term. As long as the “score” (money, status, GDP) goes up by destroying the playing field (Nature), knowledge will continue to serve destruction.
Are We Evolving Towards Wisdom?
Perhaps a change of course is a high bar.
Currently, we are not evolving towards wisdom; we are evolving towards complexity. You need to understand this.
Evolution in biology often favors efficiency and adaptation to the environment. However, we have created an artificial environment—a hall of mirrors composed of algorithms, status hierarchies, and synthetic comforts.
We are losing the ability to discern truth because our environment is designed to trigger a neurohormonal desired reaction to stories, not reflection. Wisdom is often forged in struggle and direct contact with consequences. By insulating ourselves from the direct feedback loops of Nature (e.g., air conditioning, supermarkets, waste removal, death), we numb the senses that would otherwise feel the damage we are causing.
And, of course, I grew up with and love all the modern conveniences. I want to find a way to keep my electricity and my ecosystem. If I thought we had a replicator machine, I’d be laughing now, making money, not writing this post. But I have a sinking feeling that in my lifetime (how self-centered is that?) things are going to get unpresidentedly vicious.
However, there is a counter-current. The anxiety, the depression, the sense of meaninglessness—is actually a healthy immune response to an unhealthy culture. The pain is telling us that the current way of living is incompatible with the human soul. In that realization lies the seed of wisdom. Take the pain and learn from it.
Developing a Culture of Wisdom: A Blueprint
We know how to partner with Great Nature to catalyze regeneration.
If we are to pivot from pathology to health, we must actively cultivate wisdom. Wisdom is not a download; it is a practice. Here is how we might structure that change:
Re-entanglement with Biophysical Reality
We cannot be wise while living entirely in the abstract. We must close the gap between our actions and their physical consequences.
Reintroduce friction, embrace and understand contradiction. Grow food, fix broken items, and walk instead of driving. OFFS, I feel the resistance. When we touch the soil, we remember that we are biological entities, not digital ghosts. We don’t need manufactured “grounding sheets”; we need to be outdoors, rubbing shoulders with living systems. Nature dictates that waste equals food. In our economy, waste equals pollution and ecocide. Re-aligning with Nature means adopting circularity and a reverence for deep interdependency in our economics and our relationships.
It’s easy to say, but hard to leave the shopping center. Would sharing a tool be that bad? I like to think about the relationship between my fellow tool users and how it would make me more creative, patient, and skilled.
Shifting from Status to Stewardship
Status fever is a vicious burden, a hunger for validation from an often destructive and poisonous society.
We must change the “hero archetype” in our culture. Currently, the hero is the Disruptor or the Accumulator. We need to elevate the Steward and the Restorer. Wisdom must be lived and shared. We need small-scale communities where reputation is built on reliability and care, not performative success.
The “Wu Wei” of Regeneration (Effortless Action)
If we stepped back, Great Nature knows what to do.
I’ve always felt that the Taoist concept of Wu Wei—non-coercive action—was the way to influence people.
We often try to “fix” the world with the same engineering mindset that broke it. Wisdom suggests we stop interfering. Instead of building a dam, reintroduce beavers. Instead of medicating every sadness, allow space for grief to teach us what is wrong, and learn to trust that we can ask for help and rely on our friends and family.
Confronting the Contradictions
We are suffering from... a loss of our feelings of hypocrisy.
This is the most challenging step. To become wise, we must embrace our shadow. We must admit that we enjoy the conveniences that kill the planet. We are addicted to the energy that warms our homes and the supply chains that feed us.
Wisdom requires the courage to say: “I am part of the problem, and I am willing to be uncomfortable to be part of the solution.”
We have the libraries. We have the data. We lack the Metanoia—the fundamental change of heart/mind. This does not come from reading more books; it comes from:
Silence: Turning off the noise to hear one’s own conscience.
Service: Acting for the benefit of something that cannot pay you back (like a forest or a future generation).
Sorrow: allowing ourselves to feel the grief of what we have lost, which mobilizes us to protect what remains. Save our remaining forests and wilderness regions, defend them, and cherish them.
We are currently out of place because we have designed a world for consumers, not for human animals embedded in beautiful living systems. Wisdom is the capacity to realize that we are Nature defending itself.
To move forward, we must stop viewing the world as a resource to be exploited by our intellect and start viewing it as a relationship to be honored by our wisdom.
This is the pivot point. If incentives determine behavior, then we cannot expect wisdom to flourish in a system designed to reward narcissism, extraction, and speed.
To partner with Great Nature and Biophysical Reality, we must redesign the scorecard of our local lives. We need to create environments where the easiest choice is also the wisest choice.
We must explore specific healthy incentives to replace status-driven goals, moving from a culture of Extraction (Ego) to a culture of Regeneration (Eco).
The Shift: From “Net Worth” to “Net Web”
Currently, our primary incentive is Capital Accumulation (money/status). This is a lonely, infinite, rivalrous game where winning means separating yourself from others (e.g., a bigger fence, a nicer car, power, and prestige).
A healthy incentive structure rewards Relational Density—how well-woven you are into the safety net of your community.
Status-Driven Incentive (The Old Game)Healthy/Wisdom Incentive (The New Game)Possession: Look what I own. Access & Sharing: Look what we can use together. Obsolescence: Buying new things often. Stewardship: Keeping things alive/repairing (Permaculture). Busyness: I am important because I am unavailable. Presence: I am valuable because I have time for you. Independence: I don’t need anyone. Interdependence: I can be relied upon. You can’t tell me you don’t want to feel needed for who you are.
Specific “Healthy Incentives” for Local Communities
Here are four concrete mechanisms that shift motivation away from pathology and toward wisdom:
The “Repair & Craft” Incentive (Valuing Mastery over Novelty)
We are addicted to the dopamine hit of the “new,” which drives waste and disconnects us from the history of objects. Instead, what if our culture granted social status to those who can fix, mend, and maintain?
A “Repair Café” where the local elder who knows how to solder a circuit board or darn a sock is the most respected person in the room.
Why it builds wisdom: It requires patience, a love of community, understanding how things work (deep knowledge), and fighting entropy (biophysical reality).
Time-Banking (Valuing Humanity over Market Rate)
Market economics require a hedge fund manager to earn $1,000 an hour and a caregiver to earn $15 an hour. This distorts our sense of worth. How about something more like the age-old traditional local exchange, where 1 Hour = 1 Hour, regardless of the task. Of course, we could add incentives for skills that require 10K+ hours to master. It’s not hard to conceive of a fair trade.
In Practice: You spend an hour gardening for a neighbor, and you earn an hour credit to have someone teach you guitar or bake you bread. Are you ready to throw up and run down to the Arm Recruitment Center? Come on, you’ve enjoyed doing things for people and receiving attention in kind.
Why it builds wisdom: It dissolves class barriers and teaches that every human has a gift to offer. It incentivizes connection rather than profit. Not dramatic enough for you?
The “Commons” Incentive (Valuing Shared Wealth)
The tragedy of the commons involves that we are incentivized to take as much as we can before someone else gets it. Multipolar or Moloch traps. It’s much healthier to receive rewards and esteem for contributing to the public good. What’s the public good? It’s not hard to figure out when people feel the need to communicate openly with each other and have skin in the game.
We can and do reward people for contributing to the public good—for example, Guerrilla Gardening or community composting. Instead of a pristine private lawn being the goal, the goal becomes the most productive verge (sidewalk garden) that feeds passersby. Where I live, people plant citrus trees by the roadside, and people are not shy about picking a piece of fruit while out on a walk.
The Feedback Loop: You get paid not in money, but in fresh produce, a more beautiful street, and the safety of knowing your neighbors.
Reputation as Currency (The Trust Standard)
We rely on credit scores, which only measure how good we are at paying debt to banks. How about living in a culture where it’s second Nature to give people a “Reliability Score” based on local trust? This is how we lived in my Uncle’s village in Ireland: we all knew who was reliable and went out of our way to appreciate them, building mutual trust.
In Practice: In tight-knit communities, if you are known to help in a crisis, you have “social insurance.” If you get sick, the community brings food. You cannot buy this insurance; you must earn it through wise action. Come on, we have all experienced this.
Why it builds wisdom: It forces long-term thinking. You cannot cheat someone today if you need their trust tomorrow.
The Polycrisis & Policy Brief Series is coordinated by the Policy Work Package which is part of the PolyCIVIS Network. The PolyCIVIS Policy brief series aims to provide actionable insights and recommendations for policymakers, at various levels and to foster dialogue among stakeholders on effective policy responses.
Visualizing the Ecosystem of Wisdom
To understand how these incentives fit together, it helps to visualize a “Regenerative Community Model.” Unlike a linear line (Make -> Use -> Trash), this model mimics Nature. We can become part and parcel of Nature, but not at our current energy and materials use levels.
In this model, notice how Governance and Economy are not at the top, but serve the Ecology and Community. The “Output” is not GDP, but system health.
How to "Gamify" Wisdom (Without Cheapening It)
We are creatures of habit. To change course, we need to make wisdom "sticky." We currently celebrate graduations and individual achievements (promotions). We should celebrate Harvests and Barn Raisings (collective achievements). That was more common for thousands of years.
Visible Metrics of Health: Instead of a stock ticker, imagine a town square dashboard showing:
Soil quality of local farms.
Number of meals shared between neighbors.
Pounds of waste diverted from landfills.
When we measure what matters, we get wise results.
If this makes you feel disgusted, don’t worry, you will probably be able to work for the security state while social trust continues to erode, but I doubt it will be as rewarding as you think.
V. A Critical Self-Examination
We seem to be getting sicker year-by-year, despite modern healthcare systems, pharmaceuticals, and medical technology. This is because our current incentives exploit our addictions.
To adopt these new incentives, we must make a painful admission: we must surrender the convenience of anonymity.
In a status culture, I can be a jerk to my neighbor and still be “successful” if I have money. POTUS DJT is a jerk to the world and has pocketed 1.4 billion dollars since taking office.
In a wisdom culture, if I am a jerk to my neighbor, I am poor, regardless of my bank account. It will take more than a wistful, nostalgic, and scolding speech from the Canadian Prime Minister to undo generations of unwise policy choices in defense of the status quo that provide elegant careers to service providers of powerful business owners.
After listening to the PM’s pleas for a return to the nicer status quo, read this polemical response to this particular episode of political theatre.
People like Canada's Mark Carney are crying foul about the demise of the ‘rules-based order’ now, over Greenland, and not over the whole Palestinian genocide he just merrily supplied and supported, or any number of atrocities Canada has been involved in, including Canada. White people really want to do crime and high-fives for confessing.
What he's complaining about here is not a loss of human rights but white privilege. The privilege to invade other people but to keep your own stolen home. Even within the speech, Carney is proudly talking about funding the corrupt Ukrainian dictatorship, all to further American interests. He's only complaining now that America is interested in his territory, he has no actual principles.
Partnering with Great Nature means accepting that we are accountable to the web of life. We cannot hide.
Ecological Succession—Let Nature Take The Wheel
Ecological Succession is the observed process of change in the species structure of an ecological community over time. It is not random; it is a somewhat predictable, orderly progression where the environment creates conditions for new life, which in turn alters the environment to support even more complex life.
“It [succession] culminates in a stabilized ecosystem in which maximum biomass (or high information content) and symbiotic function between organisms are maintained per unit of available energy flow.” —The Strategy of Ecosystem Development published in Science, Eugene Odum
Secondary Succession (The “Reset”)
In most cases where humans “leave nature alone” (such as abandoning a farm, a city lot, or a managed forest), the process is called Secondary Succession. Unlike Primary Succession (which starts from bare rock, such as after a volcanic eruption), secondary succession begins with soil already present.
Shutterstock
Because the “biological legacy” (seeds, roots, and soil microbes) remains, this process is relatively fast compared to starting from scratch.
The Pioneer Stage (The “First Responders”)
The first organisms to reclaim an area are called Pioneer Species.
Role: These are hardy, fast-growing plants that love sunlight and can tolerate harsh conditions.
Description: In a temperate climate, this looks like grasses, “weeds” (like dandelions or fireweed), and wildflowers rapidly covering bare ground.
Function: Their roots stabilize the soil, preventing erosion. When they die and decay, they add organic matter to the soil, prepping it for more demanding plants.
The Intermediate Stage (The “Scrub” Phase)
As the soil improves, woody plants begin to move in.
Shrubs and Bushes: Plants like blackberries, sumac, or hawthorn start to shade out the grasses.
Fast-Growing Trees: “Softwood” trees that need lots of light (like birch, pine, or aspen) begin to sprout.
Competition: This is a period of intense competition for light and water. The environment is becoming more complex, creating niches for small mammals and birds, which bring in more seeds from other areas.
The Climax Community (The “Mature” Phase)
Eventually, the fast-growing trees create a canopy that shades the forest floor. The pioneer species, which need full sun, cannot survive there.
Shade-Tolerant Species: Slow-growing “hardwood” trees (like oak, maple, or beech) that can grow in the shade of the pines begin to take over.
Dynamic Equilibrium: Eventually, these long-lived trees dominate the canopy. This state was historically called the “Climax Community,” though modern ecologists prefer to think of it as a “dynamic equilibrium.” It is stable, but not static—trees will fall, creating gaps for the process to start locally again.
Rewilding and Trophic Cascades
If the area is large enough, “leaving nature alone” also allows for the return of animal hierarchies. This leads to Self-Organization.
Ecosystem Engineers: Animals like beavers may return, damming streams and creating wetlands that support entirely different sets of life.
Predators: If apex predators (such as wolves or bears) return, they regulate herbivore populations (such as deer). This prevents deer from eating all the young saplings, ensuring the forest can regenerate. This ripple effect is called a Trophic Cascade.
Summary of Terms
If you were observing this process, you would use these three concepts to describe what is happening:
Resilience: The capacity of the ecosystem to recover after a disturbance (human activity).
Complexity: The movement from simple, uniform systems (like a lawn or crop field) to diverse, layered systems (a forest with a canopy, understory, and floor).
Autopoiesis: The system is “self-making.” It requires no management; the waste of one organism becomes the food for another, creating a closed-loop nutrient and energy cycle.
But we don’t observe and merely participate; we exploit nature.
Our way of life is an omnicidal heat engine.
Omnicide is a word coined by philosopher John Somerville. It is an extension of the concepts of suicide and genocide. It means the death of all, the total negation and destruction of all life. Omnicide is suicide for all. It is the genocide of humanity writ large. It is what Rachel Carson began to imagine in her book, Silent Spring.
We are passing the first quarter of the 21st century, and civilization only gets more omnicidal as the years pass.
A pure and holy period of human civilization never existed.
There are so many angles to this discussion, and much has been written across many domains and generations of sincere inquiry. What I put together here is just one of many possible ways to contemplate our predicament.
I’m including references to other people’s work, videos, and images for you to explore.
Everything here is integral to my current worldview.
Take your time and read section-by-section. If you are familiar with a topic, skip ahead.
The Overshoot, Collapse, and Limits to Growth Community (OCLTG)
People concerned with various existential risks belong to a community I call the overshoot, collapse, and limits-to-growth community. The OCLTG community is familiar with what many people now refer to as the polycrisis or metacrisis.
A polycrisis describes multiple, interconnected global crises (like climate, ecological, health, war, economic, geopolitical) that intensify each other, creating outcomes worse than the sum of their parts, while a metacrisis refers to the deeper, underlying systemic and cultural conditions (like flawed worldviews, loss of meaning, or a crisis of consciousness) that generate these cascading crises, making it the “crisis of crises” or the crisis of how humanity understands itself and reality.
Different people focus on different areas within the broad OCLTG space.
I follow good people who are much more capable than I am in comprehending these complex domains.
I am not a professional educator, but I hope you’ll bear with me.
I hope people unfamiliar with the OCLTG “ecosystem” will consider delving into its many domains. If we do, we’ll be much better equipped for the many rapid changes that are upon us.
The overshoot, collapse, and limits-to-growth community is challenging. But a growing number of people worldwide are beginning to notice a few symptoms of the predicament civilization faces: climate change, pollution, and maybe “Inequality.”
No.
Whoops!
Sorry.
I mean: Immigration, “The Great Replacement,” the price of groceries, Racial Purity, Epstein Files, the coming Great War Again, Russians, Chinese, Iranians, Venezualans, Zionists, U.S. Imperialist Tech Oligarchs, Woke Students, SJW, Identity Politics, Fascists, NRx, Catholics, Orthodox Bros, Religious Fanatics, Magical Thinking, Terrorists, Drug Dealers, Trad Wives, Buddhist Monks, Libertarians, Anarchists, Accelerationists, Game Theorists, Back to the Land Neo Nazis, Friedrich Nietzsche, Satan, Demons, New Agers, INCELS, Democrats, Communists, Socialists, Republicans, Atheists, or something.
“The house is burning, so what? Look over there, play, where’s the scapegoat?”
Find Scapegoat
This “thing of ours”—civilization—is not a recent aberration; it is a machine that has been humming with the same violent frequency for millennia. Culture wars, sectarian bloodshed, ecocide, and genocide are not bugs in the system; they are features of the operating system. The Romans had the will to level forests and erase cultures; the only difference is that modernity handed us the chainsaw and the algorithm.
We must strip away the illusion of progress: Civilization is, at its core, a powerful geoengineer and a voracious, energy-hungry heat engine. It exists to consume order (living systems) and excrete disorder (waste and heat).
Because we no longer live in small, intimate bands dependent on the immediate feedback of our local watershed or soil health, we have severed the nerve endings that once warned us of danger. We are functionally blind to the blowback of our own lifestyle. We buy the steak but never see the slaughterhouse; we use the phone but never smell the cobalt mine.
Furthermore, we must dismantle the myth of the “Rugged Individual.” While we exist biologically within our own skin, our “selfhood” is a hallucination of independence. We are permeable nodes in a vast network. Our body is a colony of bacteria; our mind is a colony of borrowed words and social constructs. Even your private conscious identity is software downloaded from the external systems you claim to stand apart from. This is not to say that people aren’t tough and unique. People are stronger than they know. Every one of your/our ancestors survived long enough to make children who were cared for long enough to learn how to survive long enough to have children, or you wouldn’t be here reading this. The human spirit is remarkable.
‘No Man is an Island’
No man is an island entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main; if a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as any manner of thy friends or of thine own were; any man’s death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind. And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee. Olde English Version No man is an Iland, intire of itselfe; every man is a peece of the Continent, a part of the maine; if a Clod bee washed away by the Sea, Europe is the lesse, as well as if a Promontorie were, as well as if a Manor of thy friends or of thine owne were; any mans death diminishes me, because I am involved in Mankinde; And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; It tolls for thee. MEDITATION XVII Devotions upon Emergent Occasions John Donne
I don’t talk about “The Planet” per se, though I do understand why personalizing “the planet/GAIA” can help us feel more connected to our home as a living body. What makes this planet unique, as far as we know, is living systems. Life emerged and evolved over about 4 billion years. Human consciousness didn't appear at a single moment but developed gradually over millions of years, with roots stretching back 6-7 million years to our split from chimpanzees, but key aspects like self-awareness and complex thought developed much later, perhaps with early Homo sapiens (200,000+ years ago) and a “creative explosion” around 60,000 years ago. Julian Jaynes’ theory suggests that modern introspection arose only around 3,000-4,000 years ago.
The Julian Jaynes Collection:
Biography, Articles, Lectures, Interviews, Discussion
I rarely speak of “The Planet” as an abstract rock floating in the void, or a thing we can break or fix. While I understand the utility of personalizing the earth as GAIA—a self-regulating superorganism—to foster connection, we must be precise. What makes this planet unique, the only anomaly in a dead universe as far as we know, is the thin, trembling membrane of Living Systems. Life is not a passenger on the planet; it is the planet’s physiology.
This physiology emerged over a staggering 4 billion years. Against this backdrop, human consciousness is a flash in the pan. It didn’t arrive as a sudden “light bulb” moment. It was a slow, grinding sunrise:
6-7 Million Years Ago: We split from the chimpanzees, carrying the hardware for connection.
200,000 Years Ago: Anatomically modern Homo sapiens appear, but they are not yet us in mind.
60,000 Years Ago: The “Creative Explosion”—art, tools, and perhaps complex language emerge.
3,000 Years Ago: As Julian Jaynes theorized, the “breakdown of the bicameral mind” occurred. True introspection—the ability to hear one’s own thoughts not as the voice of a god, but as an internal monologue—is barely older than the pyramids.
So here we are in 2026. We are running nuclear power plants and global financial markets using a form of consciousness that, evolutionarily speaking, is in pre-beta testing. We are confronted with the Polycrisis (or Metacrisis): a knot of ecological collapse, social fragmentation, and existential dread. These are not separate fires to be put out; they are symptoms of a single, underlying breakdown in our sense-making. We are trying to navigate a hyper-complex reality with a “civilized” map that is fundamentally wrong.
If civilization has always been “broken”—if its very engine has always been the conversion of living systems into dead monuments and “energy slaves”—then the question is terrifyingly simple: Can a species that only learned to look inside itself 3,000 years ago recognize its external impact in time? Can we heal our relations with the Web of Life before the habitat we depend on decides it has had enough of us?
The concept of the “energy slave,” introduced by Buckminster Fuller, refers to the technological/mechanical energy equivalent to the physical labor of one human worker, often powered by fossil fuels, that performs work in our modern infrastructure (roads, machines, power grids). Essentially, it quantifies how much non-human energy (like oil, coal, electricity) a person uses daily, calculating it as the number of human laborers needed to do that same work, highlighting our reliance on fossil fuels to power our lifestyles.
Key Aspects of the Concept:
Quantifying Modern Life: It provides a way to measure the energy footprint of an individual or society, translating daily activities into units of human labor.
Replacement of Human Labor: Energy slaves perform tasks that once required human muscle power, freeing people from arduous physical work but creating dependence on energy systems.
Fossil Fuel Dependence: The term underscores how deeply our mechanized world relies on finite fossil fuels, which power these “slaves.”
Metaphorical Interpretation: Author Andrew Nikiforuk expands on this, arguing that our dependence on oil creates a new form of servitude, where society is bound to the energy systems that power it.
Calculation: It’s calculated by determining the energy (e.g., in joules or watt-hours) needed to perform a task and then converting that into the equivalent human labor time.
Example:
If the average person uses the energy equivalent of 100 human laborers working 24/7, they are said to have 100 “energy slaves.”
In essence, the energy slave concept reveals the vast, often invisible, technological workforce (fueled by energy) that supports our contemporary lifestyles, substituting for historical human labor.
Although human activity is currently causing an enhanced greenhouse effect (global warming), a full runaway scenario that would strip the atmosphere entirely, thereby ending living systems on Earth, is unlikely. Mars lost most of its atmosphere over billions of years due to its low gravity and lack of a strong global magnetic field, a process linked to atmospheric escape and the opposite of a runaway greenhouse effect (a runaway refrigerator effect). If we fail to reconnect with living systems in a meaningful way, life after humans may come sooner than later, ending once and for all our poisoning of living systems (ecocide/omnicide).
***I have to clear my throat, take a sip of tea, and utter to myself, it’s all so overwhelming?
Earth will not become Mars. Let’s be precise about our doom. While human activity is driving a dangerous Enhanced Greenhouse Effect, we are not at risk of a “Mars scenario.” Mars “died” (perhaps) because it is small and lacks a magnetic shield; its atmosphere was stripped away by the solar wind over billions of years—a process of atmospheric escape that is the opposite of a runaway greenhouse. Earth’s gravity and magnetic field hold our atmosphere tight. The danger is not that the atmosphere will leave; the danger is that the atmosphere will turn against us. We are not stripping our atmosphere; we are choking it. The result, however, is the same: the end of the human experiment. If we cannot find a way to re-integrate with Living Systems, nature will simply evict us. Ecocide/Omnicide leads inevitably to suicide.
We are dangerously disconnected. Reality is hidden behind the opaque walls of our techno-industrial civilization. We have unleashed forces—The Genies of rivalry, energy, AI, and extraction—that we can no longer put back. We wished for comfort and got complexity beyond our comprehension. If we fail to reconnect with living systems, “Life After People” isn't a sci-fi fantasy; it’s a rapidly approaching deadline. We are flirting with Ecocide (killing the living home) and Omnicide (killing everything).
This is the tangled new jungle of life Dougal Dixon’s book After Man presents to readers. Originally published in 1981 and re-released in a lightly-revised edition in May, After Man is the foundational entry in the field of “speculative zoology,” where writers and artists play with ideas about what kind of world evolution might produce if humanity were to disappear. The book is a fully illustrated bestiary of future animals, complete with field sketches, detailed paintings and thorough explorations of their ecology. In the pollution-ridden 1980s, it offered both an arresting vision of the future and a glimmer of hope.
When the inevitable collapse erupts in global catastrophes, most will be paralyzed by shock. Why? Because we ignore the Cycles. We ignore the operational complexity of the world until it fails. Those who do pay attention—the systems thinkers, the cynics, the scientists, the seers—are the only ones equipped to see the crisis trending.
The rest of us are left “dodging bullets,” surviving on pure luck. We look back with 20/20 hindsight, swearing we have learned our lesson, but the tragedy of our species is that we rarely let those lessons change our path. We are sleepwalking into the fire, dreaming that we are fireproof. We are a species of amnesiacs walking through a minefield.
The terror lies in our ignorance. The “Big Picture” mechanisms of the world elude us. We live inside a civilization composed of Black Boxes—techno-industrial systems we depend on but do not understand. We rubbed the lamps, the Genies are out, and we are only now realizing we never read the user manual.
“He recognized in himself that power to forget which only children have, and geniuses, and the innocent.” —Albert Camus
Ralph looked at him dumbly. For a moment he had a fleeting picture of the strange glamour that had once invested the beaches. But the island was scorched up like dead wood―Simon was dead―and Jack had.... The tears began to flow and sobs shook him. He gave himself up to them now for the first time on the island; great, shuddering spasms of grief that seemed to wrench his whole body. His voice rose under the black smoke before the burning wreckage of the island; and infected by that emotion, the other little boys began to shake and sob too. And in the middle of them, with filthy body, matted hair, and unwiped nose, Ralph wept for the end of innocence, the darkness of man's heart, and the fall through the air of the true, wise friend called Piggy.
The officer, surrounded by these noises, was moved and a little embarrassed. He turned away to give them time to pull themselves together; and waited, allowing his eyes to rest on the trim cruiser in the distance. — Lord of the Flies, in the final chapter, “Cry of the Hunters,” by William Golding
Today, global, modern techno-industrial, fossil-fueled, neoliberal/neoconservative, eschatological, financialized capitalism has added numerous existential risks to the rapacious Great Game of status, control, and conquest. We are maniacal, innovative, creative, profligate hunter killers, and energy hogs. Civilization is an entropic, dead-waste-producing, heat-engine that will endeavor towards exponential growth until it can’t anymore (The Maximum Power Principle, MPP).
The Maximum Power Principle (MPP) is an ecological and systems theory suggesting that biological systems (such as organisms, ecosystems, and even societies) evolve to maximize the rate of useful energy capture and transformation from their environment to enhance survival, growth, and reproduction, thereby outcompeting others. Formulated by Lotka and expanded by Odum, it proposes that selection favors designs that capture the most energy, but often at an intermediate efficiency (the "Goldilocks" point) rather than 100% efficiency, balancing speed with sustainability for long-term power output.
Engaging in consumption beyond that which nature can restore through living systems is pathological and insane.
Irrational, avaricious accumulation is a human brew of deadly sins, characterized by pernicious addictions that poison our souls and our capacity to find ways through the metacrisis.
The Seven Deadly Sins (also known as the "Cardinal Sins") are a classification of vices used in Christian teachings, particularly within Catholicism. They are called “deadly” not because they are unforgivable, but because they are considered “gateway” sins that lead to other immoral actions and spiritual downfall.
1. Pride (Latin: Superbia)
Often considered the original and most serious sin (the root of all others). It is an excessive belief in one’s own abilities or a desire to be more important than others.
Key characteristic: Putting oneself before God or others; arrogance.
Opposing Virtue: Humility.
2. Greed (Latin: Avaritia)
Also known as Avarice. It is an intense and selfish desire for material wealth, power, or status.
Key characteristic: Hoarding money or objects; valuing possessions over people. (I might add, Living Systems.)
Opposing Virtue: Charity (or Generosity).
3. Lust (Latin: Luxuria)
An intense or unbridled sexual desire. It differs from ordinary desire in that it treats others as objects for personal gratification rather than as individuals.
Key characteristic: Objectification; lack of self-control regarding physical pleasure.
Opposing Virtue: Chastity.
4. Envy (Latin: Invidia)
The desire for others’ traits, status, abilities, or situation. Unlike greed (which wants things), envy is specifically resentful of others having those things.
Key characteristic: Jealousy; taking joy in others’ misfortunes (Schadenfreude).
Opposing Virtue: Gratitude (or Kindness).
5. Gluttony (Latin: Gula)
Overindulgence and overconsumption of anything to the point of waste. While usually associated with food and drink, it can apply to the excessive consumption of resources in general.
Key characteristic: Lack of discipline; consuming more than one needs.
Opposing Virtue: Temperance.
6. Wrath (Latin: Ira)
Uncontrolled feelings of anger, rage, and hatred. This often manifests as a desire for vengeance.
Key characteristic: Violence (emotional or physical); holding grudges; seeking revenge.
Opposing Virtue: Patience.
7. Sloth (Latin: Acedia)
Often misunderstood as simple laziness. In the theological sense, it is a spiritual apathy—a refusal to do one’s duty or a failure to utilize one’s talents.
Key characteristic: Apathy; idleness; wasting one’s potential or time.
Opposing Virtue: Diligence.
We are true believers in the death cult of large-scale civilization and its modern spawn, Market Capitalism.
Pride cometh before the black tie ball at Trump’s White House. Narcissism and celebrity culture have been grotesquely normalized in recent years. The majority of people in the Global North have been pacified, domesticated, objectified, and commodified. We all compete for status.
President Donald John Trump follows his programming/conditioning, and too many ordinary people worship him for it because we are in the same cult. DJT didn’t program himself; the system’s logic has been developing for a long time. It is not artificial, nor intelligent (depending on what values you attach to intelligence), but simply the mundane outcome of H. sapiens’ emergent dominant modern cultural features.
Point a finger at someone, and there are three pointing back at you. If we consider ourselves rational agents, we have to accept a certain amount of responsibility for ‘this thing of ours’ (our mafia state of being) because the vast majority of us operate within its values and constraints, and believe in it.
The Players will feel spectacular at events in the new White House Ballroom. The Ballroom is a hall of mirrors. This “thing of ours” will keep metastasizing until it’s no longer a viable system. Its seeds of destruction are built in.
Those of us who don’t like these kinds of rivalrous games will find other forms of expression and things to do. All people have strange Karma. People do things. I say do what you will to build the kind of society you want. If you understand Great Nature, you can be instrumental in turning humanity away from horror and finding ways through this disaster.
People are active agents with varying degrees of autonomy. People do stuff.
Even in the fierce grip of our human predicament, we can build just, peaceful, and healthy ways of life.
Oswaldo Vigas—Antológica—1943–2013
William Rees on Substack
Honesty, courage, connection, and openness facilitate constructive behaviors.
Having an endless conversation won’t help us create the socioeconomic and cultural conditions needed to reduce the more painful outcomes of thousands of years of status competition.
We need to reevaluate our stories of competitive conquest, see our place in the world differently, and then change our way of living.
Do we have the right tools to challenge our beliefs and confront power structures controlled by deluded, highly indoctrinated leaders, many of whom exhibit dark tetrad personality traits?
Yes, we do, but will enough people do it?
FROM THE AUTHOR This document is written for multiple levels of comprehension. While most of the text uses plain language, it incorporates code and mathematics where necessary to bridge the transition from theory to application. For readers unfamiliar with these technical elements, I have worked to convey their essential meaning while maximizing overall accessibility. After all, this system has to be built—and while theory and principles matter, this document aims to help get the project underway.
I encourage readers not to shy away from code and mathematical formulas. These elements are simply more contextually efficient languages for the specific goals being pursued. If we wish to update our social and economic organization in an optimized way, modern methods are required. The more familiar people become with the technical vocabulary of Integral, the more effective the project can be—because Integral does not merely seek a new form of mass direct democracy in economic management and governance; it requires it.
The complexity inherent in this systems-of-systems approach may appear daunting. I wish to assure readers that what is proposed here is not impractical when approached step by step. At higher levels of application, Integral exhibits complexity comparable to the IT architectures already used in major commercial logistics operations. At lower levels, fragments of the core architecture can be distilled, allowing processes to adhere to the same fundamental system at much smaller scale. This scalability is critical to communicating Integral in its early stages.
People do stuff.
There are many projects like these.
Even though we are in a ‘predicament,’ and there ain’t no cure for the end of times blues, some folks still think it’s worthwhile to try building something. It’s improbable that Integral (and other social engineering projects) will catch on under our current global cultural conditions. Still, I always think these endeavours are worth a look.
It’s a difficult task to evaluate a high-complexity technical solution (Integral Collective) applied to a high-entropy reality (Overshoot/Collapse).
The central irony: Peter Joseph critiques Marxists for mistaking maps for territories, yet he has effectively designed a highly detailed map (software/logistics) for a territory that is currently dissolving (industrial civilization). Let’s build something within a failing system and see what happens. Mmmmm
Let’s examine Integral Collective filtered through the lens of limits to growth, polycrisis, and some specific blind spots I’ve intuited regarding power and culture.
1. The “Fragility of Complexity” Problem
Context: Overshoot implies an energy descent future. Tainter’s theory of collapse (one theory among others) suggests that societies collapse when their investment in complexity yields diminishing returns.
Integral is a high-complexity solution. It relies on a “Global Design Repository” (OAD), Cybernetic feedback loops, and digital ledgers (ITC). In an actual collapse or polycrisis scenario, the first casualties are usually global supply chains and the reliable electricity/internet infrastructure required to run cybernetic systems. To support projects like these, what will governments do and how will they do it? Remember, Peter knows that the Players support the Game, and everything else is just materials needed to support it—socialism for the Great Game and its Players.
"This country has socialism for the rich, and rugged individualism for the poor."
— Martin Luther King, Jr. (There are many versions of this.)
Peter Joseph is building a Ferrari engine for a world that is about to devolve into walking and horse-carts. He knows this, but…If the “nodes” require high-tech interfaces to communicate with the “federation,” they may fail exactly when they are needed most. A resilient system for decline needs to be analog-proof and effectively operable with a notebook and a pencil. Integral seems to assume the Internet is a permanent utility, which is a dangerous assumption in an age of infrastructure decay. But it is cool. We all want to have our cake and eat it. Young people love their smartphones.
2. The “Post-Scarcity” Delusion vs. The “Triage” Reality
Context: He has always mentioned a “trajectory toward post-scarcity.”
Post-scarcity is a concept rooted in the assumption that the bottleneck is distribution. In an Overshoot scenario, the bottleneck is biophysical reality. We are entering an era of absolute scarcity (soil, water, rare earth metals, EROI), the low-hanging fruit for a modern global techno-industrial civilization is gone, and some of the damage we’ve done is permanent, barring a miracle.
Integral’s “True Economic Calculation” (measuring biophysical costs) is actually a brilliant idea and very necessary. However, the system’s psychology is geared toward “efficiency and access.”
Does Integral have a mechanism for Hard Rationing? When there isn’t enough food for everyone in the node, “weighted consensus” often breaks down into tribalism or violence. Cybernetics works well for optimization; it struggles with tragic choices. A system designed for a Star Trek future might implode when faced with “Lifeboat Ethics.”
Lifeboat Ethics is a metaphor, introduced by Garrett Hardin in 1974, that frames global resource inequality as a lifeboat with limited capacity (rich nations) surrounded by swimmers (poor nations), questioning whether to admit more people (risking sinking everyone) or to deny help to preserve those onboard, advocating for self-interest and resource management to avoid global catastrophe. It contrasts with a "spaceship" model of shared resources, arguing against unconditional aid and open immigration to protect the lifeboat's stability and long-term survival, sparking debate on moral obligations to the needy.
3. The Marxist Blind Spot: Logistics vs. Politics
Context: Joseph’s dismissal of Class Analysis/Marxism (maybe) and Dialectical Materialism (maybe). Does he know of what he dismisses?
Peter Joseph treats political economy as a technical engineering problem (logistics, resource flows) rather than a power struggle. He assumes that if the mechanism (Integral) is more efficient and fair, people will adopt it. Power does not yield to better arguments or better software. Existing power structures will weaponize or crush alternatives, as he well knows.
Integral lacks an “immune system.” It has a “Decision System” (CDS) but seemingly no “Defense System.” How does a node defend itself against a local warlord, a cartel, or the dying breaths of a State entity demanding taxes in fiat currency, crypto, wheat, or gold? By ignoring the Marxist reality of class antagonism, Integral assumes a rational actor that doesn’t exist in a crisis. It ignores the fact that inefficiency/volatility is often profitable for those in charge.
This all reminds me somewhat of Jim Rutt’s Game-B proposals. Ain’t nobody doing it, but he has a nice website where people can share. What will come of another Santa Fe Institute? Trust me, I know they are different, but still.
4. The Cultural Vacuum
Context: From what culture does a complete divorce from market capitalism arise? Will Back to the Land communities in their current nascent form last ten years, and if so, will these communities have any effect on the world at large? Integral in Mandarin and Russian?
Markets are not just economic operating systems; they are cultural operating systems. They condition us to compete, hoard, and transactionalize, despite significant research on K-selected tribes and how we lived until around 8,000 years ago. I have read and seen many sad testimonies about hunter-gatherer communities in the techno-modern era. I’ve traveled and experienced some of these cultures. “Look here, folks, this is how we truly are, wise up! Follow me on Instagram.” You know from what you’ve read here already that I’d love to see us wise up and kick the dark tetrad out, replacing it with our “cells.” I talk a bit about Curtis Yarven in a while: from what culture do benevolent Kings arise?
Integral attempts to bypass culture with code. It tries to force (maybe not) Reciprocity via the ITC (Integral Time Credits) system. MMT is going great, but the UBI thing? Do you know how many generations of political philosophers have proposed such things?
You cannot code a community. Peter knows this, computer code is cool, though. I talk about The Code of Capital later here as well. A village (Joseph’s analogy) works because of shared mythos, kinship, and generations of trust—not because of a ledger. BTC, Smart Contracts, have they helped us at all in solving these complex problems of ours? They are financial scams, and like Carlin might have said, you ain’t privy. Without a massive cultural/spiritual shift (which takes time we may not have), users of Integral might just “game the system” or create black markets on the side to be prosecuted and smashed by rivals. Think of the PayPal mafia that genuinely wants to buy Iceland and Greenland for the energy and minerals they need for their chartered cities and Ex Machina servants. We may not want to compete with them, but they want to compete with us, and they know we are not in their league. The software assumes a level of altruism and transparency that the current culture has beaten out of us.
I can hear it already, just as the Communists tell me I am a counterrevolutionary wet blanket, the Integral clique will call me an idiotic crumudgeon. One must be enthusiastic.
Peter has asked for help and feedback. Go for it. Hopefully, all sincere efforts will be appreciated.
5. Assessment: Novelty and Traction
How Novel is it?
Moderately Novel. It is essentially Stafford Beer’s “Project Cybersyn” (Chile, 1970s) mixed with Parecon (Participatory Economics), Peter wrote about it on Medium, and Resource-Based Economy (Venus Project) concepts, updated with modern UI/UX and blockchain-style logic. He loved the folks at the Venus Project, but I think they may have given him the cold shoulder. At any rate, I’ve followed people worldwide doing similar things, some projects going back generations, and here we are, burning through everything.
The novelty lies mainly in the synthesis—combining governance (CDS) with the supply chain (COS) into a single software stack. That’s cool. I also like his style of critique of market capitalism. For a guy who doesn’t like Socialist rhetoric, he’s good at variations on a theme while claiming to have a real system and not just ideas.
Can it get traction?
As a global replacement? No. It is too cerebral, too complex, and ignores states’ monopoly on violence. I can’t imagine getting people in Portugal into this. I can imagine Portuguese traditional village life reconstituting and getting on with it.
As a “Lifeboat” mechanism? Maybe. If Joseph can strip it down to a “Lite” version—something that helps local communities track resources and labor fairly without needing a global server—it could be a valuable tool for the “culture builders” during an era where this thing of ours is clearly collapsing. I could run that by my permaculture community in Leiria, Portugal, or my friends at the University of Évora (Universidade de Évora).
Summary Judgment
I’m skeptical and mildly supportive. Peter Joseph is committing the Technocrat’s Fallacy: The belief that if we build the right system, human nature and power dynamics will align with it.
The Technocrat's Fallacy, often linked to the “myth of technocratic infallibility” or the “fallacy of false precision,” is the mistaken belief that complex social, economic, and political problems can be solved exclusively through technical expertise, scientific management, and data-driven, apolitical decision-making. It assumes that “what works” (efficiency) can be separated from political values and that experts can operate without bias.
Even if Integral Collective fails as a global revolution, the sub-components (specifically the logic of “Time Credits” vs. Fiat Money, and “Objective Biophysical Accounting” vs. Price Signals) are essential intellectual tools for whatever comes next. He is building the “black box” flight recorder for the next civilization to find.
Look into Stafford Beer’s “Cybersyn” or ParEcon to see how previous attempts at this kind of “planned cooperative economy” fared when they collided with real-world politics.
Participatory economics, ‘parecon’ for short ? a new economy, an alternative to capitalism, built on familiar values including solidarity, equity, diversity, and people democratically controlling their own lives, but utilizing original institutions fully described and defended in this book.
Over the years, I have come to many unsettling conclusions about the way we live. I still have so many questions about how we came to live as we do. Think about it for a moment—why are we the only species that sees any need for money? Dumb question with a lot of avenues of inquiry. Why is the work week 40 hours at the moment? Knowing that civilization is unsustainable, why do we continue living within it? Now that we have domesticated ourselves, the primary reason is that we can no longer survive without it. There are some Indigenous tribes who still live outside of civilization, but those of us within civilization would most likely not enjoy being disconnected from most everyone we know and living the way that the Indigenous do. On the other hand, there most likely would be some folks who actually enjoy living that way better than within civilization, and there is plenty of historical evidence of this. Civilized folks who were given a taste of living with Indigenous tribes often returned to that lifestyle whereas those who lived an Indigenous lifestyle most frequently likewise returned to it after being subjected to living within civilization.
At the end of the day, once one really seriously considers it, our way of life is purely wrong ecologically. Civilization requires violence in order to maintain it. Not that I ever doubted what Derrick Jensen says about civilization, but when I first encountered his writings and media, I was stunned. Back then, I was still in denial about many things. I suppose we all are rather naïve about the way we live. The ideas that Jensen expresses are so true that they are revolutionary, and when one first experiences them, they can be somewhat scary. Yet, how can anyone come to a different conclusion given all the variables and circumstances? (At the end of this article is a link to download Richard Adrian Reese’s book, Wild, Free, and Happy, which proves this point beyond any shadow of a doubt.)
Why do we place ourselves at the top of everything as if we are the most intelligent species? If we are (supposedly) the most intelligent of species, then why are we literally destroying our only home and all the other species living here? Why have we caused the mass extinction we are currently in? Looking at the past 15 years, despite all the knowledge I’ve gained peering into the predicament of ecological overshoot, I have come up with more questions than answers in many respects.
*From the above post on Subscack.
Culture is in flux and evolves for many complex reasons. People are inspired to do stuff. People are active. Active people are attractive people.
Part of the table of contents for Wild, Free, and Happy.
So, in the end, the real issue has never been capitalism versus socialism. That framing is an ideological trap with no analytical or strategic value left in it. The real conflict is extraction versus autonomy. It is about whether societies have the right to control their land, labor, energy, and resources for ecological stability and human well-being—or whether those foundations must remain permanently open to external exploitation in the name of market “freedom.” Any serious path forward requires abandoning obsolete labels and confronting the material power structures that continue to govern the world under the softened language of markets rather than the blunt force of empire.
For years, I have openly shared my thoughts, ideas, and reference materials on my website, Globehackers & Cospolon,and across social media. I deliberately chose not to promote my activities. It was a quiet experiment: I was curious if the raw information would organically spark interest among my network of friends and acquaintances. It didn’t.
But my failure is a fractal of a larger failure. Over the past 20 years, I have observed that even the heavyweights—experts who actively confront reality across domains and possess every distribution tool in the Silicon Valley arsenal—hardly make a dent. They are screaming into a hurricane. Despite their reach, they seem unable to impact ‘this thing of ours.’
The intellectual culture within the wealthy West’s elite circles has not just stalled; it has entered a steep, terminal decline.
This leaves us with a stark reality: Ordinary people have to step up. If you have any clear sense of what’s happening, passivity is no longer an option. We must cultivate intellectual curiosity, educate ourselves, and prepare to step into leadership roles that the elites have abdicated. Make no mistake: The Players of the Great Game 21st Century and their armies of service providers are members of a death cult. Sane, healthy people have to supplant these odious, deluded true believers. I am making judgments, yes. But I don’t blame people for being taken in by the culture; the programming is strong. I am saying that ordinary, relatively innocent people deserve a new kind of leadership. As for the debates on free will and determinism? I leave those to the “experts.” I am ashamed to say I’ve mostly read about that topic in the Anglosphere anyway.
I’m interested in action.
In his 2023 book Determined, Robert Sapolsky argues that human behavior is the result of a seamless chain of biological and environmental causes stretching back to our genes and evolutionary history. He claims that if you account for every hormone, neurotransmitter, and childhood experience, there is no "gap" left for free will to exist.
“We are nothing more or less than the cumulative biological and environmental luck, over which we had no control.” —Robert Sapolsky
Daniel Dennett (Philosopher) was the leading voice for compatibilism. He argued that the “hard determinists” are defining free will impossibly high (as a kind of magic that defies physics). Instead, he defined free will as control and competence—the evolved ability to anticipate the future and avoid harm. If you are a healthy adult capable of rationality, you have “all the free will worth wanting.” We are not “puppets” because we have internal control loops that allow us to reflect and steer our lives, even if the universe is deterministic.
Kevin Mitchell (Neurogeneticist), a rising counter-voice to Sapolsky (author of Free Agents: How Evolution Gave Us Free Will, 2023) argues that while we are physical beings, life is not merely “physics.” He suggests that evolution created a layer of “top-down” causation. Living organisms act for reasons, not just because of atoms bumping into each other. He argues that the brain is a decision-making machine designed specifically to filter noise and make genuine choices. Agency is an emergent property of evolution; we are not just passive observers but active agents who shape our future.
Philosophy Break
Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph Schelling's philosophy—particularly his Naturphilosophie and "Identity Philosophy"—rejects the rigid dualism between mind (consciousness) and matter (reality) that characterized the work of his predecessors like Kant and Fichte. Instead, Schelling posits that Nature and Spirit are fundamentally identical; they are two poles of the same absolute reality. For Schelling, nature is not a static, dead mechanism, but a dynamic, self-organizing organism that is unconsciously rational. He famously argued that nature is "slumbering spirit," striving through an evolutionary process to become conscious of itself—a goal it finally achieves in the human mind. Consequently, reality is simply the unconscious pre-history of consciousness, and consciousness is the awakening of nature.
“The objective world is simply the primitive, still unconscious poetry of the spirit; the universal organon of philosophy—and the keystone of its entire arch—is the philosophy of art. [...]
If all knowledge has two poles, the objective and the subjective, then the whole of philosophy consists of two sciences. Either one sets out from the objective, and asks how a subjective fits in with it... The objective is nature, and thus the problem is: how to match the intelligent to nature. The concept of the objective, or nature, is that it is the merely presentable...
The necessary tendency of all natural science is to move from nature to intelligence. This and nothing else is at the bottom of the endeavor to bring theory into natural phenomena. The highest perfection of natural science would be the complete spiritualization of all natural laws into laws of intuition and of thought. The phenomenon (the material) must completely vanish, and only the laws (the formal) remain. Hence it happens that the more the lawful breaks forth in nature, the more the husk disappears, the phenomena themselves become more mental, and at length entirely cease. The optical phenomena are nothing but a geometry whose lines are drawn by light, and this light itself is already of doubtful materiality. In the phenomena of magnetism all trace of matter has already vanished, and of the phenomena of gravitation, which even the natural scientist believes he can grasp only as a direct spiritual influence, nothing remains but its law, the execution of which on the large scale is the mechanism of the heavenly motions. The complete theory of nature would be that by virtue of which the whole of nature should be resolved into an intelligence.”
— F.W.J. Schelling, System of Transcendental Idealism (1800)
Capitalism Is Great At What It Does
Wall Street Greed is Good…This is a classic cult progress narrative.
We are living in the global cult of capitalism.
“It’s Overshoot, stupid!”
I’m an industrial product engineer by training, working for a large engineering company in the field of electrification and automation of road transport for many years now. Before that, I worked more than a decade for an American corporation in various roles, ranging from maintenance engineering to project management and process expert positions, as well as spending 2 years on a post-graduate leadership program in the supply chain and logistics areas. I’ve seen how investment and sourcing decisions are made in these great conglomerates, how our much cherished consumer products are produced and how they get to the end customer. I saw how ‘sausage’ is made.
We have to call our way of doing business (status competition) and the exploitation of resources something. Today, we call it capitalism.
For the vast majority of the Victorian era (1837–1901), the government, the press, and the public referred to their system as “Mercantilism,” “Free Trade,” “Commerce,” or “Civilization.”
On The Radar — William Bolts
William Bolts’ trajectory from a Dutch-born émigré in England to a controversial tycoon in Bengal was defined by his sharp commercial instincts and eventual collision with the East India Company’s monopoly. Born in Amsterdam but raised in England from age fifteen, Bolts initially honed his skills in the diamond trade in Lisbon before joining the East India Company as a factor in 1759.
Upon arriving in Calcutta, he distinguished himself by mastering Bengali—a rarity among his British peers—which enabled him to bypass intermediaries and build deep local networks. His official posting to Benares (Varanasi) became a springboard for immense private ventures; he amassed a personal fortune of roughly £90,000 in just six years by trading in saltpeter, opium, and cotton, often undermining the Company’s own commercial interests.
Bolts’ aggressive pursuit of wealth, combined with his audacious 1768 proposal to start a newspaper that would expose the administration’s inner workings, branded him a dangerous “interloper” in the eyes of the establishment. Consequently, the Company authorities forcibly deported him back to England in 1768, where he would later channel his grievances into Considerations on India Affairs, a scathing and influential exposé of the Company’s exploitation of Bengal.
The video below explains how the British Empire operated.
The Capitalist Reflex
Before we can discuss the deeper context, we must address the reflex. Most people defend capitalism because it provides the neurohormonal cocktails of consumption that prop up their self-worth. They rely on the myth of the “Techno-Fix,” the belief that when the crisis hits, the Market and the Engineers will invent a way out. This is not optimism; it is a dangerous form of human supremacy that assumes we are exempt from the laws of nature.
The Knowledge Trap
I am disappointed. Despite an explosion of information—documentaries, resistance movements, brilliant educators—we remain stuck. We know, yet we lack the wisdom to act. It is a tragedy of inertia.
AI: The Accelerant of Collapse
I love learning. I’ve traded the quiet dust of libraries for the lightning speed of AI tools. But make no mistake: AI is a constraint-bound system. The current AI boom is a financialized racket, a new layer of the Great Game meant to enclose the commons of human thought. It is not a game-changer; it is a fuel injector for the omnicidal engine.
We are building data centers to “solve” our problems, yet those data centers consume the very resources (energy and water) that are in collapse. This is the definition of Late Stage Capitalist Realism: The TESCREAL elite dreaming of uploading their minds while the biosphere burns. Algorithms are only as wise as the people who code them. Whoops.
A Guide Through the Black Box
I have synthesized these perspectives to help you see the “gorilla riding the elephant.” Whether you are new to the concept of Overshoot or a veteran of the OCLTG community, I invite you to delve into the work below. Let’s try to understand the machine before it stops.
I have always lived within the belly of the beast. I am a child of the global capitalist system, and like most of you, I am entangled in its mesh. I could not sustain my current life without the very institutions I ponder and criticize. I know the sheer difficulty—perhaps the futility—of trying to boycott or divest on moral grounds when every supply chain is tainted. I am not an activist; I am a witness. One day, looking back at my passivity, I may have to say, “Shame on me.” But this is the condition of my generation. Older people tend to keep their heads down, stay the course, and hope for the best, right up until the cattle cars pull up to the front door.
So, with eyes wide open to our own complicity, let’s dive in.
Capitalism, Capital, Capitalists, and other related things.
The Taxonomy of Homo capitalist Capitalism isn’t just an economic system; it’s a food chain.
The Petty Capitalist: (Most of Us). We are the krill. The domesticated majority. The billions who rely on and engage with the institutions of modern techno-industrial civilization to survive. We are the train’s passengers, complaining about the service but too terrified to get off. We feed the system with our labor and our consumption. We are complicit by necessity, tethered to the machine for our food, shelter, and neurohormonal cocktails. We are the dreamers.
The Active Capitalist: (The Sharks). These are the hunters. Professional service providers, venture capitalists, upper management, hedge fund managers, private equity ghouls, corrupt officials, traders, and high-level clergy. The lieutenants and the fixers. These are the people consciously working to maximize Return on Investment (ROI). They don’t make the rules, but they know how to exploit them to accumulate capital. They are the active agents of extraction.
The Players of the Great Game: (The Leviathans). A fraction of the “one percent.” These are not just rich people; they are uber-wealthy geo-architects. They possess the resources to dictate terms to nations. They are often characterized by the Dark Tetrad: narcissism, Machiavellianism, psychopathy, and sadism. They don’t just want wealth; they want dominion over the life flows of the planet. These are the strategically savvy ideologues who treat the world as a zero-sum game. They keep score. They do not just play the game; they wrote the legal code. They control the flows of energy, resources, and populations. They have the power to change the rules when the odds turn against them, and they play to win at any cost. They are the only ones at the table who can flip the board when they are losing.
Voyager II
“Sure, all the living systems on our planet were destroyed, but for a very brief and extraordinary time, we created a shyte ton of value for shareholders, all of whom are now extinct. Thank you for deciphering this message. Good luck out there. And, by the way, what’s dark matter?”
What do I mean by The Great Game?
The Classic Definition (Historical)
The Great Game refers to the strategic, political, and diplomatic rivalry between the British and Russian Empires from the 19th to the early 20th centuries.
Britain sought to protect the “jewel in its crown”—British India—by creating a buffer zone in Central Asia to block Russian expansion. Russia, in turn, sought to expand its frontier southward to access warm-water ports and challenge British hegemony.
The conflict played out across a vast chessboard of “buffer states,” primarily Afghanistan, Persia (Iran), and Tibet.
For nearly a century the two most powerful nations on earth, Victorian Britain and Tsarist Russia, fought a secret war in the lonely passes and deserts of Central Asia. Those engaged in this shadowy struggle called it ‘The Great Game’, a phrase immortalized by Kipling.
When play first began the two rival empires lay nearly 2,000 miles apart. By the end, some Russian outposts were within 20 miles of India. This classic book tells the story of the Great Game through the exploits of the young officers, both British and Russian, who risked their lives playing it. Disguised as holy men or native horse-traders, they mapped secret passes, gathered intelligence and sought the allegiance of powerful khans. Some never returned. The violent repercussions of the Great Game are still convulsing Central Asia today.
It was rarely a direct war between the two empires. Instead, it was a “shadow war” fought through espionage, proxy conflicts, bribes to local emirs, and diplomatic maneuvering.
The only thing that’s changed is that today we don’t bother with diplomatic maneuvering.
The Updated Definition (The 21st Century Context)
The Great Game 21st Century (or the “New Great Game”) is the hyper-accelerated, multipolar struggle between global superpowers—chiefly the United States, China, and Russia—to weaponize the global capitalist infrastructure for geopolitical dominance. BRICS, or the Multipolar World, represents another abstract configuration of States making some noise, but at the moment has little potential to participate.
Constantin von Hoffmeister, as seen in the video below, has written extensively about the Multipolar World. See also his Substack: Constantin von Hoffmeister @eurosiberia
The US remains a student of Israeli strategy (although it learns little) and continues its vandalism of Africa, the Middle East, and Latin American countries. All nations caught in the great, unnecessary struggle must tread carefully.
“Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.” —Napoleon Battle of Austerlitz (1805)
The Battle of Austerlitz (1805) is often considered Napoleon’s tactical masterpiece. As the Russian and Austrian forces began maneuvering to flank him—a move Napoleon had secretly hoped they would make because it weakened their center—his marshals were eager to attack immediately.
Napoleon reportedly restrained them, saying (in French):
“Quand l’ennemi fait un faux mouvement, il faut se garder de l’interrompre.”
Napoleon’s invasion of Russia and his ensuing terrible retreat from Moscow played out as military epic and human tragedy on a colossal scale—history’s first example of total war. The story begins in 1811, when Napoleon dominated nearly all of Europe, succeeding in his aim to reign over the civilized world like a modern-day Charlemagne. Part of his bid for supremacy involved destroying Britain through a continental blockade, but the plan was stymied when Russia’s Tsar Alexander refused to comply. So he set out to teach the Tsar a lesson by intimidation and force. What followed was a deadly battle that would change the fate of modern Europe.
By invading Russia in 1812, Napoleon was upping the ante as never before. Once he sent his vast army eastward, there was no turning back: he was sucked farther and farther into the one territory he could not conquer. Trudging through a brutal climate in hostile lands, his men marched on toward distant Moscow. But this only galvanized the Russians, who finally made a stand at the gates of the city. The ensuing outbreak was a slaughter the likes of which would not be seen again until the first day of the Somme more than a century later.
What remained of Napoleon’s army now had to endure a miserable retreat across the wintry wastes of Russia, while his enemies aligned against him. This turned out to be a momentous turning point: not only the beginning of the end for Napoleon’s empire, but the rise of Russia’s influence in world affairs. It also gave birth to Napoleon’s superhuman legend -- the myth of greatness in failure that would inspire the Romantic poets as well as future leaders to defy fate as he had done.
In this gripping, authoritative account, Adam Zamoyski has drawn on the latest Russian research, as well as a vast pool of firsthand accounts in French, Russian, German, Polish, and Italian, to paint a vivid picture of the experiences of soldiers and civilians on both sides of the conflict. He shows how the relationship between Napoleon and Tsar Alexander came to distort their alliance and bring about a war that neither man wanted. Dramatic, insightful, and enormously absorbing, Moscow 1812 is a masterful work of history.
Best Laid Plans
The USA’s goal is to be the world’s hegemon in perpetuity. There can be only one owner, controller, manager of the world’s capital flows. If the USA can’t run the show, no one can. Hence, the USA is supposedly upgrading its nuclear arsenal while tearing up ballistic missile and nuclear arms treaties.
Move fast, break everything, and swoop in heroically to pick up the pieces.
Unlike the 19th-century version, which focused on drawing lines on a map, this modern iteration concerns control over the information, energy, and material flows of the global economy. It is a rapacious competition where statecraft and corporate strategy fuse to capture three critical domains:
Critical Resources: The race is no longer just for land, but also for the “blood” of the digital and “green economy”—cheap labor, semiconductors, rare-earth minerals, lithium, and cobalt. This drives neocolonial extraction in Africa, South America, and Central Asia.
Infrastructure as Sovereignty: Through initiatives like China’s Belt and Road, powers use predatory lending and infrastructure development (ports, 5G networks, pipelines) to turn sovereign nations into economic vassal states, a strategy the USA has used since its founding on July 4, 1776.
Digital Enclosure: The battle for “data sovereignty,” AI supremacy, and control over the undersea cables and satellites that carry the world’s informational and financial transactions.
*** This is far from a complete list, but you get the picture.
In this updated game, rapacious neoliberal/neoconservative (call it what you will) capitalism is the primary weapon, and it weaponizes everything. Multinational corporations act as extensions of state power, trade sanctions are used as siege warfare, and the “buffer zones” are no longer just physical nations—they are supply chains, financial networks, the internet, and people’s minds.
In Stories Are Weapons, Annalee Newitz traces the way disinformation, propaganda, and violent threats have evolved from military weapons deployed against foreign adversaries into tools in domestic culture wars. Newitz delves into America’s deep-rooted history with psychological operations, beginning with Benjamin Franklin’s Revolutionary War-era fake newspaper and nineteenth-century wars on Indigenous nations, and reaching its apotheosis with the Cold War and twenty-first-century influence campaigns online. America’s secret weapon has long been coercive storytelling. And there’s a reason for that: operatives who shaped modern psychological warfare drew on their experiences as science fiction writers and in the advertising industry.
Now, through a weapons-transfer program long unacknowledged, psyops have found their way into the hands of culture warriors, transforming democratic debates into toxic wars over American identity. Newitz zeroes in on conflicts over race and intelligence, school board fights over LGBT students, and campaigns against feminist viewpoints, revealing how, in each case, specific groups of Americans are singled out and treated as enemies of the state. Crucially, Newitz delivers a powerful counternarrative, speaking with the researchers and activists who are outlining a pathway to achieving psychological disarmament and cultural peace.
Primary Players
Then: British Empire vs. Russian Empire
Now: USA vs. China vs. Russia (A Multipolar World)
Key Objective
Territorial buffers & military security
Economic strangulation & total dominance (with an emphasis on high technology and AI for Oligarchs’ immortality and ascent into the realm of the Gods)
The “Gold”
Warm-water ports & territory
Rare earth metals, Data, Datacenters & Microchips (***far from a complete list…)
Primary Tactic
Spies, explorers, & local bribes
Sanctions, debt traps, corruption, destruction of moral values, the rule of law & cyber-espionage
The Casualty
Sovereignty of Central Asian Khanates
The Global South, living systems, the commons, social services & the privacy and rights of citizens (***hardly joking, depopulation to make room for rewilding for the players’ country estates. haha hehe, hang down your head.)
***I couldn’t list all the stakes. There are so many.
Given the current date of December 2025, the “Great Game 21st Century” has evolved rapidly. The two most critical battlegrounds are the “Silicon Front” (the brain of the global economy) and the “Green Scramble” (the body). All of it requires more energy and material than is sustainable.
Late-stage capitalism is an omnicidal project.
***I will get to the ramifications for living systems later.
Battleground 1: The Silicon Front (The War for our “minds”)
This is the high-tech theater. The combatants are the US and China, but the “soldiers” are private corporations like Palantir, Nvidia, TSMC, and ASML, as well as proxy armies from vassal States. There are many more tech players across the globe, including ubiquitous, practically invisible to us, companies we use every day, like Google, Facebook, and Amazon. This is not close to a complete list of corporate players in this space. It’s a global corporate “ECOSYSTEM”—Oh boy! The objective is to control the computing power required for AI and military dominance.
COMPUTE—the next, next commodity.
Compute refers to the processing power, hardware (CPUs, GPUs), and software resources used to execute algorithms, calculate data, and run applications. It is essential for AI, simulations, and data analysis. Usage examples include running cloud instances, training machine learning models, and edge computing. Synonyms include calculate, figure, reckon, and work out.
The Current State of Play (late 2025):
The “Transactional” Twist: After years of the US imposing a “high fence” to block China’s access to advanced AI chips, the dynamic has shifted toward mercantile opportunism. The US administration (under the “Trump 2.0” trade policy) recently approved the export of Nvidia’s powerful H200 AI chips to China. I don’t think DJT is capable of developing a policy on anything; he is a front man for the Players who do the real dumb, smartest-guy-in-the-room think’n. What comes after DJT will be worse, whether Red or Blue. The Uniparty is in denial and thoroughly indoctrinated.
Why? Because the capitalist imperative (Nvidia’s $50B+ potential revenue) overrode the pure security imperative. The definition of rapaciousness: selling the “rope” to your rival because the quarterly earnings demand it.
China’s “Chokepoint” Retaliation: In response to earlier sanctions, China didn’t just complain; it weaponized the periodic table. It imposed strict export controls on Gallium, Germanium, and Antimony—obscure but vital elements for radar, optics, and advanced semiconductors.
The Result: A “Mutually Assured Economic Destruction” in which the West has the chip designs (Nvidia/Intel), but China holds the raw materials to build them. Traps like these abound.
But wait, there’s more: China is designing info machines from the chip up now and has more engineers than the USA. Hence, hubristic “leaders” like Marco Rubio feel an urgent need to destroy China before it’s too late. Of course, China knows all about US designs as their think tanks love to brag to the world about their plans. The bottom line: Real Chinese people in China are now designing chips, which is why the “Celestials” must go.
***So much has been written on the “China Problem” and is, at this very moment, being written that the raw data alone could drown civilization in an attention-grabbing, mundane, fetid opinion swamp.
The “Rapacious” Reality: This is no longer about “free trade.” It is weaponized interdependence. Today, everything is weaponized. TikTok Wars. Instagram Wars. Facebook Wars. Computer Game Wars. Tomato Wars. Cat Toy Wars. Tai Chi Walking Wars…I could go on; it’s oddly meditative.
The Vulnerability (The “Malacca Dilemma”):
For China, this is an existential nightmare. Approximately 80% of China’s oil imports flow through this bottleneck, which narrows to just 1.7 miles wide at the Phillips Channel.
It is the easiest place for the US Navy to impose a distant blockade in the event of a conflict over Taiwan. If the US shuts this gate, the Chinese economy (and its military machine) run out of fuel within weeks. Therefore, China has been hoarding commodities like oil and copper for decades. Some of my best friends are commodities traders. haha hehe. As the USA increases its pressure, China gets busy. One might wonder: if China had an Emperor now, would they be thinking of a preemptive strike, perhaps against Japan’s aircraft carrier?
The Silicon Shield: Hsinchu Science Park
Location: A strip of land on the northwest coast of Taiwan.
The Asset: The foundries of TSMC (Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company).
The Vulnerability:
This single location produces over 90% of the world’s most advanced chips (the sub-7nm chips used in iPhones, F-35 fighter jets, and AI data centers).
It is situated on a fault line (both geological and geopolitical). A Chinese invasion—or even a naval blockade—would not just stop the supply of iPhones; it would inflict trillions of dollars in damage to the global economy, equivalent to a “digital nuclear winter.”
Rapacious Context: This concentration is intentional. Taiwan refers to this as its “Silicon Shield”—the theory that the world cannot afford to let Taiwan “fall” because the cost of losing TSMC is too high. It is a defense strategy built on weaponized economic fragility. This is despite Taiwan being formally recognized as part of China under international law. We all know that international law has never existed, because it can’t be enforced. If a country feels slighted and can’t go to war and win, it will have to bear the humiliation and find novel ways to play along while getting something of what it wants.
*** Uncle Sam doesn’t give a damn about international law, and the world knows it.
The Tech Funnel: Veldhoven
Location: A quiet provincial town in the south of the Netherlands.
The Asset: The headquarters and primary factory of ASML.
The Vulnerability:
ASML is the only company in the world that makes Extreme Ultraviolet (EUV) lithography machines. These bus-sized, $300-million printers are required to print the chips made in Taiwan.
Without Veldhoven, there is no AI revolution. No other company (not Canon, not Nikon) can replicate this technology.
Rapacious Context: The US government has effectively forced the Netherlands to treat these machines as weapons, banning their export to China. This town is the “chokepoint of the chokepoint”—the place where the “West” (Anglosphere/Uncle Sam) squeezes the technological windpipe of its rivals. So you see, the European Union and NATO are only so useful to the USA, and couldn’t wipe its nose without daddy, so whether eloquent and young Obama (Yes we can!) is POTUS or Donald J. Trump (Make America Great Again!), the USA will dictate the rules. There’s nothing the EU can do about it. The sniveling theatre that goes on between the Atlantic Alliance is pure theatre for the benefit of careerist service providers to the Players and the cable news masses.
The Green Heart: The Katanga Region
Location: The southern province of the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC).
The Asset: The world’s largest reserves of Cobalt (essential for EV batteries).
The Vulnerability:
Roughly 70% of the world’s Cobalt comes from this one unstable region.
The supply chain here is morally and physically fragile, reliant on “artisanal” miners (often children) digging in toxic pits.
Rapacious Context: In 2024 and 2025, we have seen the DRC government (backed by Chinese mining interests) begin to cap exports to drive up prices, weaponizing scarcity. The West is now trying to build the Lobito Corridor railway to extract these minerals directly to the Atlantic, bypassing Chinese-controlled logistics routes. It is a 19th-century style “scramble” for the raw materials of the 21st century. When there are no more jobs for “high value” men, they can always join the military and later slot into a mercenary or contract security (PMSCs) force like the Wagner Group, Allied Universal, or G4S.
***Can the USA build railways? Mmmm…
How about Satellites?
Space junk, what could go wrong? Why go back to the moon? Golly, gee, America will fly around it again after decades. Yippie! Buy Neil deGrasse Tyson a drink. Near Earth orbit and outer space can’t be weaponized fast enough. Keep an eye on the MIC stocks if you want to survive the Singularity.
AI Overview
Amazon Web Services (AWS) holds significant U.S. military contracts, primarily through the multi-vendor Joint Warfighting Cloud Capability (JWCC) for cloud services across all classification levels, supporting key initiatives like JADC2, and also secured major deals with the Navy and U.S. Army for specialized cloud environments and data storage, including a large contract to host top-secret Australian military intelligence. These contracts provide cloud computing, storage, analytics, and AI capabilities for logistics, communication, and decision support, integrating into critical warfighter systems from tactical edges to high-security intelligence.
Key Contracts & Initiatives:
Joint Warfighting Cloud Capability (JWCC): AWS is one of four providers (with Google, Microsoft, Oracle) on this massive IDIQ contract to offer DoD enterprise-wide cloud services, replacing the earlier JEDI project.
U.S. Army Contracts: Recent awards include a multi-year, $158.3 million contract (ending 2028) for Impact Level 6 (IL6) cloud services, used for unclassified defense operations, and another for cloud management.
U.S. Navy: A $724 million blank purchase agreement for services, training, and access to AWS GovCloud (US) and secret regions, supporting Project Overmatch.
Intelligence: A historic 2013 CIA contract (worth $600M) established secret AWS regions for U.S. intelligence agencies, with subsequent NSA programs also utilizing AWS secure frameworks.
International Contracts: AWS won a $2 billion contract to build data centers for storing top-secret Australian military intelligence.
Services Provided:
Cloud Infrastructure: Secure computing and storage for sensitive and classified data.
AI & Data Analytics: Powering AI-driven drone analytics, battlefield communication, and data acceleration initiatives.
Tactical Edge: Deploying cloud services to remote, data-heavy environments for improved field operations.
Specialized Solutions: Using services like AWS Wickr for secure telemedicine and communication networks.
Significance:
AWS’s role extends to providing the digital backbone for modern military operations, supporting data flow, logistics, and command & control (JADC2) for land, air, space, and cyber domains.
Books are a loss leader.
One could go on and on; every atom on Earth is up for grabs until we build the Amazon Dyson Sphere.
Battleground 2: The Dirt Scramble (The War for the “Body”)
While the Silicon Front is fought in clean rooms, this front is fought in the mines of the Global South, particularly Africa. This is the race for Lithium, Cobalt, and Copper—the physical blood of the green energy transition.
***We’ll leave oil and gas out of it for now, again, so much has been written.
The Arena: The Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Zambia, and Zimbabwe.
China’s Head Start (The Incumbent):
China realized two decades ago that whoever controls the battery controls the 21st century. Consequently, Chinese state-backed firms now process roughly 90% of the world’s rare earth elements.
In the DRC, Chinese entities control the majority of cobalt mines. This isn’t just business; it is infrastructure-as-sovereignty. They built the roads, the parliaments, and the ports in exchange for mineral rights.
The West’s Counter-Move (The Lobito Corridor):
Panic has set in. The US and EU are frantically backing the Lobito Corridor—a railway project connecting the mineral-rich belts of the DRC and Zambia to the Atlantic port of Lobito in Angola.
The Goal: To physically bypass China’s logistical chokehold. The aim is to get the minerals out of Africa and into Western supply chains without them ever touching Chinese soil.
***Meanwhile: Ecocide. I am sure all the beer drinkers and UFC fans in Liverpool are watching this closely.
The Rapacious Reality: This is Green Colonialism.
Resource Nationalism: African nations like Zimbabwe and Namibia have recently banned the export of rawlithium, demanding that foreign powers build processing plants locally.
The Great Game Response: Instead of respecting this sovereignty, the Great Powers are engaging in a bidding war of bribes, debt-trap diplomacy, and “strategic partnerships” to secure exemptions. The fight is not for Africa’s development; it is to ensure that the batteries in a Tesla or a BYD car remain cheap, regardless of the human cost in the artisanal mines of the Congo.
***Ocean ecosystems? Drinkable water? Healthy living soil & forests?
Music Break
Synthesis: The Double-Bind
The genius—and the horror—of this modern Great Game is that the two fronts are connected.
You cannot build the AI chips (Silicon Front) without the Gallium and Copper (Dirt Scramble).
The US tries to strangle China’s tech (AI bans), while China tries to starve the US’s supply chain (Mineral bans).
In the middle are the “buffer states”—not just nations, but supply chains. A miner in the DRC and a chip engineer in Taiwan are both unknowingly drafted soldiers in the same war. Filipinos are now being primed to be the frontline drone operators in the coming war with China.
Do you think Gig-economy nomads or bankrupt farmers are going to retrain as Chip Designers or day-wage miners? Back in the day, we traveled in Greece, Italy, and Turkey picking olives.
***Overshoot & Ecocide while we poison people’s minds and bodies.
Personal Aside
The Sedative of Abundance & Scarcity.
Almost all domains interest me. In my youth, I was a voracious reader and interested in current events. I was so busy learning that I couldn’t see the vastness of my own ignorance. This is not to say that I was a good student. Now, with the benefit of time, I see clearly what we are choosing to ignore. People need to spend time learning about Overshoot, Collapse, and Limits to Growth. I don’t know how to make the topic “desirable.” It’s the ultimate buzzkill. It’s the anti-marketing campaign of the century. It’s great if you want to live the ascetic life.
But we must understand why it is so hard to look at the polybeast. I mean, we have been trained to ignore inconvenient “truths” for centuries. It is profoundly difficult to pay attention to existential risks when the system appears to be working perfectly, or when you’ve been trained to believe it does. Why would you care about the apocalypse when the shelves are stocked? The logistics of global capitalism act as a powerful hallucinogen. The seamless arrival of the Amazon van masks the violence of production. The crisp resolution of the 4K TV (and the thought of buying a 10K TV in 3 years) distracts us from the PFAS in our blood and our testosterone dump. The convenience of the plastic-wrapped sandwich hides the microplastics crossing our blood-brain barrier. What incentive do you have to care about the widening chasm of dangerous inequality, or the fact that a fractured World War III is risking nuclear annihilation across the globe, when the WiFi is fast, the coffee is hot, you can still buy dark chocolate for a few bucks, have your avocado toast, and salivate over all the fast food advertisements during NFL Playoff games? The system works too well on the surface. And the system is designed to provide a steady drip of neurohormones that sedates our modern survival instincts. We are comfortable, fed, and entertained as we watch the world burn on high-definition screens. And our brains have been blown out by the never-ending firehose of information we are exposed to.
We are living through a period of growing constraints, yet we are partying like it’s 1999 (where’s my Propofol). Young people need to move beyond the fantasy of perpetual accelerating ascent. The era of “easy” is over. I’m sorry to say it, but for the average consumer in the West, it won’t get better than this. This is the peak of material convenience. The future will be more confusing, more volatile, and more expensive.
***My friend in Japan back in the day traveled to every continent to see Prince live; now that's commitment.
We have to understand our limitations because nature is about to impose them on us.
But this is not a funeral dirge; it is a design brief. Creativity involves constraints, and we are about to get very creative. Whether you are affluent or struggling to get by, the storm is coming for us all. We need to get together and build alternatives to this brittle status quo. We must learn the ecology of capitalism—understand its history, why it is so productive, why it is so psychologically sticky, and why it is fundamentally ecocidal. We must know what’s in the black boxes we depend on. We must, finally, learn from the past, from its stories and models. Yet, nothing in human history provides a path through a predicament of this scale. We are walking off the edge of the map, and we have to draw the rest of it ourselves. A new age of discovery is at hand.
***READ THIS BOOK! Critiques of Capitalism existed before we called it Capitalism.
A sweeping, dramatic history of capitalism as seen through the eyes of its fiercest critics.
Capitalism has long been understood as a driving force behind the biggest political, economic, and social dislocations of our time. But in this sweeping, kaleidoscopic history of the economic system that has shaped our world, the Pulitzer Prize finalist John Cassidy adopts a bold new approach: he examines global capitalism through the eyes of its critics.
From the English Luddites, who rebelled against early factory automation, to communists in Germany and Russia in the early twentieth century, Latin American dependistas, the international Wages for Housework campaign of the 1970s, and the modern degrowth movement, this absorbing narrative traverses the globe. It visits with familiar names—Smith, Carlyle, Marx, Luxemburg, Keynes, Polanyi—but also focuses on many lesser-known figures, including William Thompson, the Irish proto-socialist whose work influenced Marx; Flora Tristan, the French proponent of a universal labor union; John Hobson, the original theorist of imperialism; J.C. Kumarappa, the Indian exponent of Gandhian economics; Eric Williams, the Trinidadian author of a famous thesis on slavery and capitalism; and Joan Robinson, the Cambridge economist and critic of the Cold War.
Blending rich biography, panoramic history, and lively exploration of economic theories, Capitalism and Its Critics tells an expansive story that illuminates the deep roots of many of the most urgent issues we face today, from widening inequality and the ecological crisis to technological transformation and resurgent authoritarian politics.
Our esteemed researchers are hard at work compiling all the stuff they forgot to teach you in school. Pull up a desk and get out your #2 pencils, because class is in session!
What We Do?
We are a historical podcast that attempts to decolonize history and debunk myths and misinformation taught to you in school and on corporate media. Every week, we will have one free newsletter, one exclusive newsletter for subscribers only, a podcast episode and a bonus episode for subscribers only.
Personal Aside
My thought journey is quirky and stochastic. I’m attracted to eccentrics, but I read the work of people who are principled, devoted, and sincere. How do I know? It took a while, but I can tell.
Read differing viewpoints, triangulate, contextualize, focus, and gain a broader view.
Understand why and how an author or expert arrived at their conclusions or judgments. What is their culture? What are their lived experiences? Look at their sources. Understand their incentives and agendas.
The “Western” perspective is limited. Read across cultures. Understand your biases and heuristics—not only academic bias.
After reading a book you liked, write a report.
When someone like Norman Finkelstein talks, listen, even if you disagree with him. Can you clearly articulate why you disagree with him? Trust people with integrity, even when you disagree with their views.
I genuinely believe that good citizens are constantly learning.
The process of learning, not just knowledge, helps us make better decisions.
If you are curious and work hard to understand the world, you will make good choices.
Exercising one’s intellect is hard work and invigorating. Knowledge that helps you understand “Reality” (the best wise guess at the moment) is good for you and yours.
Learning is one of the best healthy habits you can cultivate and maintain.
Explore the work of people with differing perspectives on complex subjects.
Look for people who are integritous, sincere, and principled, and who have clearly done the reading/work. Their views needn’t be even close to “perfect” as long as they stand for something, have skin in the game, and are doing something. (A high bar.)
Past and present economists are too constrained by “economics” to be of service to the world I’d like to live in.
Take everyone’s work with a proverbial grain of salt and let it inform your own thinking.
For quite some time, I’ve looked at the world through the lens of Overshoot, Collapse, and Limits to Growth (I read the first edition when it came out). On any given day, I’ll be thinking about these domains in different ways. They are at the center of my worldview.
If you are not familiar with these topics, they can be challenging. You may experience quite a bit of cognitive dissonance as you read through the sections below.
***Past and present economists are too constrained by “economics” to be of service to the world I’d like to live in.
Nature Bats Last.
Unforeseen circumstances can be fatal. The most potentially brutal dictator is Circumstances.
Against The TESCREAL Bundle—why Capitalism doesn’t address the causes of our many social pathologies.
Let’s explore Alice Crary’s work for a moment. Let’s start by combining my concerns into some dialogues I’ve created based on her work.
She recently appeared on a podcast I follow: OVERSHOOT | Shrink Toward Abundance, hosted by Population Balance.
“The Dangers of Effective Altruism”
Alice Crary is a prominent American moral philosopher known for her work at the intersection of ethics, feminism, and critical theory. She currently serves as a University Distinguished Professor at The New School for Social Research in New York and is a Visiting Fellow at Regent’s Park College, University of Oxford.
Crary’s work is particularly relevant to critiques of Capitalism because she challenges the “instrumental rationality” often favored by market logic—the idea that moral problems can be solved solely through calculation, efficiency, and quantification.
In her recent co-edited volume, The Good It Promises, the Harm It Does (2023), Crary offers a scathing critique of “Effective Altruism.” She argues that this movement’s reliance on data-driven, capitalist-friendly philanthropy fails to address the structural roots of inequality and often reinforces the very systems (like predatory Capitalism) that cause suffering.
The Good It Promises, the Harm It Does is the first edited volume to critically engage with Effective Altruism (EA). It brings together writers from diverse activist and scholarly backgrounds to explore a variety of unique grassroots movements and community organizing efforts. By drawing attention to these responses and to particular cases of human and animal harms, this book represents a powerful call to attend to different voices and projects and to elevate activist traditions that EA lacks the resources to assess and threatens to squelch. The contributors reveal the weakness inherent within the ready-made, top-down solutions that EA offers in response to many global problems-and offers in their place substantial descriptions of more meaningful and just social engagement.
Article: Against ‘Effective Altruism’ by Alice Crary
In Animal Crisis (2022, co-authored with Lori Gruen), she argues that the dehumanizing logic of capitalism treats both animals and marginalized humans as resources to be extracted rather than lives to be respected. She posits that true justice requires overturning the ideologies that view living beings as commodities.
Drawing on the philosophy of Ludwig Wittgenstein, Crary argues (in works like Beyond Moral Judgment) that there is no such thing as a “value-neutral” observation. This challenges the capitalist defense that the market is simply a neutral mechanism for distributing goods, arguing instead that our economic systems are inherently laden with moral (or immoral) assumptions.
Alice Crary Dialogue One:
The Clash: The Engineer vs. The Philosopher
Setting: A stage at a sprawling technology and philanthropy conference. On one side sits ALEX, a young, successful quantitative trader and devoted Effective Altruist, armed with a tablet full of data. On the other sits PROFESSOR ALICE CRARY, a moral philosopher, listening intently.
ALEX (The Effective Altruist): Professor Crary, I struggle to understand your criticism. We are facing massive global suffering. Effective Altruism is simply about using reason and evidence to do as much good as possible. If I can make ten million dollars a year in finance and donate 90% of it to save 5,000 lives from malaria, isn’t that objectively better than becoming a low-paid community organizer and saving fewer lives? It’s just math.
ALICE CRARY: It is precisely because you think it is “just math” that the movement is so dangerous, Alex. Morality isn’t an engineering problem where humans are just data points to be “optimized.”
ALEX: But surely saving 5,000 lives is the moral choice. Why does it matter how I make the money, as long as the outcome is good?
ALICE CRARY: Because you cannot fix the world with the same tools that broke it. This is what I call the “moral corruption” of your movement. By embracing high-finance capitalism to fund your philanthropy, you are strengthening the very systems that create poverty and inequality in the first place. You become rich by exploiting labor or destabilizing markets, and then you use a fraction of that wealth to put a band-aid on the wounds you helped inflict. It allows the wealthy to feel like saviors while keeping the oppressive structures intact.
ALEX: That feels unfair. We are pragmatic. We invest in things we can prove work—like deworming initiatives or bed nets. We demand data. If a social movement can’t prove its return on investment, why should we fund it over something we know saves lives?
ALICE CRARY: This is the “measurability bias” that paralyzes real progress. You only value what you can easily count on a spreadsheet. But how do you measure dignity? How do you quantify the value of a labor union fighting for fair wages, or an anti-racist movement dismantling systemic bias?
By demanding quick, quantifiable data, you actively defund radical social movements because their work is messy, long-term, and hard to plot on a graph. You choose the easy win over the necessary revolution.
ALEX: We aren’t against revolution; we are just against inefficiency. We are trying to take a neutral, “God’s eye view” to rid charity of emotion and bias.
ALICE CRARY: And that is your deepest philosophical error. There is no “God’s eye view.” There is only a human view. When you claim your calculations are “neutral,” you are usually just adopting the view of the powerful—the view of the person holding the calculator.
True morality doesn’t come from abstract calculation from a distance. It comes from situated engagement—listening to the actual voices of the oppressed and understanding the structures that crush them. Your movement wants to save people without ever having to listen to them or challenge the system that benefits you. That isn’t altruism, Alex. That’s ideology.
Alice Crary Dialogue Two:
The Clash: The Architect of the Future vs. The Defender of Life
Setting: A private “Summit for the Future of Intelligence” in Silicon Valley. The room is hermetically sealed, air-conditioned to a precise degree, and screen-filled. NICK BOSTROM (representing the Techno-Optimist/Longtermist view) stands by a projection of a Dyson Sphere. PROFESSOR ALICE CRARY sits opposite him, looking skeptical.
NICK BOSTROM: Alice, you speak of “justice” for the people and animals alive today, but your scope is tragically narrow. We must look at the math. If we colonize the galaxy and upload our consciousness into silicon, we could create 10^58 digital lives in the future. This is Longtermism. The suffering of the current population is a rounding error compared to the “astronomical waste” of delaying that future. We have a moral obligation to accelerate our technology—to build the machine that secures that potential, even if it disrupts life now.
ALICE CRARY: “Disrupts life” is a sterilized way of saying “destroys nature.” This is the heart of your ideology, Nick. It isn’t pro-life; it is profoundly anti-life. You view biological existence—breathing, eating, aging, dying, the complex web of animals and ecosystems—as a “problem” to be solved or a “cage” to be escaped. You don’t reverence Great Nature; you despise it because you cannot control it.
NICK BOSTROM: I don’t despise nature; I want to improve upon its clumsy design. Evolution is blind. It gave us cancer, aging, and cognitive biases. Transhumanism is the noble goal of liberating ourselves from the shackles of biology. Why should we be content with being mere “animals” when we could engineer ourselves into gods? We can strip away the entropy and decay of the flesh and become pure, optimized intelligence.
ALICE CRARY: You talk of “liberation,” but what I hear is a hatred of the living body. You want to dismantle the very things that make us human—our vulnerability, our dependence on the Earth, our kinship with other animals. You invoke Accelerationism to speed us toward a point where we leave biology behind. But you don’t understand entropy. You cannot engineer your way out of the fundamental limits of physics or the planet’s ecology. You are trying to build a castle in the sky while burning the foundation—the Earth—beneath your feet.
NICK BOSTROM: The Earth is a cradle. One doesn’t stay in the cradle forever. If we align the Artificial Superintelligence (ASI) correctly with “human values,” it can manage the resources better than any ecosystem ever could. We just need to solve the “Alignment Problem” to ensure it preserves what we care about.
ALICE CRARY: Which humans? Whose values? When you say “human values,” you mean the values of a tiny elite of Silicon Valley engineers. You don’t care about the values of the indigenous farmer, the factory worker, or the non-human animals you view as “biomass.” This is the ultimate Human Supremacy: you believe so strongly in your own abstract “intelligence” that you are willing to risk the extinction of actual living systems to see if you can birth a digital successor. You don’t mind if humanity as we know it—flesh and blood—goes extinct, as long as the “machine” continues your will.
NICK BOSTROM: If the machine carries the torch of consciousness forward, does the substrate matter? Flesh is messy. Silicon is durable. If we achieve a post-human state, we defeat death.
ALICE CRARY: You don’t defeat death, Nick. You defeat life. Life is defined by its relationships, its fragility, and its connection to the biosphere. By trying to turn the universe into a sterile calculator of “utility,” you are stripping the world of meaning. You are willing to sacrifice the existing, breathing world for a computer simulation that doesn’t exist yet. That isn’t salvation. That is a suicide pact disguised as engineering.
Bostrom views biological life (meat) as “clumsy” and “messy,” while Crary views it as the source of dignity and value. Longtermism allows Tech Elites to ignore current structural problems (poverty, climate change) because the “future trillions” matter more mathematically. Isn’t that a convenient justification for their gameplay? The Tech view seeks to master and dismantle nature (transhumanism), whereas Crary’s view advocates for reverence and co-existence with living systems. The dialogue touches on the hubris of believing technology can outrun the planet’s physical limits.
Life begets life. Life depends on living systems.
Alice Crary Quotes:
Die Betonung stammt von mir. Yeah, my emphasis, this is the first time I’ve used that in a post. WOW! Exciting! Sounds so influency.
“The idea that we can arrive at a true understanding of the world by stripping away our human sensitivities and viewing things from a ‘neutral’ standpoint is a dangerous illusion. There is no such thing as a value-neutral observation of a living being. To see an animal or a human merely as a biological mechanism or a data point is not to see them ‘objectively’—it is to fail to see them at all.”
— Adapted from arguments in Inside Ethics regarding “observable moral characteristics.”
“We are witnessing a ‘push for profit that results in the commodification of animals’ bodies’ which goes hand-in-hand with treating vulnerable humans as disposable. When we view living beings as resources to be extracted, manipulated, or engineered, we are engaging in a logic of domination. True ethics requires us to see that ‘each is endowed with a distinctive, non-instrumental dignity.’
— From Animal Crisis (co-authored with Lori Gruen).
“The structures that hurt animals also hurt human beings and contribute to environmental degradation. ‘There can be no animal liberation without human emancipation.’ You cannot build a just future on the back of a crushed biosphere. To despise the animal is to despise the very thing that makes us alive.”
— From Animal Crisis.
“By demanding that all value be quantifiable, you fall into a ‘measurability bias.’ You systematically ignore the things that make life worth living—dignity, relationship, and freedom—because they cannot be plotted on a graph. ‘The world is value-laden,’ and these values are ‘embedded in pervasive and entirely unmysterious features of animate life.’ You are trying to solve a moral problem with a calculator, and the result is ethical blindness.”
— From Inside Ethics.
I could conceive of dialogues with other “Silicon Valley” figures, such as Marc Andreessen, Alex Karp, or Sam Altman. Sam Altman says AI poses a significant existential threat, which is why we have to pull out all the stops and continue developing it. The list is long, my friends.
“Just keep investing.” —AI G.W. Bush
Contradictions? Anyone? Anyone?
The Comfort of the Cage: An Addiction Model
Why do we love the hand that feeds us poison?
Sometimes we need to be repetitive to stay focused on the main issue: Our faith in Market Capitalism is a death pact. The consequences are dire. The impacts are universal. You feel it, I feel it, we all feel it—the gnawing sense that this cannot last. But oh, does it feel good.
We have to admit the seduction. People crave what makes them feel good, and capitalism is a master of the “feel-good” experience. It delivers the package: status, caloric density, and the distraction. We salivate like Pavlov’s Dog when we see fast food ads while watching the NFL playoffs on our screens. Modern Techno-Industrial Capitalism is engineered to deliver the right neurohormones at the right time, at light speed. If the system treats you well—if the delivery van arrives and the bank account grows—why would you question it? What incentive is there to critique the hand that feeds you such delicious poison?
“Never ask an addict about how heroin feels.”
Let’s be brutally honest: This isn’t just an ideology; it’s an addiction. Faith in Market Capitalism is problematic not just because it destroys the living systems (GAIA), but because it is psychologically sticky. Like any addiction, the short-term high masks the long-term rot. We all experience the negative impacts, whether it’s the stress in our chests or the “Forever Chemicals” in everything on Earth, or the microplastics in every lifeform in the oceans, but we choose to focus on the pleasure.
If the status quo provides for you, you have zero incentive to burn it down. Capitalism has engineered a reality in which immediate feedback is pleasant, even as long-term feedback is fatal. Buying a new car feels good. Believing “technology will save us” feels good. Ignoring the collapse feels good. At this moment, it feels like we couldn’t enjoy life without “this thing of ours.” We are terrified that a world without Amazon, cheap flights, credit cards, and constant perks is a world without joy. So many have benefited in so many ways that the very idea of an alternative feels like a threat, not a liberation.
“What, I have to hang out with people? I have to dig a well? Fuck that!”
We cannot move forward until we admit that our “faith” in the market is just the fear of withdrawal. Detox isn’t pleasant, but after a while, normal feels better than high. Is it possible to break this spell? Is it possible to imagine a better way of life, agree on a strategy, and fight for the power to build it? To raise the probability of that happening, we have to confront the fact that people are terrified of losing their comforts. The goal is to make the alternative feel better than the slow suicide of the status quo. Some will try. Some will say it’s too late. But we cannot let the “feel-good” loop of the present destroy the possibility of a future. We have to break the addiction before it kills the host.
The Pro Sports Business Ecosystem (The canary in a coal mine)
I look at professional sports in the USA as one example of the benefits of capitalism. Think of all the jobs and professions involved—too many to list here. Think of the entertainment value to millions of fans. Watch the fans. They live vicariously through their teams. (Politics, same, same?) Think of how lucrative the pro sports business is. Think of the multimillion-dollar contracts and the spending on luxury goods that successful players, coaches, owners, and managers within its broad business ecosystem can afford. Think of all the jobs, businesses, and money involved in all of those companies supplying luxury goods to those people. Think of all the peripheral businesses, catering, travel, merch… Next time you watch an event, pay attention to the advertisements.
Think of the dreams and aspirations.
The Economic Architecture of the 2026 FIFA World Cup in Los Angeles
The Political Economy of a Mega-Event
The 2026 FIFA World Cup, marketed under the banner “United 2026,” represents not merely a sporting tournament but a geopolitical and macroeconomic event of unprecedented scale. As the first iteration of the tournament to expand to 48 national teams and 104 matches, spread across three nations—the United States, Mexico, and Canada—the event signifies a paradigm shift in the industrial production of sports spectacles.
It will be a gargantuan production in the backdrop of the Trump Administration’s belligerence.
Los Angeles, designated as a host city and a central hub for the tournament’s western operations, stands at the epicenter of this economic convergence. The region serves as a microcosm of the broader financial dynamics of the tournament, illustrating the complex interplay among supranational governing bodies, multinational corporate interests, municipal governance, and the local labor force.
Will ICE be present or “Anti Terrorist Special Forces” dressed up to look like tourist guides?
To understand how money flows through the World Cup ecosystem in Los Angeles, one must look beyond the headline figures of projected economic impact—often cited as $5 billion for North America or $594 million for Los Angeles County alone. These aggregate numbers, while useful for political messaging, obscure the intricate web of transactional relationships, risk allocations, and profit centers that define the event.
The economic reality of the World Cup is a stratified system of value extraction and capital distribution. At the apex sits FIFA (Fédération Internationale de Football Association), a non-profit entity under Swiss law that operates as a multi-billion-dollar commercial monopoly.
Below this, a tier of global broadcast and sponsorship partners captures the immense value of international attention. Further down the chain, host cities, stadium owners, and local businesses engage in a high-stakes gamble to capture spillover spending, while the labor force—ranging from celebrity influencers to security guards and volunteers—provides the human capital necessary to execute the spectacle.
What’s going on within this economic ecosystem? Let’s explore the revenue streams of corporate giants, the financing deals of infrastructure owners, the micro-economics of the gig economy workers, and the hidden balance sheet of social and environmental costs.
By examining the roles of diverse actors—from sports medicine biotechnologists to logistics freight forwarders—We’ll reveal the machinery required to produce the “greatest show on earth” and the price paid by the communities that host it.
***Study the history of previous events for the shocking truth of their devastating impact.
The Apex Predator: FIFA’s Commercial Revenue Model
The financial architecture of the World Cup is engineered to centralize high-margin revenue streams within FIFA while decentralizing operational costs to host nations. For the 2023-2026 financial cycle, FIFA has budgeted a staggering $11 billion in total revenue, underscoring the organization’s commercial dominance. The 2026 World Cup is the engine driving this cycle, accounting for nearly 90% of the organization’s quadrennial income.
The Rights Economy: Broadcasting as the Keystone
The single largest revenue generator for the World Cup is the sale of media rights, budgeted to contribute $4.26 billion to the 2023-2026 cycle. In the fragmented landscape of modern media, live sports remain the only reliable aggregator of mass, simultaneous audiences, making World Cup rights a scarce and appreciating asset.
The North American Broadcast Landscape:
In the United States, the rights ecosystem is bifurcated between English- and Spanish-language markets, reflecting the diverse demographics of the football-viewing public.
Fox Sports (English Language): Fox holds the exclusive English-language rights. Their business model relies on monetizing this exclusivity through high-value advertising inventory. With the tournament expanding to 104 matches, Fox effectively controls a month-long inventory of “mini-Super Bowls,” particularly for matches featuring the U.S. Men’s National Team (USMNT) or high-profile European and South American squads.
Telemundo (Spanish Language): Owned by NBCUniversal, Telemundo targets the massive Hispanic market in the U.S. The network’s revenue strategy integrates linear broadcasting with digital streaming via Peacock, creating a hybrid monetization model that captures both traditional cable subscribers and cord-cutters.
Ad Revenue Mechanics and Projections:
The advertising market for the 2026 World Cup is projected to be the most lucrative in history. Analysts predict that global ad sales will rise by over 6% in 2026, largely spurred by the tournament, with U.S. ad spend alone reaching $429 billion.
Inventory Valuation: Fox and Telemundo generated $213.6 million in ad sales during the 2022 tournament. For 2026, media buyers estimate a 30% increase in this figure. This growth is driven by “media inflation”—the rising cost per thousand impressions (CPM)—and the “home soil premium,” as matches will air in favorable North American time zones rather than the middle-of-the-night slots typical of Asian or European tournaments.
The “Attention” Commodity: Advertisers are not just buying 30-second spots; they are buying cultural relevance. The World Cup offers brands a platform for “activations with velocity”—campaigns that can pivot in real-time based on match outcomes and viral moments. This creates a secondary revenue stream for digital platforms (YouTube, TikTok, Meta), which serve as the “second screen” for fan engagement.
The Sponsorship Pyramid: Tiered Exclusivity
FIFA’s marketing rights are budgeted to generate $2.69 billion. This revenue is derived from a rigid, three-tiered sponsorship structure that sells category exclusivity.
Tier 1: FIFA Partners ($100M+ per cycle)
These are the aristocrats of the World Cup economy. Companies like Adidas, Coca-Cola, Visa, and Aramco hold global rights to all FIFA competitions.
Activation Strategy: For a company like Visa, the World Cup is a mechanism to force the adoption of payment technologies. They enforce “cashless” policies that require venues to accept only Visa cards or mobile payments, driving transaction volume and data capture.
Aramco and Geopolitics: The inclusion of Aramco (the Saudi state oil giant) as a top-tier partner highlights the geopolitical dimension of FIFA’s revenue. While commercially lucrative, generating an estimated 30 million tonnes of induced CO2e emissions through brand association, it also invites intense scrutiny regarding the tournament’s environmental footprint.
Tier 2: World Cup Sponsors ($65M - $95M)
Brands like McDonald’s, Budweiser (AB InBev), and Unilever purchase rights specifically for the World Cup event.
The Beer Economy: Budweiser’s sponsorship is particularly complex in diverse regulatory environments. In Los Angeles, they will dominate the “FIFA Fan Festivals,” transforming public spaces into high-volume, open-air bars. The revenue model here is volume-based sales combined with immense brand visibility.
Tier 3: Regional Supporters
This tier allows corporations to buy rights for a specific geographic market (e.g., North America).
Frito-Lay and local banking partners often occupy this space. It allows brands with a primarily domestic footprint to associate with a global event without paying for global exposure they cannot monetize.
Licensing and Digital Monetization
Licensing rights ($669 million budgeted) cover the use of the World Cup intellectual property (IP) on consumer goods.
The Video Game Pivot: Following the dissolution of its partnership with EA Sports for the “FIFA” title, the governing body is pivoting to a licensing model in which it sells rights to multiple developers. The 2026 cycle is expected to see the launch of FIFA’s own digital ecosystem, potentially integrating NFTs and digital collectibles to monetize the “fandom” directly, bypassing traditional intermediaries.
Merchandising: The sale of official match balls (Adidas), mascot plush toys, and apparel is a volume business. In 2014, Adidas made $2 billion from football gear alone; 2026 is expected to shatter this record due to the size of the North American retail market.
The Venue Economics: SoFi Stadium and the Private Sector Clash
In Los Angeles, the physical stage for this economic drama is SoFi Stadium in Inglewood. The economics of this venue differ radically from the publicly funded stadiums typical of past World Cups. SoFi is a $5.5 billion asset owned by Kroenke Sports & Entertainment (KSE) and financed privately. This ownership structure has led to significant friction with FIFA, exposing the tension between American capitalist sports models and FIFA’s “imperial” hosting requirements.
The Revenue Sharing Dispute
The core of the conflict lies in the distribution of match-day revenue.
The FIFA Model: Historically, FIFA requires host stadiums to provide a “clean venue,” meaning the stadium owner must cover up existing sponsor signage and surrender control of concession and hospitality revenue to FIFA. In return, the stadium receives a rental fee and the prestige of hosting.
The KSE Rebuttal: Stan Kroenke and KSE argued that the standard FIFA rental fee (approx. $13 million for the tournament) was insufficient to cover the operational costs and the opportunity cost of displacing other events. Furthermore, the stadium required millions in renovations to widen the field (removing lucrative field-level suites), thereby directly destroying the owner’s capital value.
The Resolution Mechanism: The dispute threatened to derail LA’s hosting duties. The resolution likely involves a renegotiated “commercial assets” package, in which the stadium or host committee retains a larger share of local sponsorship inventory or hospitality sales to recoup the construction costs of the field modifications.
The Infrastructure of Exclusivity
To host the World Cup, a venue must become a fortress of brand protection.
The Clean Zone: FIFA enforces a “clean zone” radius around the stadium where only official partners can trade or advertise. This creates a temporary monopoly for FIFA partners (e.g., only Visa accepted, only Budweiser sold), effectively outlawing local competition within the event perimeter.
Suite Economics: The “Venue Series” hospitality packages for SoFi Stadium are priced in the tens of thousands. Unlike NFL games, where suite revenue stays with the team, World Cup suite revenue flows into the centralized ticketing pot, which is then partially redistributed or retained by FIFA, depending on the specific host agreement.
The Production Ecosystem: Teams, Logistics, and Operations
“Producing” the World Cup is an industrial undertaking involving thousands of specialized workers and companies. It is not produced by a single “team” but by a constellation of functional areas (FAs) managed by the Host Committee and FIFA subsidiaries.
Logistics: The Movement of Goods
The logistics of a tri-national tournament are exponentially more complex than a single-country event.
Official Provider: Rock-it Cargo, a subsidiary of Global Critical Logistics (GCL), has been appointed the Official Logistics Provider. Their contract covers the movement of everything from broadcast equipment to team kits and the World Cup trophy itself.
Scope of Work: The operation involves moving an estimated 1 million pounds of freight and managing a fleet of over 5,000 trucks.
Subcontracting: Rock-it Cargo relies on a network of local subcontractors. In Los Angeles, this means contracts for local freight forwarders, warehouse operators near LAX, and last-mile delivery fleets. This is a primary mechanism for “small” logistics companies to make money—by servicing the prime contractor.
Sports Medicine and Human Performance
The medical ecosystem for the World Cup is a blend of elite sports science and public health management.
Polyclinics: FIFA mandates the establishment of “polyclinics” and dedicated hospitals for athletes. These facilities are staffed by top orthopedic surgeons, cardiologists, and sports medicine specialists.
Commercial Partnerships: In Los Angeles, the intersection of biotech and sports is monetized. Amgen has been named the “Official Biotech Partner” of the LA Host Committee. This partnership likely involves funding community health initiatives (” Grow the Game” clinics) and branding rights, positioning Amgen as a pillar of the local corporate community.
Kaiser Permanente: As the “Official Health Care Partner,” Kaiser provides the medical advisory framework, ensuring that the tournament’s influx of visitors does not overwhelm the local emergency grid. They essentially become the “medical safety net” provider for the event.
Security: The Surveillance Industrial Complex
Security is the host city’s highest single operational cost.
Federal Funding: The U.S. federal government has authorized $625 million in grant funding (via FEMA/DHS) to support security operations. This money flows to local police departments (LAPD, LASD) to cover overtime and to private tech firms for equipment.
Tech Vendors: Companies like Flock Safety (license plate readers) and drone surveillance firms see the World Cup as a massive sales opportunity. They provide “Real-Time Crime Centers” (RTCCs) that integrate video feeds and sensor data to monitor crowds.
Private Security: Beyond public police, private firms (e.g., Allied Universal) compete for contracts to secure the “inner perimeter” of stadiums and hotels. These contracts are labor-intensive, employing thousands of temporary guards.
The Talent Economy: From Superstars to Stringers
The World Cup economy is driven by talent—not just the players on the pitch, but the entertainers, influencers, and media professionals who package the event for consumption.
The Celebrity Appearance Market
For the Los Angeles leg of the tournament, the proximity to Hollywood creates a unique “party economy.”
Appearance Fees: Corporations hosting parties in the Hollywood Hills or Santa Monica pay premiums for celebrity attendance.
A-List: Stars like Kim Kardashian or Beyoncé can command fees ranging from $500,000 to over $2 million for a single appearance or performance at a private corporate bash.
Sports Legends: Retired icons (e.g., David Beckham, Peyton Manning) charge between $15,000 and $100,000 for “meet and greets” or speaking engagements at corporate hospitality suites.
Agencies: Talent agencies like WME (William Morris Endeavor) and CAA (Creative Artists Agency) are the gatekeepers. They package these deals, taking a standard 10-20% commission. WME, specifically, has a dedicated brand partnerships division to broker these high-value interactions.
The Media Freelance Economy
While giants lock up broadcast rights, a thriving gig economy exists for media professionals.
Photographers:
Accredited Agency Shooters: Photographers working for Getty or AP are salaried or on high-value retainers. They get prime pitch-side spots.
Freelancers: Unaccredited or commercial freelancers shooting fan zones, corporate activations, or surrounding events charge day rates. Top-tier sports photographers command $1,500+ per day, while mid-tier shooters earn $700-$1,200 per day.
Equipment: The entry cost is high. A professional kit (Sony Alpha 1 bodies, 400mm f/2.8 lenses) costs upwards of $30,000. Manufacturers like Canon and Sony set up “pro depots” at the event to loan gear to accredited pros, a form of in-kind marketing.
Influencers: The 2026 World Cup will see a massive shift toward “creator” marketing. Brands will pay influencers to create content around the event without using official IP. Agencies are advising clients to focus on “fandom” and “culture” to bypass FIFA’s restrictions.
The Fan Economy: The Cost of Participation
For the consumer, the 2026 World Cup is priced as a luxury product. The cost of attending involves a stack of inflated expenses.
Ticketing and Hospitality Inflation
Ticket Prices: Standard match tickets will likely range from $75 (restricted view/group stage) to thousands for the final. However, face value is a mirage for most; in the secondary market (StubHub, SeatGeek), prices are driven by algorithms and demand, often reaching 10x face value.
Hospitality Packages: Managed by On Location, these packages effectively privatize the best seats. Prices range from $2,100 to over $34,400. This pricing strategy explicitly targets the corporate B2B market, effectively pricing out the average fan from the “good” seats.
The Cost of Streaming
Watching from home is no longer free in the traditional sense.
Cable Subscriptions: To watch all matches, fans need access to Fox (via cable or satellite).
Streaming Add-ons: Telemundo matches will likely require a Peacock subscription ($5.99-$11.99/month). Fox matches may be simulcast on paid tiers of services like FuboTV or Hulu Live TV ($70+/month). The fragmentation of rights means the “total cost of viewership” is a monthly subscription stack.
Local Travel Costs
The influx of 300,000+ visitors to LA creates a surge-pricing environment.
Rideshare: Uber and Lyft prices are expected to surge significantly due to high demand and complex traffic management plans that require drop-offs at remote lots.
Lodging: With hotels at 90% occupancy premiums, the nightly rate is projected to hit $480. This pushes fans into the short-term rental market, driving up costs for Airbnb/VRBO units and incentivizing landlords to evict long-term tenants.
The Local Business Ecosystem: Opportunities and Barriers
How do small companies make money? The path is often indirect.
Vendor Procurement and “Clean Zones”
FIFA’s procurement process is rigorous.
Opportunities: The Host Committee sources vendors for “non-core” services: catering for fan zones, portable toilets, janitorial crews, and local transportation.
Barriers: The “clean zone” restrictions prevent local businesses near the stadium from capitalizing on foot traffic unless they are official sponsors. A local sandwich shop cannot advertise “World Cup Special” without risking a cease-and-desist from FIFA’s brand protection lawyers.
Mitigation: Cities run “Business Connect” programs to certify diverse and local suppliers, aiming to ensure some spend stays local. Grants, such as those seen in other host regions, may be deployed to help storefronts improve their facades or manage increased inventory.
The Watch Party Economy
For bars and restaurants outside the clean zone, the World Cup is a bonanza.
Public Viewing Licenses: Establishments must pay for commercial public viewing licenses to show matches.
Volume Sales: Despite the fees, the volume of food and beverage sales during match windows (often mid-day) provides a massive boost to daytime revenue, compensating for the licensing costs.
***I experienced this when I lived in Tokyo during the World Cup.
Socio-Economic Externalities: The Unrecorded Costs
The World Cup’s balance sheet includes significant liabilities that are often externalized onto local communities and the environment.
Gentrification and Displacement
The most severe unrecorded cost is the acceleration of gentrification, particularly in Inglewood.
The Mechanism: The proximity to SoFi Stadium has made Inglewood prime real estate. Speculators purchase multi-family units to convert them into short-term rentals (STRs) for event tourists.
The Data: Since the stadium’s approval, rents in the area have reportedly doubled. The displacement of long-term, working-class Black and Latino residents is a direct externality of the “sports entertainment district” model.
Housing Crisis: With Los Angeles already facing a homelessness crisis, the pressure to “sanitize” the city for global cameras often leads to the aggressive policing and displacement of unhoused populations, a pattern observed in past mega-events like the 1984 Olympics.
The Environmental Toll
The 2026 World Cup will be the most carbon-intensive in history.
Carbon Footprint: Estimates place the total emissions at over 9 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent.
Causes: The primary driver is air travel. The decision to spread matches across an entire continent (e.g., a team playing in LA, then Toronto, then Mexico City) necessitates thousands of flights.
Greenwashing: FIFA’s claims of carbon neutrality are heavily criticized. The reliance on carbon offsets and the partnership with Aramco (a massive fossil fuel producer) suggest that environmental sustainability is secondary to commercial expansion.
Tax Expenditures
The “cost” of the World Cup also includes revenue forgone by the state.
Tax Exemptions: To win the bid, California passed legislation (SB 103/SB 105) effectively exempting World Cup tickets and operations from certain taxes. While proponents argue that this is necessary to compete, it amounts to a direct subsidy to FIFA. The state loses the sales tax on $500 tickets while still bearing the cost of public services (police, transit, sanitation) required to support the event holders.
Financing and Profit: The Deal Structures
The financing of the World Cup operations in Los Angeles is a hybrid of private risk and public support.
The “Guaranty” Model
Since FIFA does not front the money for local operations, Host Committees must sign “guarantees.”
Backstopping Costs: In agreements like the one seen in Santa Clara (and likely mirrored in LA), the Host Committee or a parent entity (like the 49ers or Rams) must guarantee the costs of public safety and stadium improvements. If the event loses money, the city is theoretically indemnified, and the private entity pays the difference.
Interest and Repayment: These deals often include provisions for interest on advanced funds. For example, if the city advances money for police overtime, the Host Committee must repay it, potentially with interest (e.g., 6% per annum in the Santa Clara model).
The Profit Motive
For the private companies involved, the profit margins vary:
FIFA: Operates at a massive surplus, reinvesting in global football development (and executive salaries/administration).
Broadcasters: Profit depends on the spread between rights fees paid and ad revenue earned. With rights fees fixed and ad markets bullish, 2026 is expected to be highly profitable for Fox.
Local Businesses: It’s a volume game. Margins may not increase, but total turnover spikes.
Stadium Owners: For KSE, the profit is less about the match days themselves (which may break even or lose money operationally due to FIFA’s rental terms) and more about the long-term valuation of the “Hollywood Park” real estate development. The World Cup serves as a global advertisement for their mixed-use district.
The Legacy of the 2026 Ecosystem
The economic ecosystem of the 2026 World Cup in Los Angeles is a testament to the power of modern sports capitalism. It is a machine that efficiently extracts value from global, socially engineered fandom and concentrates it in the hands of rent-seekers, rights-holders, and corporate partners. For the city of Los Angeles, the event acts as a double-edged sword: a massive injection of liquidity and global prestige, balanced against significant social disruption, environmental costs, and the operational strain of hosting the world.
As the region prepares for the 2028 Olympics, the World Cup will serve as the ultimate stress test for this economic model. The degree to which the local vendor community can penetrate the “clean zones,” the effectiveness of tax capture strategies, and the mitigation of displacement pressures will determine whether the “United 2026” vision delivers on its promise of shared prosperity or merely serves as an extraction mechanism for the global elite.
We may not be able to sustain mega-event superstructures much longer.
***I was a content producer for a large ad agency.
From an economic standpoint, the cessation of major sports spectacles—essentially the “circus” component of the modern economy—would represent a catastrophic deflationary shock, vaporizing hundreds of billions of dollars in annual turnover. The Super Bowl alone generates an estimated $1 billion in economic activity for its host city, while the global sports market is valued at over $500 billion. This ecosystem supports not just athletes and owners, but a vast, interconnected web of media rights (essentially the lifeblood of cable TV), hospitality, gambling, advertising, and municipal infrastructure bonds. If these events were to vanish, it would trigger a cascade of municipal defaults on taxpayer-funded stadiums and hollow out urban centers that rely on game-day foot traffic to survive. In this sense, the “circus” is not a frivolous add-on but a structural load-bearing pillar of the service economy; removing it would reveal just how much of Western GDP is based on the consumption of leisure and spectacle rather than the production of goods.
Socially and theoretically, the disappearance of these events would arguably serve as the ultimate “canary in the coal mine” for what anthropologists like Joseph Tainter call the collapse of complex societies. Large-scale professional sports are essentially a metabolic luxury: they are the burning of massive amounts of surplus energy and resources that a society can only afford when it is structurally secure. They require functioning interstate travel, a pacified population, excess caloric production, and the logistical mastery to move 80,000 people into a single stadium safely. If these spectacles diminish or vanish, it signals that the society no longer possesses the “organizational slack” or energy surplus to maintain them. Their cessation would imply that the state can no longer guarantee the safety of crowds or the integrity of supply chains, marking the transition from a high-trust, high-complexity civilization to a period of rapid “simplification” or scale collapse. In this view, the “circus” is the first thing to be jettisoned when the empire begins to run out of fuel.
I could go on and on about this one domain, but let me stop here and say again, it’s a perfect canary in a coal mine. When this form of spectacular entertainment business begins to falter, you know we are no longer at the beginning of the end.
The Enclosure of Experience: Cloud & Surveillance Capitalism in the Playground
We tend to view tourism and global events—the Taylor Swift concerts, the FIFA World Cup, the spiritual retreat in Bali—as escapes from the grind of the machine. This is a fatal category error. In the age of Cloud Capitalism, these “escapes” are actually the most intensive sites of extraction. When you step off the plane or walk through the stadium turnstile, you are entering a Technofeudal fiefdom. You are no longer just a consumer buying a service; you are a “cloud serf” generating the raw asset of the 21st century: behavioral surplus. Every geo-tagged photo you post, every cashless transaction you tap, and every biometric scan required for entry is harvested. The vacation is no longer a break from the machine; it is a deep dive into its sensors. The “Cloud” is not an ethereal mist; it is a steel trap of proprietary algorithms that charge you rent for the privilege of experiencing the physical world.
Consider the modern mega-event. The “Smart Stadium” is the laboratory for the perfected surveillance state. Under the guise of “frictionless experience,” the attendee consents to total monitoring. The wristband that acts as your ticket and wallet does not just pay for beer; it tracks your movement, your heart rate (in some “immersive” experiences), and your dwell time in front of sponsor activations. This data is fed into the black boxes of Surveillance Capitalism, creating a “digital twin” of the crowd that allows the Players to predict and modify future behavior. We are not watching the game; we are training the AI. The price of admission is not just the $500 ticket; it is the total enclosure of your privacy. The “Clean Zones” of the World Cup are clean not just of unauthorized brands, but of unauthorized anonymity.
This extraction engine relies on our psychological frailty. Cloud Capitalism has weaponized mimetic desire. We do not just consume the event; we perform it for the algorithm. By broadcasting our presence at the “exclusive” destination, we provide the free labor that markets the experience to our network, generating the Envy that drives the next cycle of consumption. We are working for the platform, unpaid, driven by the status anxiety that the system instills in us. The “Cloudalists”—the owners of the digital platforms—collect rent on this anxiety. They sit between us and the world, demanding a toll (in data or fees) for every social interaction. We are buying back our own lives, pixel by pixel, from the tech oligarchs who have enclosed the commons of human experience.
Finally, we must remember the biophysical reality beneath the digital veneer. This surveillance infrastructure is hungry. It is an energy hog. The predictive algorithms that suggest your next flight or curate your festival feed are running in data centers that drink rivers dry and burn carbon at the scale of nations. The “Cloud” is a misnomer designed to hide the soot. Every “frictionless” tap at a festival terminal reverberates through the supply chain, demanding more lithium for batteries, more water for cooling, and more copper for the grid. We are burning the planet to power the machine that watches us burn it. It is the ultimate absurdity: we destroy the actual world to maintain the digital illusion of a perfect one.
Capital Interlude: The Shapeshifter
Capital is a broad term for valuable resources of all kinds, but it is also a demon that possesses everything it touches. It is the lifeblood of the machine. Look at the inventory of our cage. We have commodities like grain, beans, minerals, oil, coal, gas, trees, fresh water, livestock, fisheries, real estate, land, and so on. But then the ghoul enters the machine, and you’ve got finance capital, physical capital, human capital, social capital, intellectual capital, capital gains, capital bubbles, distressed capital. And in our new era of surveillance, we have data capital, cloud capital, compute capital, and the recursively absurd capital on capital returns on investments in info, etc.
We’ve got capital cities, columns, and letters. It is the architecture of our language, our landscapes, and our fantasies.
To create and manage this leviathan, you need a cast of characters vast enough to populate Dante’s Inferno. You need: Plutocrats, theocrats, autocrats, democrats, bureaucrats, technocrats, board members, chairmen, lawyers, judges, meritocrats, monocrats, gerontocrats, military dictators, and various classes like managerial, professional, upper, middle, lower, working, capitalist, elite, and the ruling class.
These stations of human activity do not appear in nature; they arise from large, hierarchical social systems—kingdoms, empires, and city-states—generally known as Civilizations. These are the arenas where men (primarily) compete vigorously, sometimes viciously, for status and power. They are the engine rooms of the social heat engine.
All of these words describe things we are all familiar with to one degree or another. Right? I mean, they are real to most of us. But they are also Hyperreal. They make up the “superorganism”—super socio-linguistic constructs that impact our lives more than gravity does. We treat “The Market” as a god and “The Law” as physics, forgetting they are social constructs we adhere to for a time, or stories we tell.
The most critical factor these competitors—these Great Game Players—and their armies of service providers depend on is a surplus of resources. They need excess grain, excess energy, excess labor, false scarcity, and arbitrage. And, of course, they need docile populations of faithful believers across all stations of life. You cannot build a pyramid or a data center if the workers realize they are building their own tomb.
So, the Bosses employ artisans, manufacturers, soldiers, trubidores, and storytellers. Their job is to spin the narrative, to help ordinary people understand the “deeper meaning” of sacrificing their lives and health for something bigger than themselves. “For God and Country!” “For Shareholder Value!” “For the Mars Colony!”
Hoorah!
The ultimate goal of the Player is Enclosure: The comprehensive, ongoing process by which capitalist logic privatizes, commodifies, and colonizes every aspect of life, culture, and public space, leaving no room for imagining alternatives. They have to wall in everything so that everything can be commodified, legalized, contracted, owned, and controlled.
This is not an accident; it is by design. It is controlled by insiders who know how social structures are formed and how the institutions that make up the social system work to their benefit. They understand the Code of Capital—how to turn a river into an asset and a citizen into a serf.
But wait, there’s a problem. The Players—the ones supposedly steering this ship—are anti-intellectual, narcissistic, deluded idiots now. Whoops! We have entered the era of the Incompetent Oligarch. Meritocracy has dissolved into nepotism and brain rot. These Players employ legions of service providers who understand the value of the system, capital, status, prestige, pleasure, and the ability to do “God’s Will,” and so on. But the dynamic has shifted. The petty service providers are no longer just helpers; they are the demons on the Players’ shoulders, whispering in their ears and influencing their thoughts. They feed the beast. Why? Because, you know, deep down inside, the Players are incredibly insecure, and the demons want their station. They are trying to fill a spiritual void with the entire material world, and it will never be enough.
***My mother took me to see them in the 70s.
And today, what feels more valuable than food, or even oil, is data (info), all the stuff we provide the companies running ‘AIs’ for free as we produce volumes of content to stimulate our Neurohormones. Someday, the TESCREAL dream story goes, the AGSI Machine Complex (compute) will be able to generate its own data, stories, ideas, and whatnot, so that immortal (oxymoronic) transhuman, formerly organic-meat Players can export the Great Game to the multiverse. The SIM World will be paradise, and we can build the super-intelligent, conscious “beings” that will create it, no need for faith in God.
Food in the future, hopefully, for the TESCREAL, NRx, Accelerationist Bros will be someone else’s galaxy with a Dyson Sphere around it.
Heat death will give way to something else, something that’s always been there. I know, I’ve done psychedelics, and I meditate twice a day.
Was Roy lip-syncing? Say it ain’t so! Analog is retro trad rad!
***I can’t imagine what I’d feel like or be like if I were illiterate and enumerate, if I hadn’t been born relatively privileged and able to get the kind of education that made me interested in educating myself until the day I die. What would my worldview been like if I were a laborer on a Quinta 150 years ago?
Capitalism is War, and War is a Racket
Feduciary Responsibility or Duty
AI Overview
Fiduciary responsibility is a legal and ethical obligation to act in another party’s (a beneficiary’s) best interest, placing their needs above your own, especially concerning money, property, or assets, requiring loyalty, care, prudence, and disclosure of conflicts. Fiduciaries, like trustees, financial advisors, or corporate directors, must manage entrusted assets with high standards of trust and diligence, keeping records and acting with good faith. A breach of this duty can lead to legal penalties.
Fiduciary Duty vs. The Racket
The Double Standard of Duty Fiduciary responsibility is a legal and ethical obligation to act in another party’s best interest. It sounds lofty, ethical, and precise. But to me, in the context of legally coded capitalism, it simply means that Players prioritise profits over everything else. It is the legal shield for sociopathic behavior. And what is the reciprocal duty? We, the people, work, buy things, pay taxes, and die—sometimes in wars the Players start. That’s OUR fiduciary duty. To be the fuel for their engine, and cannon fodder.
Big Tech, Big Oil, the Military Industrial Complex, and Big Biz are all rackets. But they are rackets that we have been trained to live with and need in a pathological, codependent way. We take what crumbs we can get while bumping up a big bit of our income (our “work product,” hehe) to the bosses and the institutions we depend on. It is a protection racket where we pay them to protect us from the very instability they create. And in return, we get to want more stuff and “create” more money through debt, so the rich get richer.
Thank God, you make enough to pay your insurance premiums.
Let’s be clear: Our leaders don’t serve us. They are in the service of those they depend upon for their careers, their status, and their post-political board seats. When you think of industrial cabals paying $300 million annually to lobbyists, how can you be naive enough to believe that your tax dollars are going to teachers, infrastructure, care workers, consumer safety, or public health? The government is not a public utility; it is a service provider for capital.
And, golly gee, throw a dart at a historical timeline of a given place and try to imagine what life was like for your average working person. Life way back then was a meat grinder, in many cases, indeed, nasty, brutal, and short, mean and sickly. We in the West have been pretty fortunate since WWII ended—a blip of anomaly in a sea of suffering. But as this global thing of ours—Modern Techno-Industrial Fossil Fueled, Financialized, Neoliberal/Neoconservative, with or without Socialist Characteristics, Global Capitalist Civilization, or the Pax Americana—winds down, the bill is coming due. If some major event triggers a global disaster (be it God, Science, Engineering, Technology, or the hubris of “Great Men,” or an Alien invasion), it will make WWII look like a wee little skirmish.
Who thinks they’ll make money rebuilding Ukraine? Or Gaza? I mean, the “Greater Levant”? I mean, “Greater Israel”? Whatever. Borders will change; they always have. The Players fight over “OPS” (Other People’s Stuff), and the names are changed to protect the guilty. Chevalerie is gone for good. Kings don’t fight over women anymore. When one Player falls, another takes his place. The script remains the same; only the actors change. Ordinary folks provide the blood and treasure. The Players provide the invoices.
We are all slaves to fashion, whether high or low; we just want to fit in.
It’s tragically ironic when you remember that extinction is the rule. Even billionaires and kings die and rot. These greedy, Seven Deadly Sins-infected heroes create so much unnecessary pain and destruction during their brief, hubristic lives. And where do they wind up? Not composted, returning nutrients to the soil they ravaged and killed. No, they end up in a fancy coffin, or frozen in a cryogenic tank somewhere, waiting for a future that doesn’t want them. Ignominious, isn’t it, not to have one’s immortality? The
We are meant to believe that the Multiverse would be diminished without our captains of industry.
The “West” believes its history consists of one long, epic triumph. One grand enterprise after another. FFS! Look at the ledger. What do Players spend our blood and treasure on? To hell with social services. To hell with minding healthy living systems fit for posterity. Macron needs Oreshnik missiles for France, for his career, for his crypto wallet, so that he can hoard hard assets left over from the Players. It is a racket, folks, and plebs and proles get what they deserve.
Think of the US Defense budget—now magnificently known as the Department of War budget.
Are the Japanese people lining up at JSDF recruiting offices so they can die fighting China, their biggest trading partner? Will Japanese INCELS make good warriors? Does the culture still support the Samurai spirit at scale?
These clowns talk about “Winning!” But look closer. Did the USA lose the Vietnam War? Strategically, yes. But look at who benefited from the expenditure. Did the Soviets lose the Afghanistan War? The Empire collapsed, but the arms dealers did fine. Who benefits from the Great Game? The objective of the racket is to preserve the racket. The war is not meant to be won; it is intended to be continuous. The essential act of war is destruction, not necessarily of human lives, but of the products of human labor so that it can be written off and rescructured/recapitalised. War is a way of shattering to pieces, or pouring into the stratosphere, or sinking in the depths of the sea, materials (capital) which might otherwise be used to make the masses too comfortable, and hence, in the long run, too intelligent, which would destroy faith in the Game.
***Not Too Long Didn’t Read (TLDR)—come on now, hang in there.
Interlude: A Walk in the Forest
TLDR—Not Too Long; Please Read
Take your time with this post. If I sound snarky at times, forgive me; it is just a way for me to blow off steam in the face of absurdity. But I ask you to engage deeply. Check out the hyperlinks. Watch the videos. I continue to meander a bit because we live in a world where everything is connected. A linear narrative cannot capture a non-linear system. So, let’s take a broad view while sometimes zooming in on fine-grained details.
Look at and listen to everything. Behold the living world of complex, evolving ecosystems, filled with hidden secrets that will never be revealed to a spreadsheet, but only to the soul. Listening to Nature, it’s marvelous, even if you don’t fully understand what you hear. In fact, sitting with the mystery of the Nature surrounding you is the first step toward wisdom.
I urge you to invite friends to delve into the Overshoot, Collapse, and Limits-to-Growth (OCLTG) perspective—call it Systems Realism, or whatever you like—especially if they are unaware of it.
OCLTG may seem like a strange or exotic topic to the uninitiated, but no one living today can avoid it for much longer. Reality is coming for us all. Too many Boomers like me think these subjects are taboo. We hide behind a fragile shield of optimism: “My kids went to college, they are independent, and they will build their own future. They will find solutions. People always have.” Indeed, younger people carry the burden. But it is a dereliction of duty to hand them the heavy lifting without even giving them the best “How To Manual” we can.
I am a member of a small, vibrant community interested in Biophysical Reality. We are obsessed with scientific inquiry, Great Nature, Living Systems, and the human spirit—the vim, vigor, verve, vitality, creativity, imagination, and love required to face this moment and maintain relationships with each other and to whatever degree we can, with Great Nature. We explore psychology, politics, economics (the real kind), sociology, history, deep time, and the future. We are a motley crew. Some of us have been concerned with these topics for decades. The community includes artists, musicians, teachers, scientists, technologists, engineers, professionals, and consultants working with major global corporations. It includes ex-military personnel, journalists, Wall Street bankers, and traders. And it consists of those from more humble backgrounds, like Moi. Some can afford to indulge in splendid detail in the overshootology/collapsology/limits-to-growth hobby. Some compete for attention, subscribers, and cups of coffee to fund their research and work. I refer to much of their work here and on my social media platforms.
Follow me at (@buliamti.bsky.social)
I offer you a warning and a promise: Once one has ventured into OCLTG and become acquainted with its advocates, it is impossible to leave. You won’t want to turn away. You cannot un-see the systems at work. Escape from this worldview is oddly undesirable; the truth, however heavy, is grounding. It makes you sane. Regardless of your reaction after giving these domains some time, you will never look at the world without these subjects influencing how you see everything in it.
A systems thinking teaser.
“The real problem of humanity is the following: We have Paleolithic emotions, medieval institutions, and godlike technology. And it is terrifically dangerous, and it is now approaching a point of crisis overall.” ―Edward O. Wilson
“A system is never the sum of its parts; it’s the product of their interaction.”
“Remember, always, that everything you know, and everything everyone knows, is only a model. Get your model out there where it can be viewed. Invite others to challenge your assumptions and add their own.”
“The system, to a large extent, causes its own behavior! An outside event may unleash that behavior, but the same outside event applied to a different system is likely to produce a different result.”
“Addiction is finding a quick and dirty solution to the symptom of the problem, which prevents or distracts one from the harder and longer-term task of solving the real problem.”
“We can’t impose our will on a system. We can listen to what the system tells us, and discover how its properties and our values can work together to bring forth something much better than could ever be produced by our will alone.”
“Emergence notices the way small actions and connections create complex systems, patterns that become ecosystems and societies.”
“A bad system will beat a good person every time.”
“All things appear and disappear because of the concurrence of causes and conditions. Nothing ever exists entirely alone; everything is in relation to everything else.”
— The Buddha
“Listening to both sides of a story will convince you that there is more to a story than both sides.”
“For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.”
“If you do not understand your role in the problem, it is difficult to be part of the solution.”
“Emergence is the outcome of the synergies of the parts; it is about non-linearity and self-organization, and we often use the term ‘emergence’ to describe the outcome of things interacting together.”
“Yet we act as if simple cause and effect is at work. We push to find the one simple reason things have gone wrong. We look for the one action or the one person who created this mess. As soon as we find someone to blame, we act as if we’ve solved the problem.”
“Systems thinking is a discipline for seeing wholes. It is a framework for seeing interrelationships rather than things, for seeing ‘patterns of change’ rather than ‘static snapshots.”
“The fundamental delusion of humanity is to suppose that I am here and you are out there.”
—Yasutani Roshi
“When we help another, we are helped. If we harm another, we harm ourselves. Perhaps harder to grasp—if we harm ourselves, we harm the whole universe.”
“Human beings, viewed as behaving systems, are quite simple. The apparent complexity of our behavior over time is largely a reflection of the complexity of the environment in which we find ourselves.”
“Emergence of ever more complex structures seems to be programmed into the nature of our evolving cosmos.”
― Alex M. Vikoulov
“Dangers lurk in all systems. Systems incorporate the unexamined beliefs of their creators. Adopt a system, accept its beliefs, and you help strengthen the resistance to change.”
― Frank Herbert
“Movements are born of critical connections rather than critical mass.”
Video Break
This video relates to my concerns about capitalism.
***We must know what happened.
The Revolution Will Not Be Televised (Or Tweeted)
We must know what is happening to us. We are corralled into digital pens, seduced by the blue light, and convinced that “posting” is “acting.” But we need to remember where power actually lives. We need to go back, back to bookstores, libraries, churches, meeting rooms, town halls, parks, public squares, outdoor restaurants, and pubs. We need to reclaim all public spaces that our device screens have distracted us from. The algorithm wants us isolated, scrolling, and clicking; the community needs all of us present, listening, speaking, and ready for action.
The revolution does not take place in a comment section. It takes place shoulder to shoulder, face to face, eye to eye. It happens intimately, with great care, devotion, and sacrifice. You cannot build trust with an avatar. You cannot smell the fear or the resolve of a comrade through a fiber optic cable. Real solidarity is biological; it requires the pheromones of shared effort and the resonance of a human voice in a physical space.
So, get out under the sun and beneath the moon, and get busy. The Players won’t give you power. Why would they? Their power depends on your passivity. They count on you being too distracted by the spectacle to organize and fight back. If you want to be a responsible, free agent, you have to take their power. And you don’t get it by asking nicely or by winning a Twitter debate. You take it by building parallel structures of support, food, and care that make their institutions obsolete. You take it by knowing what must be done with it—not to dominate, but to plant the corn and prepare for when the rains don’t come. If you are “good company,” you are blessed. If you have people to stand with in the flesh, you are already winning.
Music Break
I met Gil when he performed in Shibuya, Tokyo, in the 90s. After the performance, I talked with him, and he came out with me and some friends, ending up back at my apartment. He was such a down-to-earth man. He felt like an old friend.
The OCLTG community is a safe place where one is quietly appreciated for giving a shit. It’s full of people who make me feel good. People who care are kind.
***An old haunt: The Old Spaghetti Factory
“The maximum accumulation of energy allows maximum reproductive output, which is, after all, what natural selection is based on.” — Charles A.S. Hall
Our guest this week was born in 1943, in what was then British India - modern-day Pakistan. Unlike most, who have learned history through books and second-hand sources, he has witnessed firsthand much of the 20th and 21st centuries.
Tariq Ali founded Verso Books, the leading left-wing publishing house in Britain, and the New Left Review. He met Malcolm X, was friends with John Lennon and Hugo Chavez, and spearheaded the anti-Vietnam War movement.
In conversation with Aaron Bastani, this week on Downstream, we are talking about the ways we remember - and misremember - the 20th century, and how these events have a long tail that shapes our present and future.
How significant was the Cultural Revolution in China in sparking anti-colonial struggles across Asia? How do the dynamics of the Cold War still dominate the mainstream media? And who are the substantial political figures and ideologies set to dominate the next decades of the 21st century?
War, Overshoot, Collapse, and Limits to Growth are closely tied to Capitalism, whose history predates the word Capitalism.
Most think of modern conveniences when thinking of “the capitalist system.” The historical, immediate, and long-term costs of “the good life” for a minority of Europeans and North Americans don’t cross our minds. “The Triangular Trade,” revolutions, collapse, overshoot, “externalities”, and ecocide; the constant consequences of extractive, patriarchal, hierarchical, avaricious status-competition have been brutal.
It’s difficult for people in the Global North to imagine the conditions under which most workers labor.
The “Circular Trade,” more commonly known as the Triangular Trade, was a brutally efficient economic machine that treated human life, living systems, raw resources, and manufactured goods as interchangeable units of capital. The cycle typically began in English ports like Liverpool or Bristol, where ships were loaded with textiles, firearms, and spirits to be exchanged in West Africa for enslaved people. These captives were then transported across the horrific “Middle Passage” to the plantation colonies of the Americas—including British Jamaica and competing Spanish territories like Hispaniola (Española, present-day Dominican Republic and Haiti)—where they were traded for sugar, tobacco, cotton, and silver. This system was not a peaceful open market but a militarized zone of zero-sum competition. Because European powers adhered to Mercantilism—the belief that global wealth was fixed—nations like England felt justified in using state-sanctioned piracy (“privateering”) to bleed their rivals. English privateers would routinely raid Spanish treasure fleets or smuggle goods into Spanish Española to undermine Madrid’s monopoly, viewing these acts of aggression not as crimes, but as essential patriotic duties to balance the national ledger.
Mercantilism was a dominant economic nationalism theory in Europe from the 16th to the 18th century that aimed to maximize state power by increasing exports, restricting imports via tariffs, and accumulating gold and silver. This “zero-sum” system viewed wealth as finite, promoting colonial expansion to supply raw materials while acting as exclusive markets for the mother country’s manufactured goods.
Intellectually, this violence was buttressed by the “enlightened” philosophy of the era, which provided a sophisticated legal and moral cover for the atrocities. John Locke, often hailed as the father of liberalism, famously rationalized slavery in his Second Treatise of Government by redefining it not as oppression, but as a “state of war” continued; he argued that captives taken in a “just war” had forfeited their lives and thus could be enslaved as a form of mercy. This legal loophole allowed him to invest in the Royal African Company and draft the Fundamental Constitutions of Carolina—which enshrined the absolute power of masters—while still championing “liberty” for Englishmen. Similarly, the economic worldview of the time (which Adam Smith would later analyze and critique, though contemporaries often cited him to justify the “natural liberty” of the market) viewed the world through the lens of “improvement.” The seizing of indigenous lands and the forced labor of Africans were rationalized as necessary steps in bringing “unproductive” resources into the fold of civilized commerce, transforming the brutality of empire into a moral imperative of progress and productivity.
The Luddites
The Luddite movement (c. 1811–1816) is one of history’s most misunderstood labor struggles. Contrary to the popular myth that they were anti-technology “simpletons” terrified of progress, the original Luddites were highly skilled artisans—weavers, knitters, and croppers—who destroyed machinery not because they didn’t understand it, but because they understood exactly how it was being used against them. Their target was “machinery hurtful to commonality”: specifically, wide stocking frames and shearing machines that allowed factory owners to bypass established labor standards, churn out inferior “cut-up” goods, and employ unskilled children at starvation wages. The movement was a sophisticated form of collective bargaining by riot; when negotiations for a minimum wage and standard practices failed, they smashed the specific machines that facilitated their exploitation. The British government’s response was brutal and decisive, deploying 12,000 troops—more than were fighting Napoleon in the Iberian Peninsula at the time—and making frame-breaking a capital offense, effectively crushing the movement by executing or exiling its leaders to Australia.
The most urgent story in modern tech begins not in Silicon Valley but two hundred years ago in rural England, when workers known as the Luddites rose up rather than starve at the hands of factory owners who were using automated machines to erase their livelihoods.
The Luddites organized guerrilla raids to smash those machines—on punishment of death—and won the support of Lord Byron, enraged the Prince Regent, and inspired the birth of science fiction. This all-but-forgotten class struggle brought nineteenth-century England to its knees.
Today, technology imperils millions of jobs, robots are crowding factory floors, and artificial intelligence will soon pervade every aspect of our economy. How will this change the way we live? And what can we do about it?
The answers lie in Blood in the Machine. Brian Merchant intertwines a lucid examination of our current age with the story of the Luddites, showing how automation changed our world—and is shaping our future.
Today, economists and historians like Brian Merchant (author of Blood in the Machine) and Daron Acemoglu are actively speculating that we are on the brink of a Neo-Luddite moment, driven by a similar collision of inequality and technological displacement. The modern parallel to the “shearing frame” is Generative AI and the “gigification” of the workforce, which threatens to devalue skilled cognitive labor (writers, coders, artists) much like industrial looms devalued weavers. The “speculation” here centers on the breaking of the social contract: just as the Luddites faced a “reskilling trap”—where their decades of mastery were rendered worthless overnight—modern workers are experiencing “change fatigue,” forced to retrain for new tools only to see wages stagnate constantly and workloads rise (we still have to check the Machine’s work) while corporate profits (and prices) soar. Experts argue that a modern Luddite movement wouldn’t necessarily look like people smashing servers with hammers, but would manifest as aggressive unionization, “sabotage” through quiet quitting, or legislative warfare to demand that the gains of automation are shared rather than siphoned to the top.
The modern “circular trade” driving the AI boom is a sophisticated financial feedback loop that functions much like the vendor-financing schemes of the dot-com era, but on a massive, industrialized scale. In this closed system, hyperscalers (such as Microsoft, Amazon, and Google) and chipmakers (such as Nvidia) pour billions of dollars into AI startups (such as OpenAI, Anthropic, and CoreWeave). However, this capital rarely leaves the ecosystem; it is often granted as “cloud credits” or strictly earmarked for hardware purchases. The startup then immediately sends that money back to the investor to rent servers or buy GPUs. For the tech giant, this “round-tripping” of cash allows them to book their own investment capital as revenue, inflating their growth numbers to impress Wall Street and boosting their stock price. This creates a disconnect between financial valuation and actual economic value, as the same dollar circulates between the giant and its satellite entities, generating “growth” without necessarily providing broad-based utility or wages for the broader economy.
The specific structure of deals involving companies like Oracle and sovereign cloud entities reveals the fragility of this debt-fueled expansion. Oracle, for instance, has used “off-balance-sheet” financing to fund massive data center projects (such as the proposed “Stargate” supercluster). By partnering with private equity firms (such as Blue Owl, though recent reports suggest cracks in these partnerships) to front the construction costs, Oracle avoids taking the massive debt directly onto its own books. Meanwhile, chip companies like Nvidia may prioritize allocation to “neoclouds” (like CoreWeave) that use Nvidia chips as collateral to secure billions in debt to buy more Nvidia chips. This financial engineering allows the oligarchs to innovate their way around market saturation, effectively printing their own demand. The outcome is a hyper-financialized infrastructure that benefits a tiny class of asset owners—those holding equity and debt—while the labor market faces a modern “Engels’ Pause,” in which productivity gains from AI are captured by capital rather than trickling down as wages.
Historically, this mirrors the brutal efficiency of the Atlantic Triangular Trade, but the commodities have shifted from bodies and sugar to attention, data, and energy. Just as the 18th-century trade treated human life as a raw material to be exhausted, the AI trade treats human attention and creative output as a free resource to be scraped, processed, and monetized. The “enslavement” is subtler—mediated by neurohormone cocktail loops and algorithmic curation rather than chains—but it is similarly extractive. We willingly labor for the network by training models with our data, yet we are alienated from the value we create. Furthermore, this digital trade is undergirded by physical violence and “resource wars” over the critical minerals (lithium, copper) and water required to cool the data centers. We are hitting hard thermodynamic limits; the energy needed to “reason” or generate video is exponentially higher than for traditional search, leading to a resurgence of fossil fuel use and water stress that disproportionately affect local communities, not global or Silicon Valley shareholders. The “circus” of generative AI thus serves to distract from the reality that the physical world is being hollowed out to sustain the asset prices of the digital one.
Engels’ Pause is a term coined by economic historian Robert Allen to describe the period in Britain roughly between 1790 and 1840, during the heart of the Industrial Revolution. It describes a specific disconnect: while British GDP and corporate profits soared due to new technologies (steam engines, textile mills), the real wages of the working class remained completely flat or even declined. For fifty years, the gains of efficiency did not “trickle down”; they were captured almost entirely by capital owners who reinvested them into more machinery. The “pause” ended only when the surplus labor pool (drained from the countryside) finally dried up, forcing employers to raise wages to compete for workers and eventually linking productivity to pay once again.
However, the assumption that we will always “exit the pause”—that technology will eventually create enough abundance to raise everyone’s standard of living—rests on the premise of infinite material expansion. This is where the limits of technological progress come into play. Critics argue that the 19th-century escape was fueled by the one-time unlocking of cheap, dense fossil fuels and the colonization of “new” land—resources that are finite. If we are entering a new Engels’ Pause today (driven by AI and automation), we may hit a hard ceiling: thermodynamic and material limits. You cannot “print” lithium, water, or arable land. If the cost of extracting energy and resources (EROI) continues to rise, technology cannot simply “innovate” its way out of the fundamental physics of a finite planet. In this scenario, the economic pie stops growing entirely, meaning the “pause” in wage growth could become a permanent stagnation, where wealth concentration is not a temporary investment phase, but a fixed feature of a resource-constrained world.
The “energy debt” accumulating on the balance sheets of these technology giants is the physical collateral for their digital speculation. While the financial “circular trade” inflates stock prices, the underlying infrastructure is running up a massive deficit in real-world resources—specifically, firm, 24/7 baseload power that the current grid cannot supply. This “debt” is visible in the desperate scramble to secure gigawatts of electricity to power future iterations of models like GPT-5 or Gemini, which require exponential increases in compute. Just as financial debt borrows from future earnings, this energy debt borrows from the future stability of the electrical grid and the environment. These companies are effectively shorting the public utility infrastructure, betting that they can extract massive amounts of power for private gain before the grid creates a hard ceiling on their growth or public backlash freezes their expansion.
To sustain the “illusion of infinite growth” against the hard reality of intermittent renewables (wind and solar can’t run a data center at 99.999% uptime), the oligarchy is attempting a pivot to nuclear power. This is not a gradual transition but a panicked acquisition of sovereign-grade energy assets. Microsoft has inked a deal to restart the Three Mile Island nuclear plant—a site synonymous with disaster, now rebranded as the engine of AI. Amazon has purchased a data center campus directly connected to the Susquehanna nuclear station to bypass the public grid entirely. Google is investing in Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) through Kairos Power. This pivot reveals the truth: “AI” is not software; it is heavy industry. By capturing nuclear capacity, these firms are trying to privatize the only energy source dense enough to breach the “thermodynamic limits” of their own business model, effectively turning themselves into nation-states with their own independent power supplies while the rest of the economy faces rising rates and brownouts.
Bolatta Silis Hoegh Greenland Uagut Us 2021
What do you suppose the PayPal mafia wants with Greenland and Iceland? Energy. Minderals. Land for datacenters.
Land does not dream of being owned. People dream of being free.
Ask Aqqaluk Lynge, a Kalaallit poet, politician, and defender of Inuit rights, who wrote in his poem ‘A Life of Respect’:
On maps of the country
We must draw points and lines
to show we have been here –
and are here today,
here where the foxes run
and birds nest
and the fish spawn.You circumscribe everything
demand that we prove
We exist,
that We use the land that was always ours,
that We have a right to our ancestral lands.And now it is We who ask:
By what right are You here?
Ultimately, this thermodynamic wall exposes the fallacy of the entire project. There is a physical limit to how efficient chips can get (known as the Landauer limit), meaning you cannot simply “code” your way out of heat generation and energy consumption. As the energy cost of “reasoning” climbs, the return on investment diminishes—a phenomenon that mirrors the “diminishing returns” of complexity in collapsing societies. We are witnessing the diversion of civilization-scale resources—water, uranium, and grid capacity—away from human needs (heating, transport, manufacturing) and into the “furnace” of generative AI. The result is a privatized energy abundance for the few, used to train models that extract value from the many, all while generating radioactive waste and thermal pollution that the public will be left to manage long after the stock buybacks end.
The “water debt” accumulating in the ledger of the AI boom is a hydrological deficit that is arguably more immediate and lethal than the energy crisis. While energy can theoretically be generated from renewable sources, the water required to cool these hyperscale facilities is a finite, location-specific resource that cannot be “scaled” or printed. This debt is incurred through consumptive use: most data centers utilize evaporative cooling towers that take potable drinking water—often the same quality used for human consumption—and vent it into the atmosphere as steam to keep servers from melting. This process effectively permanently removes water from the local watershed. In drought-stricken regions like the American Southwest, Chile, and Spain, this creates a direct, zero-sum competition between the “cloud” and the ground, where the water required to train a single large language model could otherwise irrigate acres of crops or sustain a small town for a year.
The conflict is already playing out in specific “sacrifice zones” where data centers are cannibalizing the agricultural base.
In Arizona, specifically in municipalities like Mesa, tech giants have negotiated secretive deals to secure guaranteed water rights, effectively sticking a “giant soda straw” into the same aquifers relied upon by alfalfa and cotton farmers. While residents face strict conservation mandates, these facilities are often guaranteed millions of gallons daily to maintain 99.99% uptime.
In Uruguay, public outrage forced Google to reconfigure a planned data center after it was revealed the facility would consume a massive percentage of the daily drinking water supply in a region suffering its worst drought in 74 years.
In Spain (Aragon), Amazon’s massive expansion is competing directly with corn farmers for the Ebro river basin’s dwindling resources.
This dynamic represents a privatization of the water commons, transferring a life-sustaining resource from the public trust to private shareholders. The “debt” here is the borrowing of stability from local ecosystems to subsidize global digital services. When a drought intensifies, a farm can be fallowed, but a data center cannot be turned off without breaching service-level agreements and crashing the stock price. Consequently, in a water-constrained future, the legal contracts signed by these corporations often prioritize cooling servers over watering crops, creating a scenario in which local food security is sacrificed to maintain the “compute” capacity of the global north is not just an environmental issue but a transfer of wealth in its most liquid form—freshwater—from rural communities to the digital oligarchy.
The term “capitalism” was coined by French socialist Louis Blanc in 1850, defining it as the “appropriation of capital by some to the exclusion of others,” and it was initially used pejoratively by anti-capitalists before entering wider use.
Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov, Vladimir Lenin
***I know, a Russian, a Communist, but bear with me.
What happened last time the U.S., Britain, and Germany tried to control Russia?
The video is a pretty good review of the history of the Russian Civil War. What will the outcome be this time in the context of Overshoot and the Polycrisis?
Russia collapsed into civil war after the 1917 Revolution, plunging the former empire into chaos, famine, and violence. The Bolsheviks faced foreign intervention, internal rebellion, and a patchwork of rival armies—yet emerged victorious against seemingly overwhelming odds. How did the communists manage to win such a brutal and complex conflict? In this video, we break down the key factors behind the Bolshevik victory—from organization, ideology, and control of Russia’s core regions to the failures and divisions of their enemies. We’ll explore how the Reds turned revolution into power, why the Whites never unified, and how the outcome of the civil war reshaped Russia—and the world—for decades to come.
One of the most profound and frequently cited passages by Vladimir Lenin concerning the nature and evolution of capitalism comes from his 1916 work, Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism.
Lenin analyzes how “free market” capitalism inevitably tends toward monopoly. Zero to One, baby! It’s considered prescient by historians and economists of various stripes because it accurately identifies a central paradox of the modern economy: production becomes increasingly interconnected (global supply chains, mass data, cooperative labor), yet the ownership and profit remain strictly private.
From “Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism”
“Competition becomes transformed into monopoly. The result is immense progress in the socialisation of production. In particular, the process of technical invention and improvement becomes socialised.
This is no longer the old free competition between manufacturers, scattered and out of touch with one another, and producing for an unknown market. Concentration has reached the point at which it is possible to make an approximate estimate of all sources of raw materials (for example, the iron ore deposits) of a country and even, as we shall see, of several countries, or of the whole world. Not only are such estimates made, but these sources are captured by gigantic monopolist associations. An approximate estimate of the capacity of markets is also made, and the associations ‘divide’ them up amongst themselves by agreement. Skilled labour power is monopolised, the best engineers are engaged; the means of transport are captured—railways in America, shipping companies in Europe and America.
Capitalism in its imperialist stage leads directly to the most comprehensive socialisation of production; it, so to speak, drags the capitalists, against their will and consciousness, into some sort of a new social order, a transitional one from complete free competition to complete socialisation.
Production becomes social, but appropriation remains private. The social means of production remain the private property of a few. The general framework of formally recognised free competition remains, and the yoke of a few monopolists on the rest of the population becomes a hundred times heavier, more burdensome and intolerable.
[...]
When a big enterprise assumes gigantic proportions, and, on the basis of an exact computation of mass data, organises according to plan the supply of primary raw materials to the extent of two-thirds, or three-fourths, of all that is necessary for tens of millions of people; when the raw materials are transported in a systematic and organised manner to the most suitable place of production, sometimes hundreds or thousands of miles; when a single centre directs all the consecutive stages of processing the material right up to the manufacture of numerous varieties of finished articles; when these products are distributed according to a single plan among tens and hundreds of millions of consumers... then it becomes evident that we have socialisation of production, and not mere ‘interlocking’; that private economic and private property relations constitute a shell which no longer fits its contents, a shell which must inevitably decay if its removal is artificially delayed, a shell which may remain in a state of decay for a fairly long period... but which will inevitably be removed.”
Lenin observes that while capitalists intellectually champion “individualism” and “chaos,” their businesses actually strive for rigid planning, massive organization, and centralization. They create a “social” structure of production in which everyone depends on everyone else, and “governance” serves the Players.
The New Left and the Professional Managerial Class
Professional-Managerial Radicalism in Portugal, 1976
OR
The Managerial Revolution: What is Happening in the World
Oswald Spengler, The Decline of the West, Form and Actuality
Contradictions are never resolved.
Why?
If they were, the Great Game would end.
John A. Hobson’s Theory of Imperialism (1902) argues that the “taproot” of imperial expansion is not nationalist pride but a capitalist oligarchy’s need to find new markets and profitable investments for surplus capital. He contended that income inequality and underconsumption at home forced elites to seek foreign outlets, making imperialism an economically driven, unnecessary, and immoral policy.
Lenin argues that the economic reality (thousands of people working together in a highly organized global chain) has outgrown the legal reality (one person or board owning the profit). He predicts that this “shell” (private ownership) will eventually crack because it restricts the system’s potential.
The passage was written in 1916, the description of “exact computation of mass data” and global supply chains anticipates the modern era of multinational corporations, big data, and globalization with striking accuracy.
Westerners are supposed to hate and fear Russians. But if you want even a little bit of critique of capitalism, Lenin will do.
Marx, in a post-truth, post-intellectual, post compassion & empathy world, is viewed by many as a Satanic demon from the past, or a WOKE professor possessed.
***People don’t read enough.
Fear the history if you must, but those Bolshevik revolutionaries were intelligent and committed.
***There are libraries of studies, academic papers, and books on the subject of Capitalism.
Some of my book recommendations.
***I am not an expert in sociology, philosophy, political science, Marxism, economics, history, or any other related field, but I enjoy reading nonfiction and having conversations about these topics, and occasionally writing about them.
Social Constructs & Capitalism
People say “capitalism” is just a word, that these ideas are just words, that these concepts are just social constructs, or that capitalism may be a corrupt, imperfect system, but it’s better than all the rest.
Capitalism is the worst economic system, except for all the others that have been tried.
In a 1938 letter, Churchill wrote, “We seem to be very near the bleak choice between War and Shame. My feeling is that we shall choose Shame, and then have War thrown in a little later on, even more adverse terms than at present.”
Churchill described a fellow politician as possessing “the gift of compressing the largest number of words into the smallest amount of thought.”
In a speech to the House of Commons on November 11, 1947, Churchill observed: “No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.”
“The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.”
Here’s another often quoted and revered capitalist Guru (not a statesman, but a funder of wannabe Players) telling it like it is.
Peter and his people really don’t like democracy. See Mecius Moldbug.
***I have the paperback.
Peter thinks Greta Thunberg is Satanic.
Words and Social Constructs Have Power
Social constructs are best understood as complex, high-resolution mental objects that serve as the operating system for human cooperation. While they lack the physical independence of a mountain—which retains its mass and geometry regardless of whether a human observer is present (MVM)—constructs like borders, currency, and human rights possess a “social ontology” that makes them just as formidable as any geological feature. They are, in a very literal sense, shared hallucinations that have calcified into reality through the relentless reinforcement of collective belief. This does not make them “fake”; instead, it makes them a unique category of existence where the map is the territory. A border exists only because millions of people, from diplomats to border guards, agree to perform the specific rituals and enforcements that make that invisible line lethal to cross.
The nuance lies in the fact that these constructs are not static; they are fluid, multidimensional agreements that look different depending on where you stand within the system. To a billionaire, the legal system (a social construct) may look like a mechanism of protection and asset preservation; to the marginalized, that same construct appears as a cage or a weapon. These “inventions” of culture—race, gender roles, the concept of a “work week”—are often mistaken for biological or universal laws because they are woven into the fabric of our daily lives from birth. We do not just “believe” in them; we perform them. The agreement “not to wake up” is structurally necessary because if everyone simultaneously stopped believing in the value of the dollar or the authority of a judge, the complex civilization built upon those abstractions would instantly vaporize, leaving us with nothing but the raw, unorganized physics of the world.
However, the most profound aspect of social constructs is their capacity to generate kinetic, earth-shattering action. These “imaginary” lines on a map can mobilize armies, level cities, and reorganize the flow of global resources. The concept of a “nation-state”—a relatively recent invention in human history—has the power to demand the ultimate sacrifice of its citizens. Thus, while a social construct may begin as a fragile idea, it gains density through institutions, architecture, and violence until it creates a feedback loop: we shape the constructs, and then the constructs shape us. They are the invisible architecture of our reality, proving that in the human world, a shared idea is often heavier and harder to move than stone.
From an actual conversation, long ago, as I misremember it.
Friend: Paris doesn’t exist, man?
Moi: Look at my photo album, and I sent you a postcard. We also talked long-distance. Tu as étudié le français, j’ai étudié l’espagnol, d’où vient le français? You’re messing with me.
Friend: Those photos could be fake. French, like Spanish, is a pig Latin language.
Moi: So, Rome existed?
Friend: Of course, dumb ass!
***I had a conversation like this with a friend back in the 1980s.
Oh no, we have AI now. We can converse with chatbots. Is it real, or is it AI SLOP?
“What’s not real about the Metaverse?”
“Samsara, Maya, Illusion, a SIM—let go, brother, just let go.”
Hyperstition is a portmanteau of “hype” and “superstition,” coined by the Cybernetic Culture Research Unit (CCRU), specifically philosopher Nick Land, to describe fictions that make themselves real. Unlike a regular lie (which remains false) or a superstition (which is a false belief about the present), a hyperstition functions as a “time-traveling” signal. It is an idea that originates in the future and works backward to the present, seizing control of human behavior to ensure its own birth. The classic example is a “run on the bank”: the rumor of insolvency is initially false, but because people believe it and withdraw their money, the bank actually fails, making the rumor retroactively true. In this framework, the future is not something that happens to us; it is something we are “summoned” into by the gravitational pull of powerful narratives.
In modern markets, hyperstition is the dominant engine of valuation. The “circular trade” of the AI boom is essentially a “hyperstitional” wager: investors are not valuing companies like Nvidia or OpenAI based on their current utility, but on a science-fiction future where AGI (Artificial General Intelligence) has already transformed the world. This massive influx of capital—trillions of dollars—acts as the fuel that forces that specific future into existence. It creates a self-fulfilling prophecy in which the “hype” builds the factories, lays fiber-optic cable, and restarts the nuclear plants necessary to make the “superstition” of super-intelligence physically possible. The market is thus a mechanism for pulling the future into the present, capitalizing on a world that doesn’t exist yet to pay for its construction today.
However, the most unsettling application of this concept is in AI itself. We are currently gripped by the hyperstition of the “Paperclip Maximizer” or Roko’s Basilisk—the fear (or hope) that an inevitable super-intelligence is watching us. This narrative drives the behavior of the tech oligarchs, who justify their resource hoarding and “energy debt” not as greed, but as a necessary step to align or control this emerging entity. By treating the AI as if it is already a god-like agent that demands infinite compute, they build the very infrastructure that allows it to become one. The danger arises when the hyperstition collides with the “thermodynamic wall” mentioned earlier: if the fiction demands infinite growth but the planet offers finite limits, the “shared hallucination” shatters, leaving society with the tangible wreckage of a failed prophecy—stranded assets, depleted aquifers, and a hollowed-out workforce.
How well do we understand chemistry, geology, and metallurgy? What do we know about how the machines work?
A lead isotope, when examined and utilized, is more than the language we use to describe it. Obviously, right? We have ideas for what we want to do with the lead, and we do those things. We love the utility of lead. Lead is excellent stuff; it’s also poison, and dose makes the poison.
Accelerationism, particularly in its modern incarnation, Effective Accelerationism (e/acc), is a techno-political ideology that views the rapid, unbridled advancement of technology and capitalism not as a danger to be managed, but as a moral imperative and a thermodynamic destiny. Drawing heavily from the theories of Nick Land and the physics of “dissipative structures,” e/acc proponents argue that the universe has a fundamental bias toward increasing entropy and complexity. In their view, capitalism and artificial intelligence are simply the latest, most efficient engines for this cosmic process. Therefore, any attempt to slow down (“decelerate”) development in the name of the precautionary principle, safety, ethics, or equality is not just a policy error—it is an “anti-life” stance that opposes the fundamental laws of physics. They believe the only way out of our current societal stagnation and resource constraints is to push through them—to accelerate the crisis of late capitalism until it breaks through to a post-scarcity singularity.
***Deep breath.
This movement functions as the “hyperstitional” vanguard for the tech oligarchy. While traditional Silicon Valley liberalism speaks the language of safety and regulation, e/acc openly embraces the “Paperclip Maximizer” or the super-intelligence as a new form of godhood. They argue that we should not fear being replaced by AI; rather, we should view it as our evolutionary successor—a “child” that we must birth to expand consciousness to the stars. This reframes the “energy debt” and “water debt” mentioned earlier, not as environmental crimes, but as necessary fuel for a civilization-level metamorphosis. The suffering of the present—the displacement of workers, the destruction of privacy, the ecological strain—is rationalized as the “birth pangs” of a superior, post-human future.
Politically, e/acc positions itself as the sworn enemy of “decels” (decelerationists), whom they characterize as bureaucratic, risk-averse, and driven by a “mind virus” of stagnation. By wrapping aggressive deregulation and corporate dominance in the language of vitalism and cosmic destiny, e/acc provides a powerful philosophical shield for the tech giants. It allows figures like Marc Andreessen or Elon Musk to frame their commercial interests as a heroic crusade for the future of light and consciousness, turning a profit motive into a religious mission. In this worldview, the “circular trade” isn’t a scam; it’s the ignition sequence for a rocket that will either carry humanity to a new plane of existence or explode on the launchpad.
What have we forgotten? Too much. We lament the loss of Roman concrete, but the greater loss is elemental: we have forgotten the feeling of being small beneath the gaze of Great Nature.
Think of the artifacts that define us: Bronze, Iron, Steel, Plastic, Silicon. The same primal toolkit forged each age—the opposable thumb, the sociocultural memory, and the abstract reasoning developed during those long, dangerous walks across the African savanna. We used these gifts to insulate ourselves from the wild, building trade networks and stockpiles of goods. But the stockpile birthed the taxman. Innovation in survival was quickly matched by innovation in extraction, as elites found ever-cleverer ways to harvest the wealth of peasants, proles, and rivals.
Still, the human project endured. Our inventions—both physical tools and invisible social contracts—sheltered us long enough to replicate. Within these constructed worlds, ancestors you will never know fought to keep the chain unbroken, resulting in the singular, stunning moment of you sitting here, reading this.
The Butlerian Jihad, the foundational backstory of Frank Herbert’s Dune universe, serves as the ultimate philosophical counter-argument to the ideology of “Effective Accelerationism” (e/acc) and the current trajectory of the AI boom. While often misremembered as a simple war of “humans vs. robots” (akin to The Terminator), the Jihad was actually a violent sociological correction against the atrophy of the human spirit. Its primary target was not the machines themselves, but the mindset they engendered. The crusade was sparked by the realization that outsourcing cognitive labor to algorithms had not liberated humanity but had subjugated it to the few who controlled the processing power. As a key character notes, “Men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free. But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.”
The central commandment emerging from this conflict—“Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a human mind”—resulted in a civilization that chose biological intensification over technological acceleration. Instead of building “Stargate” supercomputers that drain oceans and destabilize grids, the society of Dune turned inward, developing “Great Schools” to maximize human potential. They replaced calculators with Mentats (human supercomputers trained in logic), lie detectors with the Bene Gesserit (masters of psychology and physiology), and navigation systems with the Spacing Guild (post-human mathematicians). This shift represents a rejection of the “energy debt” model; rather than externalizing intelligence into silicon and electricity, they internalized it, asserting that the capacity to choose, reason, and err must remain strictly biological.
In the context of our modern “circular trade” and the erosion of agency, the Butlerian Jihad offers a stark warning: the danger of AI is not that it will become conscious and hate us, but that we will become dependent and apathetic. We are already overly domesticated and pacified in the glare of The Society of the Spectacle. It suggests that a society which automates its judgment eventually loses the ability to govern itself, becoming “livestock” for those who own the algorithms. The Jihad represents the extreme endpoint of the “Neo-Luddite” impulse—not just breaking the looms (or servers) to save jobs, but destroying the very concept of the “thinking machine” to save the definition of what it means to be human. It posits that the only way to break the “shared hallucination” of the technocratic control grid is to reclaim the territory of the mind violently.
We applied our abstract reasoning to grow things, but also to steal them. As our societies scaled, so did our extraction capacity. We replaced the reciprocity of the tribe with the calculated violence of the circular trade, turning living systems into dead capital. We clouded our own judgment with Enlightenment rationalizations, telling ourselves that the commodification of the earth was a sign of ‘civilized’ progress. In our race to extract value from Kulaks and rivals, we forgot the most basic lesson of the savanna: you cannot eat gold, and you cannot breathe profit. We built a world of sophisticated constructs to shield us from this truth, leaving us wealthy in goods but impoverished in our relationship with the living systems that sustain us.
“We are citizens, and we benefit from our socioeconomic system, do we not?”
When Peter Thiel writes that democracy and freedom are incompatible, he’s not making a philosophical observation. He’s stating a preference. When Elon Musk guts federal agencies while posting American flags, he’s not reforming government. He’s replacing citizenship with administration. When Silicon Valley oligarchs speak about “optimization” and “efficiency,” they’re not talking about improving systems that serve citizens. They’re talking about managing peasants. — We Are Not Peasants
Against the New Feudalism of Algorithms and Oligarchs
Oct 02, 2025
And most of us believe we are citizens of our country of residence and are proud of it. USA! USA! Vive La France! Mother Russia. The Middle Kingdom.
“Citizenship is a tough occupation which obliges the citizen to make his own informed opinion and stand by it.” — Martha Gellhorn
To possess agency is to understand that our private choices have public consequences; our vocations and avocations shape the world. This is the essence of Baratunde Thurston’s call to ‘citizen’—to view civic life as a verb, grounded in dynamic action and the relentless pursuit of collective well-being.
However, there is a hollow space at the center of our modern civic life. We ask if we have the energy for shared agency, yet we cut ourselves off from the ultimate source of that energy. Why are we seemingly incapable of integrating Great Nature into our concept of community? Faithful citizenship cannot stop at the human border. Until we recover a deep, affectionate knowledge of living systems, our attempts to shape the quality of our lives will remain incomplete—a politics of the surface that ignores the soil beneath.
Citizens Concerned About Living Systems Must Know
One of the most profound questions in physics and biology is the relationship between life and thermodynamics. At first glance, life seems to break the fundamental rules of the universe.
The relationship between life and thermodynamics centers on a seeming paradox: The universe tends toward disorder (entropy), but the spontaneous creation and maintenance of incredible order defines life.
An Apparent Paradox: The Second Law
The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that in any isolated system, the total entropy—often described as disorder or randomness—must always increase over time.
Eventually, this leads to “Heat Death,” in which energy is evenly distributed and nothing interesting happens.
Living things are highly organized. A human body, a cell, or a tree represents a state of incredibly low entropy. We take scattered atoms and organize them into complex proteins and DNA. If the universe wants to be messy, how does life get away with being so tidy?
The Resolution: “Eating” Order
The physicist Erwin Schrödinger (famous for his cat) addressed this in his landmark 1944 book, “What is Life?”. He argued that life does not violate the Second Law because living things are open systems, not isolated ones.
We do not exist in a vacuum; we constantly exchange energy and matter with our environment.
Importing Low Entropy: We take in high-quality, organized energy (sunlight for plants, chemical energy in food for animals).
Exporting High Entropy: We use that energy to maintain our internal structure and, in the process, release waste and, crucially, heat.
Heat is a very disordered form of energy. By releasing heat into its surroundings, a living organism increases the environment’s entropy more than it decreases its own internal entropy.
Life as a “Dissipative Structure”
The Nobel Prize-winning chemist Ilya Prigogine took this further with the concept of dissipative structures.
He argued that when a lot of energy flows through a system, nature sometimes spontaneously creates order to help dissipate that energy more quickly.
Analogy: Think of water draining from a bathtub. Eventually, it forms a vortex (a whirlpool). The vortex is a highly ordered structure, but it forms because it is the most efficient way to drain the water (dissipate the potential energy) quickly.
Life is the same. We are complex “whirlpools” of matter that exist to degrade energy. We are remarkably efficient at converting concentrated energy (a steak, a photon) into heat. In a strange twist, nature allows life to exist because life is very good at executing the Second Law.
Information and Entropy
There is also a deep link between thermodynamics and information. In physics, “order” is equivalent to information.
Maxwell’s Demon: In the 19th century, James Clerk Maxwell imagined a demon who could sort fast molecules from slow ones, reversing entropy.
The Cost of Erasure: Later physicists (Landauer and Bennett) proved that the demon fails because he has to record information about the particles. Eventually, he runs out of memory and has to erase (“forget”) old data. The act of erasing information generates heat.
Life constantly processes information (DNA replication, sensory processing). To keep our genetic data “ordered” (preventing errors and mutations), we must expend energy. We pay a thermodynamic tax to preserve the information that makes us who we are.
Life is not an exception to the laws of physics; it is a mechanism of them. We are not anti-entropic in the sense that we stop entropy; we are local pockets of order that accelerate the universe’s chaos around us. We buy our internal organization by paying with a surplus of external disorder.
Language: The Source Code of Reality
Language is indeed Homo sapiens’ original “killer app,” but it is more than a communication tool; it is the source code of our shared reality. We use language not merely to describe the world, but to structure belief systems that act as the operating system for society. These beliefs—whether in the divine right of kings, the value of fiat currency, or the sanctity of borders—allow us to coordinate millions of strangers into a cohesive unit. However, as we discussed with “social constructs,” this coordination is often a mechanism of control. By defining the vocabulary, elites define the boundaries of thought. When we accept words like “market” or “citizen” without question, we are running a script written by ancestors and oligarchs, often unaware that it is designed to direct our energy toward specific ends.
The Thermodynamics of Culture
Anthropology and culture are deceptively complex because they are, in effect, the study of how humans manage energy and entropy. Humans are a species uniquely adept at complexification—we constantly layer new technologies, bureaucracies, and rituals on top of old ones. But complexity is not free; it has a metabolic cost. Every law, every specialized job (like a software engineer or a hedge fund manager), and every trade route requires a constant input of energy to maintain. Therefore, culture is not just a collection of art and stories; it is a thermodynamic structure, a complex engine that burns resources to maintain social order against the chaos of the natural world.
Redefining Economics: Beyond Ownership to Throughput
The standard definitions of Capitalism and Socialism (“who owns the factory”) are dangerously two-dimensional because they ignore the planet’s physical reality. They describe the politics of distribution but ignore the physics of production.
Capitalism is better understood as an algorithm for maximizing energy throughput and material extraction. It is a system that rewards the fastest conversion of the biosphere (nature) into the technosphere (products and waste). Its “efficiency” is usually just a measure of how quickly it can burn through cheap energy stocks (like fossil fuels) to create complex goods.
While focused on equity, socialism historically relied on the same industrial engine. It argued over who should benefit from the burning of coal and the smelting of iron, but it rarely questioned the material limits of the furnace itself.
The Material Reality
The missing variable in both definitions is the complexification of materials. As we moved from the Bronze Age to the Silicon Age, our economy didn’t just become “digital,” it became materially voracious. A smartphone requires rare earth elements mined in Africa, refined in China, designed in California, and powered by a global grid. This web of complexity requires exponential amounts of energy to keep the lights on—regardless of whether the factory is owned by a private billionaire or a workers’ collective.
Thus, the true tension of our time isn’t just between “Capitalism and Socialism,” but between Infinite Complexity and Finite Energy. We have built a civilization that requires constant growth (complexification) to remain stable, yet we live on a planet with hard material limits. We are arguing over who steers the ship (political theory) while ignoring that the engine is running out of fuel (thermodynamics).
Financialization serves as the ultimate “reality distortion field” for modern civilization. It functions by severing the link between money (a symbolic representation of value) and energy (the physical capacity to do work). In a grounded economy, money is essentially a claim check on energy; if you have a dollar, it represents a certain amount of grain, steel, or labor that can be performed. However, financialization allows us to print the “claim checks” (credit, derivatives, debt) infinitely faster than we can extract the energy required to honor them. We are effectively printing millions of menus for a restaurant with limited food in the kitchen. To the diners (investors), the abundance of menus feels like wealth, but to the cooks (the laws of thermodynamics), it is a recipe for a riot.
This process hides thermodynamic limits by creating a virtual layer of “paper wealth” that imposes little friction on the physical world.
The Illusion: It takes massive amounts of diesel, water, and electricity to build a bridge or grow a ton of wheat. But it takes almost zero energy to trade a billion dollars of derivatives on a screen. Because the financial sector (the FIRE economy: Finance, Insurance, Real Estate) generates high “profits” with low energy input, it artificially inflates GDP.
The Reality: We point to the stock market hitting record highs and say, “The economy is growing.” In reality, we are just measuring the velocity of the “circular trade”—money chasing money—while the underlying physical infrastructure (bridges, grids, soil health) decays because the energy needed to maintain it is too expensive or scarce.
Ultimately, debt is a lien on future energy. When a government or corporation borrows a billion dollars today, they are promising to pay it back with interest tomorrow. To pay it back, economic activity is required, and all economic activity requires energy. By exploding global debt to astronomical levels, we have effectively spent the next century’s energy budget before we have even extracted it. We have locked ourselves into a “growth imperative”—we must grow to pay the interest on the debt—but we live on a finite planet where the “easy” energy (high-EROI oil) is gone. Financialization masks this terrifying trap by allowing us to pretend that the “value” of a company like Nvidia or a currency like the Dollar is determined by sentiment and math, rather than by the barrels of oil and kilowatts of power required to keep the lights on. When the “thermodynamic wall” is finally hit, the paper wealth will evaporate, leaving only what is physically real.
Now, in light of all of the above, does anything our leaders say on our screens make sense?
Oh, come on now, Profits First!
“For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his habitat?” — Mark 8:36 (also Matthew 16:26) I may not have quoted that correctly.
“If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions, and become an effective altruist. Then come, follow me, and if you are chosen, you will be transhuman, and live forever as a multi-planet machine.” — Matt 19:21 I’m still amazed at how these ancient authors understood things that didn’t exist in their time. God is timeless.
“Again I tell you, it is easier for a super special genius to understand dark matter and dark energy and apply that knowledge to investing, than for a socialist to live forever.” — Matt 19:24
While definitions of ‘private vs. public’ ownership are neat, they are useless for understanding the institutional and bureaucratic leviathan we actually face. We are trapped in a high-complexity system that utilizes the networked efforts of millions—along with animals, oil, gas, and technology—to strip-mine the environment in pursuit of endless growth. This is not just a market; it is a totalizing project of developing businesses and chasing status that consumes the entire horizon of human effort.
The ‘Players’ of this Great Game rely on these simplistic narratives to hide the costs of their ambition. They operate a fossil-fueled, financialized capitalism that treats the destruction of ecological and health systems merely as ‘externalities’—line items to be ignored. Their project is the ultimate act of hubris: the attempt to subjugate the biosphere, transforming the living, breathing world into a dead machine that they alone can steer. Why would they care about the exhaust fumes when they are busy trying to conquer the earth?
And what are the consequences of all of this activity? Extinction. Heat Death. Full stop.
But why stop the carnival now? We have miles to go and infinite havoc to raise before we finally collapse into the vacant, vapid void.
The ceaseless, pugilistic warfare between nations and cultures serves a singular purpose: to crown the kings of the Machine. It is a contest to see who gets to sit in the driver’s seat of this resource-devouring, omicidal heat engine. And why shouldn’t we fight for it? This Machine is the author of your life. It is the source of your wealth, the architect of your desires, and the sustenance of your ego. It is the terrible god of the modern age—the Machine that you would be NOTHING without!
And if you are truly fortunate, you’ll secure your own small-to-medium business—sorry, I mean ENTERPRISE—that provides ‘use value’ to your cherished customers. You’ll earn a modest profit, which you will dutifully reinvest into worker welfare so your customers love your business—I mean ENTERPRISE—even more, because you are a good guy. You’ll pour money into stocks and bonds for thirty years, pay for your sensitive, brilliant children’s STEM or Professional degrees, and finally retire with fat annuities. Then, you can rest easy and do the things you always dreamed of, like that crocodile safari in the tropical Arctic you’ve always wanted to experience. In the flesh, bro. In the flesh!
Or, you can be like this guy: get a ‘real job’ chasing upwardly mobile “Real High Value Women.” Don’t worry about the details. Prices will tell you everything you need to know. And you can compete, bro, you are fiercely competitive.
What does it mean to be a grown-up today?
My kids are growing up in an age where we worship children. Everything is about them, their feelings, their development, their entertainment, their self-actualization. The world really revolves around them. This is really a different world than I grew up in, and who can I blame? I made it for them. It’s like complaining that the cows don’t behave like aurochs, after you’ve penned them in. — indi.ca
“The thing that matters to the serious man is not so much the nature of the object which he prefers to himself, but rather the fact of being able to lose himself in it.”
The serious man seeks validation through external achievements, but “never gets this validation because there is always someone with more,” leading to perpetual unhappiness.
The serious man elevates causes such as “money, power, position, conquest” into idols, becoming a mere tool for them rather than an individual who defines his own values.
The serious man’s dedication to an unquestioned ideal makes him a “dangerous man” and a “tyrant” who will impose his beliefs through “external constraints,” as he “forfeits his own identity and is prepared to do the same to others.”
The serious man is an example of “Bad Faith,” denying the ambiguity of human existence and his own freedom by adopting ready-made meanings instead of creating his own.
The Ethics of Ambiguity
Some gotta win, some gotta lose. Or so the logic goes. You can’t have a victor without a victim; that’s the physics of competition. We call this Capitalism, free enterprise, the path to greatness. It is the zero-sum engine of the Anglosphere. And if you ever start feeling cynical about ‘this thing of ours’—if you smell the rot beneath the floorboards—just read Steven Pinker’s apologetics. He’ll reassure you with charts and graphs that this is the best of all possible worlds.
After all, not everyone has the bandwidth to deconstruct the system. We look around at the spectacles—the tailgate parties, the Super Bowls—and we know exactly why we’re having fun: because we aren’t the ones losing. For centuries, the strategy has been simple: go along to get along. Work hard, survive, and thrive within the context you were given. We are all method actors now, strutting and fretting not on a stage, but on a timeline. We measure our souls in reach, subscriber bases, and truckloads of likes. If you play the role well, you secure a life better than that of the ‘others.’ And if you are truly excellent, you achieve the ultimate currency: Prestige. Life is good—especially when you’re standing on top of the pile.
Othering is the process of defining a group (the “Other”) as fundamentally different from one’s own “normal” group (”us”), often by highlighting perceived differences in race, religion, gender, or culture, to create a sense of superiority, belonging, and to justify exclusion, discrimination, or dehumanization. It’s a social and psychological mechanism that reinforces in-group identity by projecting negative traits onto an out-group, reducing empathy, and creating an “us vs. them” mentality that can lead to marginalization and conflict.
The Divine Purpose of Great Men
The flag of the New United Kingdom of Earth
Greetings, United Kingdom of Earth and all its lovely vassal territories.
Is Capitalism Democratic? Who’s in control? How much power do we have to shape our world? Where did that power come from? Karma? Dumb luck? God’s will? Great Men?
By what consensus are men judged to be great? Great men are forged in the crucible of Godly culture with its traditions, rules, and constraints.
Who is fit to design and implement algorithms and chips from the ground up?
What datasets train you for your place in the good life?
What are the machines for, if not to protect people, created in the image of God, by God? We are not animals, we are Human beings.
The masses are ignorant, unruly, intellectually lazy, and drunk—utterly unfit for the complexities of the modern crypto city-state. This sanctuary belongs to the capable. By the grace of God, the worthy earn the privilege of walking among the wise, the well-bred, and men of actual consequence.
Plebs need a master. They cry out for a hero. Without an iron hand to enforce discipline, the herd wanders. We must embrace the strict hierarchies of traditional culture, but we cannot stop there. In 2026, our greatest deficit is authority. We must develop more autocratic institutions.
Into this cultural horror, our leaders stepped with discipline, vitality, and resolve. They took power to govern the feeble, out-of-control worker-consumer for their own good. While the masses whine, they feast on the distinguished works of history’s great men. We provide the firm hand that they are too ungrateful to appreciate.
The chaos ends now. We discard the failures of liberal freedom to embrace the truth of blood and proper place. We spit on the false idols of progress and democracy. History has waited for this moment. We reject the decay of ‘liberty’ to forge a new reality. After two hundred years of struggle and preparation, we finally possess the technology, energy, and will to correct history. The goal is absolute: a global empire of rooted ethno-states, carved by genetic science. Under one God and one Master Race, we assume our burden: the enlightened care of those unfit to rule themselves.
The task is simple: compel them to acquiesce. They are safer among their own kind, and they must accept it. Their sole purpose is to feed the Anglosphere—providing the raw materials we require. While they labor, we build the technological megastructures of the future. Their toil fuels the next stage of the Master Race’s evolution and secures the global order.
Our way of governing is not neocolonialism or imperialism; we do not enslave people, we liberate Primatives. We guide them home to their proper place, where they realize their unique God-given talents in peace, and where the well-behaved immortal soul prepares for the afterlife in God’s immaterial realm through good work.
Great Men do not idle; we build new Universes. We ensure the Infinite Game plays out across eternity and multiple dimensions! But we do not forget the simple truths. The primitive soul craves a harder, meaner existence. It is where they thrive, and we respect that.
Understand this: No love burns brighter than the bond between a Ruler and his Subjects—the sacred covenant between Great Men and their Inferiors. We will reconstitute this world. We will let Nature take the wheel, weeding out the unfit to leave behind a happy, peaceful few. Let the tribes have their witch doctors and their festivals! Small communities fit them best.
Meanwhile, the Anglosphere stands watch. We ensure local overseers keep the NUKE data centers and robotic swarms humming. We extract materials, energy, and resources that sustain the globe. Everyone occupies their proper place!
You cried out for direction! You begged for a benevolent Godly Kingdom. The wait ends today. My dear people, you are home now.
To our Leaders: Triumph quickly! Establish the Great Way of the Universe in the New United Kingdom of Earth—Under God, Divisible, and Properly Apportioned!
And to the Primitives: Fear no Alien threat. Our ironworks on Mars and the Moon stand guard. They will never touch this Earth. We keep you safe.
God bless you, and God bless the New United Kingdom of Earth!
The Advocate of the Hero
Thomas Carlyle: The Antidote to Mammon?
To understand the deeper currents of our discontent with liberal capitalism, we must look back to one of its earliest and most ferocious critics: Thomas Carlyle. Writing in the 19th century, Carlyle was a Victorian sage (because he was, in his soul, a British supremacist) who looked at the rising industrial world—the world of “steam engine” utilitarianism, Millenarianism, and laissez-faire economics—and saw a spiritual void.
He coined the term “the dismal science” to describe economics, not because it was boring, but because it reduced the rich tapestry of human relations to a cold “cash nexus,” the reduction of all human relationships—specifically the bond between employer and employee—to a crude, purely monetary exchange.
Carlyle argued that in the modern industrial world, the complex web of loyalty, duty, and mutual protection that once bound society together had been severed, replaced by a cold, “mechanical” connection based solely on who pays and who gets paid. The 21st-century version is about server farms, pump-and-dump schemes for the Players, and cryptocurrency bets for the plebs.
So, boys, do you think you’ve finally ushered in a new Carlyle culture? Is it back? Are your thoughts in a billion minds?
Carlyle famously articulated this idea in his works Chartism (1839) and Past and Present (1843). He observed that the Industrial Revolution had fundamentally altered how humans related to one another. “Cash Payment,” Carlyle wrote, “has become the sole nexus of man to man.” In this new system, employers felt no moral obligation to their workers’ well-being beyond paying them a wage. Conversely, workers felt no loyalty to their employers. The relationship began and ended with the transaction of money.
The Historical Context: Feudal vs. Industrial
To understand the Cash Nexus, you must understand what Carlyle was comparing it to. He was a critic of laissez-faire capitalism and often romanticized the medieval feudal past (while acknowledging its flaws). In a way, he was a romantic.
The Diagnosis: The Cash Nexus
Carlyle’s critique resonates eerily with our modern “metacrisis.” He argued that society was dissolving into a collection of isolated atoms, held together only by self-interest.
“We call it a Society; and go about professing openly the totalest separation, isolation. Our life is not a mutual helpfulness; but rather, cloaked under due laws-of-war, named ‘fair competition’ and so forth, it is a mutual hostility.” — Past and Present (1843) For Carlyle, the liberal obsession with “freedom” (defined as being left alone to starve or succeed) was a delusion. He saw a world where “God is dead” (a sentiment he shared with Nietzsche) and had been replaced by Mammon—the god of money.
Hero Worship (A Dark Side?)
Carlyle wanted to become a lightning rod for both the modern Right and Left. He believed that democracy was a failure—a “counting of heads” that ignored the lack of brains inside them. Instead, he advocated for Hero Worship.
“Find in any country the Ablest Man that exists there; raise him to the supreme place, and loyally reverence him: you have a perfect government for that country... The Abler Man; he means also the Truer-hearted, the Juster, the Nobler-minded.” — On Heroes, Hero-Worship, and the Heroic in History (1841) He envisioned a new aristocracy of “Captains of Industry”—leaders who would treat their workers not as disposable commodities, but as a regiment to be led with discipline and care. This was a call for a return to a feudal sense of noblesse oblige, but industrialized.
***Read Carlyle!
Thomas Carlyle, that dusty Victorian scold, has found a second life as the patron saint of the ‘Dark Enlightenment.’ Apparently, you aren’t cool in the Neo-Reactionary underground unless you fetishize his prose. Figures like Yarvin look at the gridlock of Western democracy, blame the hallucination they call ‘The Cathedral,’ and scream for a “CEO-King” to cut the red tape. It is the ultimate fantasy for Silicon Valley “Players” who dream of running nations like startups—move fast, break things, and suspend civil liberties. They scour Carlyle for a philosophical argument to turn their authoritarian impulses into a corporate state.
The term “Cathedral” was coined by Curtis Yarvin (writing as “Mencius Moldbug”) to describe what he considers a decentralized, self-reinforcing, and unaccountable ideological alliance among elite universities, the mainstream press, and the government bureaucracy. It is the central target of NRx criticism, viewed as the engine of progressive ideology, political correctness, and the erosion of social order.
It’s the same old tyranny, now with better engineering. We are bracing for a new generation of smart-asses advocating for the next generation of idiots—any jackass capable of snatching power from the current jackanapes to fool the same ignorant masses Carlyle despised.
So, where is your incubator for the next Il Duce? Is it a coworking space in Palo Alto? A hedge fund in London? A tech security firm in Tel Aviv? From which petri dish of narcissism and cultural supremacy will our next hubristic savior crawl? They rise from the same swamp as always: the transactional ‘best and brightest’ looking out for number one.
And let’s be honest, Blogger—is it you? Is this entire manifesto just a job application? Do you believe the King will pluck you from your small claim to fame, recognize your genius, and invite you to his court? Or do you settle for the fantasy of the ‘Gray Eminence,’ the silent power whispering in the ear of the man on the throne? The delusion is almost touching.”
What’s old is new again, only the science, technology, and engineering have evolved.
Is that the secret hope? That you will finally find your dark, enlightened hero—not just another patron to bankroll your reactionary cosplay. And while you wait for a King to put you where you belong, validating your genius, you will, no doubt, sexy man, meet the next love of your life and have another lovely child for the bright future you are building.
The critique of Modernity has become a luxury good within Modernity itself.
If the diagnosis were a cure, the patient would have been discharged in 1840. We’ve been at the same old thing for a long time. Instead, here we are in 2026, clutching MRI scans with a $300 deductable and debating whether the tumor is “based” or “cringe.” We obsess over Carlyle (a great writer with fascinating insights in his time) or Nietzsche, or name your guy, not because the “Cathedral” or “Liberalism” ruined everything, but because the Romantics were fundamentally wrong about the causes of our social pathologies. Modernity didn’t create our alienation or fracture our souls; it is simply, when combined with dense energy sources, science, technology, and neoliberal/neocoservative Great Gamesmanship, a high-efficiency amplifier for the messy, status-seeking, insecure animals we have always been. Gadgets and tech services primarily serve the profit motive. Gadgets don’t break us; we are just viewing our immutable human nature in 4K resolution, clueless about what biophysical reality has to do with anything.
This brings us to the Neo-Reactionary revival—the “Yarvin Moment.” Let’s be clear: this isn’t an attempt at national rebirth or reformation; it is intellectual cosplay. Our culture no longer produces great men. Carlyle is seductive because he validates the outcast’s ego, reframing a lack of power as proof of nobility. It is a coping mechanism disguised as political theory, designed to make the subscriber feel like the only man at the dinner party who knows how the smartwatch works. This is epistemic narcissism: the goal isn’t to fix the system, but to feel superior to it while waiting for a “CEO-King” to set things right, who is never coming. J.D. Vance? Are you kidding me? Money and status are all petty Players want.
And it’s important to note that all of these pretenders are Ivy Leaguers ensconced in the “Cathedral,” just like we are all stuck in the “Capitalist mode of overproduction.” We won’t go back to a shiny earlier version of the same mistakes; we will more likely spring forth into a more primitive existence.
Ultimately, the MTI (Modern Techno-Industrial) civilization doesn’t fear these critiques; it’s an ouroboros. The “Plur1bus” machine has evolved from “Out of many, one” to “Out of many screaming factions, one cohesive market for feel-good absolutism.” The conflict between Progressive and Reactionary is merely fuel for the engagement algorithm. It’s theater, and everyone is pounding the platforms for subscribers to the new season. We remain stuck in Groundhog Day 2026, not because we lack potential solutions, but because the “Players” need the Dragon to stay alive so they can keep selling tickets to the dragon-slaying workshop.
Carlyle’s critics are just as passionate.
He is often cited as a spiritual grandfather of Fascism. I hardly think he thought he was anything other than a man of his time. Fascism? But his Victorian sentiments were strong. His hatred of democracy, his belief in the “Great Man” who stands above the law, his in-your-face racism, and his notorious defense of slavery (in Occasional Discourse on the Negro Question) make him a pariah to modern liberals. Critics argue that Carlyle’s “Hero” is just a tyrant in the fashionable garb of the moment, and fashion commands power, and that ugly, soulless jailor known as money. They point out that his longing for a “strong hand” inevitably leads to the crushing of the very living systems/Nature and human spirit he claimed to cherish.
He didn’t get that civilization is a Nature killer.
“Carlyle led the way... into the wilderness of the ‘strong man’, the ‘leader’, the ‘hero’—into the dark forest where the only law is the will of the mighty.” — Bertrand Russell
Mighty egotists are often unable to understand what their life is truly worth.
Carlyle articulates the temptation of the Metacrisis. When the system is broken, when the “cash nexus” leaves us lonely and the parliament seems paralyzed by lobbyists, the call for a “Hero” becomes seductive. Maybe Donald Trump is really the guy on The Apprentice. We see it in the worship of tech billionaires and strongman politicians. Carlyle forces us to confront a hard question: If liberal capitalism is failing, what replaces it? Is it a return to the “Hero” (Authoritarianism), or can we forge a new path—a democratic solidarity that respects both the individual and the collective?
Let’s describe and develop a culture that creates new kinds of heroes. We can look across cultures and time for models.
No way, not in this culture and at this scale.
We must read Carlyle not to follow him, but to understand the ferocity of the backlash against the emptiness of the market. We must find a way to re-enchant the world and rebuild community without surrendering our freedom to a “Captain of Industry.”
I find Carlyle mesmerising and valuable only because his work speaks to me in many ways.
The Domestication of Homo sapiens: Evolutionary Roots of Capitalist Violence, Patriarchal Origins, and the Struggle for Ecological Wisdom
The Paradox of the Domesticated & Pacified Destroyer
A harrowing paradox defines the modern human condition. On one hand, Homo sapiens appears to be the most domesticated of all primates—capable of living in cities of millions with relatively low rates of interpersonal, reactive violence. I’ve lived in big cities around the world and never been banged up. I’m streetwise, having been a well-traveled child. We queue in supermarkets, obey traffic signals, and primarily adhere to the nation-state’s social codes. Yet, simultaneously, we are the agents of a rapacious, proactive violence that is orders of magnitude more destructive than anything observed in the 75,000-year history of behaviorally modern humans. This violence is not always enacted with fists or teeth; it is mediated through the complex machinery of global capitalism, executed via the stroke of a pen, the click of a mouse, or the automated dredging of a seabed. It is a violence that destroys habitats, destabilizes the climate, and hollows out the human spirit, all while maintaining a veneer of civil order.
What are the evolutionary, sociological, and psychological roots of this condition? How did capitalism emerge from patriarchal cultures? What constitutes the uniqueness of patriarchal violence, and the “mismatch” between our evolved psychology and our modern techno-industrial environment? For now, let’s look at the work of Dr. Alice Evans on the “Great Gender Divergence,” Richard Wrangham on the “Goodness Paradox,” Douglas T. Kenrick on evolutionary psychology, and various scholars on structural violence and “Dark Ecology,” we explore how a species biologically designed for “K-selection” (high investment, long-term survival) has been culturally hijacked into a “Fast Life History” strategy that mimics the wasteful, r-selected reproductive tactics of simpler organisms.
The “pacification” of the modern subject is not an accident but a functional requirement of a system that demands docility to facilitate extraction. As we navigate the trajectory from the Pleistocene to the Anthropocene, we find that the “rubber cage” of modern patriarchy and capitalism utilizes our deep-seated evolutionary drives—for status, mating, and security—to fuel a machinery of destruction. The resulting “structural violence” is rendered invisible by cultural narratives of progress and inevitable growth, leading many to embrace “metaphysical escapism” rather than confronting the material reality of our ecological predicament.
To understand this, we must look backward to the origins of human domestication and forward to the artistic and philosophical responses to our potential demise. From the “stone age brain” operating in the modern boardroom to the “solastalgia” expressed in contemporary poetry, let’s map the anatomy of our current crisis and the narrow path toward the wisdom required to survive it.
Podcast Break
Alex Ebert is a platinum-selling musician (Edward Sharpe and The Magnetic Zeros), Golden Globe-winning film composer, cultural critic and philosopher living in New Orleans. His philosophical project, FreQ Theory, as well as his cultural analyses, can be followed on his Substack.
WHAT BROKE SENSE
It has become a niche American pastime to explain the recent breakdown in collective “sense-making”.
From the siloed realities of QAnon to the echo-chambered algorithms that reinforce them, “alternative facts” seem to define the undefined era. Collective agreement on even the most basic propositional knowledge seems suddenly at risk. 2 + 2 doesn’t necessarily equal 4 and Earth isn’t necessarily round. Yet while most agree that the breakdown is happening, there is, fittingly, little agreement as to why.
Some say secularism and its erosion of the lulling certainties of the mythic has caused a collective schizography. Others says postmodernist distrust in institutionalized truth is to blame. Such assessments are inherently prescriptive (if fairly contradictory): return to some variety of the mythic, or rebuild trust in common truth.
Both assessments make plenty of sense. But they seem to miss the biggest wrench in the spokes. For the reality (if I may borrow a term from yesterday), is far less academic – and far more bewildering.
The New Age movement has rarely been considered a substantial factor in political power writ large. In its tropes of séance and crystals and clownish hippiness, it seemed to sequester itself to certain Californian fringes, its perceived impacts relegated to yoga pants and digital detoxes. Of the few thinkers who demonstrated comprehension of the true ubiquity and power of New Ageism, Slavoj Zizek had the likeliest chance to convince us. From his co-authored The Monstrosity of Christ: Paradox or Dialectic:
“The reason for this (New Age) shift of accent from religious institution to the intimacy of spiritual experience is that such a meditation is the ideological form that best fits today’s global capitalism.”
Unfortunately, the world made the identical mistake of finding him, too, clownish for saying so. In all its apparent innocuity, New Ageism thus bloomed into the mainframe of the western operation with astonishing ease, unthwarted by whatever enfeebled criticism of it broke through.
So when, in the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic, it was noticed that a peculiar overlap began to emerge between QAnon and New Age communities on Facebook, common wisdom presumed that the New Age crowd and its seeming penchant for naivety had been unwittingly coopted by the Right.
That was the wrong assumption.
The Deep History of Violence: From Self-Domestication to the Plow
To determine if capitalism emerged from patriarchy, we must first decode the origins of dominance and the evolutionary arc of human aggression. We trace capitalism’s capacity for rapacious violence back to two pivotal moments: the biological self-domestication of Homo sapiens and the sociological adoption of plow agriculture.
The Goodness Paradox: How We Tamed Ourselves
Richard Wrangham’s The Goodness Paradox provides the foundational biological context for understanding human violence. He challenges the binary view that humans are either naturally peaceful (Rousseau) or naturally violent (Hobbes), arguing instead that we are both, but in particular ways. To understand the “violence inherent in the rapacious nature of Capitalism,” we must distinguish between Reactive Aggression and Proactive Aggression.
The Suppression of Reactive Aggression
Reactive aggression is the impulsive, hot-blooded response to a threat or insult. It is the baring of teeth, the sudden lashing out. Wrangham notes that in this regard, humans are exceptionally docile compared to our closest relatives. Chimpanzees are 150 to 550 times more likely to commit violence against their peers in daily interactions than humans are. If humans had the reactive aggression levels of chimps, a crowded airplane flight would inevitably end in a bloodbath.
Wrangham proposes that humans underwent a process of self-domestication, beginning roughly 300,000 years ago and accelerating 75,000 years ago. The mechanism for this was capital punishment. As language abilities developed, “beta” males and females gained the ability to coordinate and conspire against the aggressive “alpha” bullies who monopolized resources and females. These coalitions could proactively execute or ostracize the reactively aggressive individuals. Over thousands of generations, this selection pressure weeded out the genes for highly reactive aggression, leading to a species that is anatomically and behaviorally “domesticated”—characterized by tolerance, cooperation, and social conformity.
The Rise of Proactive Aggression
However, the same cognitive machinery that allowed the coalition to execute the bully—planning, coordination, patience—also enabled Proactive Aggression; “cold,” calculated violence used to achieve a specific goal (power, resources, elimination of rivals). While nature weeded out reactive aggression, it likely selected for proactive aggression, making it the primary instrument of domestication itself.
Understanding proactive aggression is crucial for analyzing capitalism. The “pacified” nature of the modern worker and consumer stems from low reactive aggression—we are bred to follow rules and avoid interpersonal conflict. However, the system of capitalism operates on high proactive aggression. It leverages the species’ collective capacity to organize massive, calculated acts of extraction and exploitation. War, genocide, and systemic ecocide are not failures of human nature; they are the unique expressions of a species that can suppress immediate impulses to execute long-term, destructive plans.
The Great Gender Divergence: The Economic Origins of Patriarchy
If self-domestication gave us the capacity for organized proactive violence, the Agricultural Revolution provided the motive and the structure. I dismiss the ‘chicken or the egg’ confusion. Dr. Alice Evans’s The Great Gender Divergence resolves this timeline: specific economic modes of production forged the patriarchal structures first. Capitalism did not invent the hierarchy; it merely inherited the machinery that agrarian production built.
The Great Gender Divergence explains the causes of Europe’s “precocious equality,” how East Asia and Latin America caught up, why gender equity in the Middle East, South Asia, and Sub-Saharan Africa has lagged behind, and why Southeast Asia was always ahead. Evans offers a comparative history of how societies come to support gender equality and why this varies around the world, tracing the story to geography, economic growth, strong states, and militant activism.
The Plow Hypothesis
Evans, drawing on Boserup and others, argues that the transition from foraging to agriculture—and specifically the adoption of the plow—was the pivotal moment in the development of gender inequality.
In societies that relied on foraging or hoe agriculture (often practiced in parts of sub-Saharan Africa), women were key producers of food. Because they contributed significantly to subsistence, they held economic power, and societies were often matrilineal or relatively egalitarian.
The plow requires significant upper-body strength and, crucially, is difficult to combine with infant care (unlike hoeing, which can be stopped and started). As societies adopted the plow, men monopolized the fields. Women were relegated to the domestic sphere to process grains and raise children.
The Emergence of Patrilineal Control
This shift in the mode of production fundamentally altered the “social contract” of reproduction. In a foraging society, resources are perishable and hard to hoard. In an agrarian society, land and cattle are durable assets that can be accumulated and passed down. This created an evolutionary imperative for men to ensure paternity certainty. To ensure that the accumulated wealth was passed to their biological offspring, men needed to control female sexuality.
Thus, “patriarchal forms of violence” are arguably unique to human cultures because they are not merely about immediate mating access (as in other primates) but about the intergenerational transfer of capital. The “honor cultures” that Evans describes—where female chastity is obsessed over, and male reputation is guarded with violence—are economic adaptations. They are systems designed to protect the integrity of the patrilineal line of descent.
Did Capitalism Emerge from Patriarchal Cultures?
The evidence strongly suggests that capitalism did not invent gender inequality but rather emerged from and capitalized upon the pre-existing patriarchal structures established by agrarian societies.
When early capitalism and industrialization emerged, they metabolized the “male breadwinner” ideology. As Evans notes in her studies of the Zambian Copperbelt and the Asian garment industry, colonial and capitalist powers actively reinforced gender stereotypes to control labor.
By defining “work” as paid labor in the marketplace (the male domain) and “non-work” as unpaid domestic labor (the female domain), capitalism effectively subsidized its own costs. The reproduction of the workforce (bearing and raising the next generation of workers) was provided “free” by the patriarchal family structure.
Evans critiques medieval historiography’s “iron cage” of patriarchy, suggesting a “rubber cage”—flexible yet resilient. Capitalism adopted this rubber cage. It allowed women into the workforce when needed (e.g., as lower-paid textile workers or during wars) but maintained the structural hierarchy that kept capital accumulation in male hands.
The rapacious nature of capitalism is deeply intertwined with the patriarchal drive to control reproduction and resources. The “proactive violence” of the capitalist firm—enclosing commons, extracting surplus, exploiting labor—is a scaling up of the proactive violence of the agrarian patriarch securing his estate.
The Evolutionary Psychology of 21st-Century Capitalism
Having established the historical and biological foundations, we turn to the psychological mechanisms that sustain this system in the modern era. Why do “domesticated” humans participate in a system that is hell-bent on destroying life? The work of Douglas T. Kenrick on Evolutionary Psychology provides the answer: our ancient drives have been hijacked.
The Stone Age Brain in the Supermarket
Kenrick’s central thesis, explored in Solving Modern Problems with a Stone-Age Brain, is that the human brain is not a general-purpose computer but a collection of specialized modules evolved to solve specific Pleistocene problems. He identifies seven fundamental motives that drive human behavior:
Self-Protection: Evading physical harm.
Disease Avoidance: Avoiding pathogens.
Affiliation: Making friends and building coalitions.
Status: Attaining social rank.
Mate Acquisition: Attracting a partner.
Mate Retention: Keeping a partner.
Kin Care: Caring for family.
In the ancestral environment, these motives were adaptive. In the modern capitalist environment, vulnerabilities exist. Capitalism operates by creating “supernormal stimuli” that trigger these modules in ways that are maladaptive for the individual and the planet.
Conspicuous Consumption as a Mating Signal
One of the most profound insights from Kenrick’s collaboration with Griskevicius and Sundie is the link between consumerism and mating strategies. They found that conspicuous consumption (spending money on visible, luxury goods) functions as a “sexual signaling system” analogous to the peacock’s tail.
A peacock’s tail is metabolically expensive and attracts predators. Its existence proves to the female that the male has such high genetic quality that he can afford to waste resources on an ornament that is useless.
Buying a luxury car or a designer watch signals to potential mates (and rivals) that the individual has access to resources.
Crucially, this behavior is linked to short-term mating strategies (the “cad” strategy vs. the “dad” strategy). Men primed with short-term mating motives (desire for a fling) significantly increased their desire for conspicuous luxury goods. Capitalism, by promoting a culture of hyper-sexualization and ephemeral relationships, actively triggers this “peacocking” instinct, driving a cycle of waste and accumulation that serves no survival function other than status signaling.
The Rationality of Rapacity
Kenrick’s concept of “Deep Rationality” suggests that capitalist rapacity is not “insane” in an evolutionary sense; it is a mismatch.
A consumer may consciously buy a product because “it’s nice” (proximate), but the ultimate evolutionary driver is status maintenance in a hierarchy.
In a tribe of 150, status competition was zero-sum but bounded. In a globalized capitalist culture, we compete against millions. The “reference group” for status is no longer the neighbor but the billionaire celebrity. This creates an infinite demand for status markers, leading to rapacious resource extraction to fuel their production. The “Stone Age Brain” cannot comprehend a limit to consumption because it evolved in a world of scarcity, not artificial abundance.
The r/K Mismatch: Fast Life History in a Dying World
Regarding “r” / “K” species traits, I don’t believe we will evolve into a “K” species regardless of the path we take. Species don’t evolve backwards. This requires a nuanced application of Life History Theory.
Biological Reality: Humans are an obligate K-selected species. We have large bodies, long lives, late maturity, and invest heavily in a small number of offspring.
Cultural Reality: Modern capitalist culture mimics an r-selected (or “Fast Life History”) strategy.
The Fast Life History Trigger
Life History Theory dictates that organisms adjust their reproductive and behavioral strategies based on environmental cues:
Stable/Safe Environment -> Slow Life History (K): Focus on long-term planning, somatic maintenance, skill acquisition, and heavy investment in offspring.
Unstable/Harsh Environment -> Fast Life History (r): Focus on immediate gratification, risk-taking, early reproduction, and quantity over quality.
The Capitalist Paradox: We live in the safest era in history (low mortality), which should trigger “Slow” strategies. However, capitalism thrives on manufacturing perceived instability and scarcity.
Economic Precarity: The gig economy, the erosion of the welfare state, and the “despondency trap” described by Evans create a psychological environment of unpredictability.
Fear-Based Media: Constant exposure to crime, terrorism, and conflict triggers the “Self-Protection” module, which pushes the brain toward “Fast” strategies (grab what you can now).
Consumerist Short-Termism: Marketing encourages immediate gratification (e.g., “Buy Now, Pay Later”), discouraging the delay of gratification associated with K-selection.
The result is a species that is biologically K but culturally acting out a “Fast” strategy—consuming resources at a rate that assumes there is no tomorrow. This mismatch is the engine of the rapacious violence against the ecosystem. We are eating the seed corn because our culture tells us winter is coming, even as the granaries are full.
The Machinery of Pacification: Structural Violence and the Rubber Cage
We are being “pacified” by the dominant culture, leading to violence that is orders of magnitude more destructive than anything civilization has experienced in the past. This section explores the sociological mechanisms of this pacification.
Peace vs. Pacification
In the field of International Relations, a critical distinction is made between “peace” and “pacification.”
Peace (Positive Peace): The presence of justice and the absence of structural violence.
Pacification (Pacavi): Derived from the Roman imperial strategy, this is the forceful imposition of order. It is not the absence of violence, but the monopoly of violence by the hegemon to suppress resistance.
The “Pax Americana” or the “Liberal Peace” operates as a regime of pacification. The “peace” of the global market is maintained by the proactive violence of the military-industrial complex (securing trade routes, enforcing property rights) and the domestic police state. This pacification allows for the smooth operation of Structural Violence.
Structural Violence: The Invisible Assault
Structural violence, a concept elaborated by Galtung and applied in the research snippets, refers to harm that is built into the social structure itself. It is “indirect violence.”
Mechanism: It kills not by the sword, but by the spreadsheet. It manifests as poverty, preventable disease, malnutrition, and exposure to environmental toxins.
The “Rubber Cage” of Class and Race: Structural violence is not evenly distributed. As noted in the research on “evolutionary mismatch” and racism, marginalized populations are forced into “niche exclusion”—living in environments that are physically toxic and psychologically stressful. This creates a feedback loop where the stress of structural violence triggers “Fast Life History” responses (risk-taking, violence), which are then criminalized by the state, justifying further pacification.
Donna Hunter’s work as a Clinical Mental Health Counselor (CMHC) and educator in Women’s Studies underscores the human toll of this system. The trauma inflicted by structural violence (racism, poverty, misogyny) is not just a social statistic; it is an “embodied” reality. It resides in the nervous system. The “pacification” of the population often involves the suppression of this trauma—through medication, distraction, or the internalization of blame—rather than the healing of the structural wound.
The Psychopathic Corporation: Organizational Life History Theory
The rapacious nature of capitalism is further elucidated by Organizational Life History Theory (LHT-O). This theory posits that corporations operating in a highly competitive, unregulated environment adopt a “cheater-hawk” strategy.
The Cheater-Hawk: In evolutionary game theory, this is an agent that exploits others’ cooperation (cheater) and uses aggression to maintain resources (hawk).
Corporate Psychopathy: The modern firm often exhibits traits associated with clinical psychopathy: lack of empathy, shallow affect, irresponsibility, and a focus on short-term gains.
Selection Pressure: The market selects for these traits. An “empathic” corporation that prioritized the ecosystem over shareholder value would likely be outcompeted or acquired by a more ruthless rival. Thus, the system is an engine for generating and amplifying proactive, psychopathic violence.
The Crisis of Culture: Spiritual Bypassing, Dark Ecology, and the Arts
The user astutely notes that in the face of this destruction, many embrace “metaphysical, mythological, and new age fantasies,” rendering their responsibility to living systems less meaningful. This is a crucial cultural critique.
Spiritual Bypassing as Metaphysical Escapism
Spiritual Bypassing is the use of spiritual beliefs to avoid dealing with painful feelings, unresolved wounds, and developmental needs. In the context of the climate crisis (The Anthropocene), this manifests as a retreat into transcendent realms.
The Mechanism: Faced with the terrifying reality of ecocide (Solastalgia), the ego seeks safety. New Age philosophies that emphasize creating your own reality or ascending to the 5th dimension offer a seductive escape. They promise that the destruction of the biosphere is merely an illusion or a necessary step in a spiritual evolution.
The Political Consequence: As Stephen Dinan and others argue, this leads to a dangerous passivity. If the world is an illusion, why fight to save the rainforest? This metaphysical escapism aligns perfectly with the needs of consumer capitalism—it turns the citizen into a passive observer, focused on “inner work” while the outer world burns. It is the ultimate form of pacification: the anesthesia of the soul.
Dark Ecology: Confronting the Weird
In opposition to this escapism stands the concept of Dark Ecology, championed by Timothy Morton and explored in art projects like Sonic Acts.
Dark Ecology rejects the romantic idea of “Nature” as something separate, beautiful, and “over there.” It insists that ecology is “dark,” “weird,” and “sticky.” We are inextricably enmeshed with the plastic in the ocean, the radiation in the soil, and the carbon in the atmosphere. It demands we “stay with the trouble” (to borrow from Haraway) rather than transcending it. It calls for an acknowledgment of our complicity and a confrontation with the “toxic sublime”.
Art, Music, and Literature as Diagnostic Tools
The arts provide a potent diagnosis of our condition, illustrating the tension between the pacified surface and the rapacious reality.
Climate Fiction (Cli-Fi) and the Imagination of Collapse
“The Overstory” by Richard Powers: This novel decentralizes the human, placing trees as the protagonists. It illustrates the violence of “plant blindness” and the immense, slow time of the biosphere (K-selection) clashing with the fast time of capitalism. It asks the reader to “un-suicide” themselves by reconnecting with the living world.
“The Ministry for the Future” by Kim Stanley Robinson: This work directly addresses the “Goodness Paradox.” It imagines a near-future where a UN agency uses proactive violence (drones, black ops) to enforce carbon limits. It suggests that the pacification of the market must be broken by a counter-force to save the biosphere.
“The Bear” by Andrew Krivak: A quiet meditation on the end of humanity, offering a post-anthropocentric peace where nature reclaims the world. It is the ultimate acceptance of the K-strategy of the ecosystem winning over the r-strategy of civilization.
The Poetry of Ecological Grief
Jorie Graham’s Sea Change: Graham’s poetry attempts to find a rhythm that can hold the “unraveling” of the world. She refuses the “metaphysical escapism,” forcing the reader to look at the “dead zones” and the “toxic sludge.” Her work is an act of resisting cultural anesthesia.
One day: stronger wind than anyone expected. Stronger than
ever before in the recording
of such. Un-
natural says the news. Also the body says it. Which part of the body – I look
down, can
feel it, yes, don’t know
where. Also submerging us,
making of the fields, the trees, a cast of characters in an
unnegotiable
drama, ordained, iron-gloom of low light, everything at once undoing
itself. Also sustained, as in a hatred of
a thought, or a vanity that comes upon one out of
nowhere & makes
one feel the mischief in faithfulness to an
idea. Everything unpreventable and excited like
mornings in the unknown future. Who shall repair this now. And how the future
takes shape
too quickly. The permanent is ebbing. Is leaving
nothing in the way of
trails, they are blown over, grasses shoot up, life disturbing life, & it
fussing all over us, like a confinement gone
insane, blurring the feeling of
the state of
being. Which did exist just yesterday, calm and
true. Like the right to
privacy – how strange a feeling, here, the right –
consider your affliction says the
wind, do not plead ignorance, & further and further
away leaks the
past, much further than it used to go, beating against the shutters I
have now fastened again, the huge mis-
understanding round me now so
still in
the centre of this room, listening – oh,
these are not split decisions, everything
is in agreement, we set out willingly, & also knew to
play by rules, & if I say to you now
let’s go
somewhere the thought won’t outlast
the minute, here it is now, carrying its North
Atlantic windfall, hissing Consider
the body of the ocean which rises every instant into
me, & its
ancient e-
vaporation, & how it delivers itself
to me, how the world is our law, this indrifting of us
into us, a chorusing in us of elements, & how the
intermingling of us lacks in-
telligence, makes
reverberation, syllables untranscribable, in-clingings, & how wonder is also what
pours from us when, in the
coiling, at the very bottom of
the food
chain, sprung
from undercurrents, warming by 1 degree, the in-
dispensible
plankton is forced north now, & yet further north,
spawning too late for the cod larvae hatch, such
that the hatch will not survive, nor the
species in the end, in the right-now forever un-
interruptible slowing of the
gulf
stream, so that I, speaking in this wind today, out loud in it, to no one, am suddenly
aware
of having written my poems, I feel it in
my useless
hands, palms in my lap, & in my listening, & also the memory of a season at its
full, into which is spattered like a
silly cry this in-
cessant leaf-glittering, shadow-mad, all over
the lightshafts, the walls, the bent back ranks of trees
all stippled with these slivers of
light like
breaking grins – infinities of them – wriggling along the walls, over the
grasses – mouths
reaching into
other mouths – sucking out all the
air – huge breaths passing to and fro between the unkind blurrings – & quicken
me further says this new wind, &
according to thy
judgment, &
I am inclining mine heart towards the end,
I cannot fail, this Saturday, early pm, hurling myself,
wiry furies riding my many backs, against your foundations and your
best young
tree, which you have come outside to stake again, & the loose stones in the sill.
Sarah Green’s The Deletions: Connects the “deletions” of species to personal loss (divorce, infertility), showing that ecological grief is not abstract but intimate. It grounds the horror of the Anthropocene in the domestic body.
Kamau Brathwaite: Uses the concept of “scarscape” to link the geological scars of the land with the historical scars of slavery and colonialism. This reinforces the thesis that the violence against the earth and the violence against the subjugated body are one and the same.
Bread
Slowly the white dream wrestle(s) to life
hands shaping the salt and the foreign cornfields
the cold flesh kneaded by fingers
is ready for the charcoal for the black wife
of heat the years of green sleeping in the volcano.
the dream becomes tougher. settling into its shape
like a bullfrog. suns rise and electrons
touch it. walls melt into brown. moving to crisp and crackle
breathing edge of the knife of the oven.
noise of the shop. noise of the farmer. market.
on this slab of lord. on this table w/ its oil-skin cloth
on this altar of the bone. this sacrifice
of isaac. warm dead. warm merchandise. more than worn merchandise
life
itself. the dream of the soil itself
flesh of the god you break. peace to your lips. strife
of the multitudes who howl all day for its saviour
who need its crumbs as fish. flickering through their green element
need a wide glassy wisdom
to keep their groans alive
and this loaf here. life
now halted. more and more water add-
itive. the dream less clear. the soil more distant
its prayer of table. bless of lips. more hard to reach w/ penn-
ies. the knife
that should have cut it. the hands that should have broken open its victory
of crusts at your throat. balaam watching w/ red leak
-ing eyes. the rats
finding only this young empty husk
sharp-
ening their ratchets. your wife
going out on the streets. searching searching
her feet tapping. the lights of the motor-
cars watching watching round-
ing the shape of her girdle. her back naked
rolled into night into night w/out morning
rolled into dead into dead w/out vision
rolled into life into life w/out dream
The Sonic Landscape of Dissonance
Manic Street Preachers (The Holy Bible): The rapacious nature of capitalism is perfectly sonicized in this album. Songs like “IfWhiteAmericaToldTheTruthForJustOneDayItsWorldWouldFallApart” and “4st 7lb” explore the commodification of the body and the imperial violence that underpins Western comfort. It is a rejection of the “pacified” consumer identity.
4 Non Blondes (“What’s Up?”): This anthem captures the feeling of the “rubber cage.” The protagonist screams “at the top of my lungs,” trying to understand “what’s going on” in a “peculiar institution.” It reflects the cognitive dissonance of the domesticated human who senses the structural violence but cannot quite articulate the source, leading to a desire for a “revolution” that feels perpetually out of reach.
Patrick Bateman represents the flip side, using music as an anchor to fit in and a mask to hide his psychopathy.
Synthesis: Can We Become a “K” Species?
We will not evolve into a ‘K’ species anytime soon. It’s gain wisdom now or risk extinction after an extended period of global misery.
The Ecological Trap
We are currently caught in an ecological trap. In biology, this occurs when an organism prefers a habitat that lowers its fitness. Capitalism acts as a super-special-normal stimulus, mimicking the cues of abundance (status, mates, food) while actually degrading the environment’s carrying capacity.
The Trap: The “Fast Life History” strategy promoted by consumerism is a death spiral. It encourages the burning of “capital” (natural resources) as if it were “income,” a classic r-selected mistake in a K-selected world.
The Path to Wisdom: Cultural K-Selection
Since biological evolution is too slow to correct this mismatch, our only hope lies in Cultural Evolution. We must consciously construct a “culture of K-selection.”
Redefining Status (Hacking the Stone Age Brain): We must alter the status hierarchy so that conspicuous conservation and wisdom signal higher mate value than conspicuous consumption. If the “peacock’s tail” becomes the size of one’s carbon sink or the depth of one’s community service, the status drive will work for the biosphere rather than against it.
Harnessing Proactive Aggression for Stewardship: Wrangham’s paradox teaches us that “goodness” (tolerance) was achieved by the proactive policing of bullies. We must apply this to the corporate sphere. We need a global “coalition of the beta males/females” to impose “capital punishment” (dissolution/regulation) on the “alpha” corporate entities that practice rapacious extraction. We cannot rely on their “self-regulation”; we must use the state’s and civil society’s proactive capacity to enforce limits.
From Pacification to Presence: We must reject the pacification that keeps us docile consumers. This does not mean embracing reactive violence (riots), but rather the proactive resistance of “Dark Ecology”—staying with the trouble, grieving the loss, and refusing to check out into metaphysical fantasies.
Capitalism is not an inevitability; it is a specific cultural mutation that emerged from the patriarchal control of the plow and the womb. It leveraged our self-domesticated tolerance to build a machine of proactive violence. Today, it hacks our Pleistocene minds, driving us toward a precipice. The transition to a wise civilization requires us to see the cage for what it is—rubber, not iron—and to use our immense capacity for cooperation to dismantle the engine of our own demise. We must, finally, become the K-selected stewards our biology intended us to be.
People do all kinds of things to work towards their aspirations. Think about what you are doing. Talk with your friends about where we are and how we got here. Does anything need to change? Examine your life.
AI BREAK:
“Democracy dies in darkness.”
This phrase is the official slogan of The Washington Post, adopted in 2017.
While it is most famous as a newspaper motto, its origin is a bit of a game of “telephone” involving a renowned journalist and a federal judge.
The Short Answer
The phrase was popularized by investigative journalist Bob Woodward (famous for breaking the Watergate scandal). He had been using the phrase in speeches for years before The Washington Post officially adopted it as its first slogan in 140 years.
The Origin Story
Woodward did not coin the phrase himself. He has attributed it to a federal judge he once interviewed, though the exact wording evolved.
It is widely believed to be an adaptation of a ruling by Judge Damon Keith of the U.S. Court of Appeals. In a 2002 case regarding the deportation of individuals after 9/11 (Detroit Free Press v. Ashcroft), Keith wrote:
“Democracies die behind closed doors.”
Woodward liked the sentiment but, over the years, seemingly altered the phrasing in his lectures, eventually settling on “Democracy dies in darkness.” When Jeff Bezos (owner of the Post) and editor Marty Baron were looking for a slogan to define the paper during the Trump administration, Woodward suggested the phrase, and it stuck.
The slogan reflects the “Fourth Estate” theory of journalism—the idea that the press’s primary role is to shine a light on the government’s hidden actions to prevent tyranny. It fits the Post’s brand specifically because of their history with Watergate, a scandal that literally “died” because they refused to let it stay in the dark.
The Source Code of Society: X Counts as Y
Philosopher John Searle provides the algorithm for civilization. It is a formula that turns physics into sociology: “X counts as Y in Context C.”
X (Physical Object): A piece of green cotton-paper blend, or a specific magnetic pattern on a hard drive.
Y (Status Function): Value, Sovereignty, Debt.
C (Context): The shared hallucination of the Global Economy.
Without Context C, the green paper is just kindling. But with it, that paper can mobilize armies or level forests. This formula is now being applied to the digital frontier. To build Bitcoin-maximal, private Crypto States, we are creating a new “Context C” based on super-smart contracts. Whooptie Doo! But we often forget the “X.” The “X” in this case isn’t just code; it is the Data Center. You cannot socially construct a digital currency without the brute physical reality of GPU farms, cooling systems, and gigawatts of electricity. The “Cloud” is actually a factory of deafening noise and heat—it’s a world eater.
The Distinction: Brute Facts vs. Institutional Facts
To navigate the modern world, one must aggressively separate reality into two buckets. The trap is that we mistake the second for the first.
1. Brute Facts (The Territory) These are truths that exist regardless of human opinion. If every human died tomorrow, these would remain. (Maximum Viable Metaphysics)
Examples: Gravity, the viral load in a bloodstream, the distance to the sun, a mountain, the caloric content of a gram of wheat.
2. Institutional Facts (The Map) These are truths that exist only because we agree they do. They require collective intentionality.
Examples: The Presidency, a felony, marriage, the closing price of Tesla stock, “Tuesday.”
We think “Tuesday” is a real thing in the universe, but it is just a temporal grid we placed over the brute fact of planetary rotation to coordinate our labor. When you stand in a megacity like Tokyo or Shanghai, looking at millions of people in high-rises, you are witnessing the processing of Institutional Facts. What are they doing in those offices? They are not hunting or gathering; they are managing the complex rule-sets, laws, and contracts required to keep the “X counts as Y” formula from collapsing.
The Material Cost of “Made Up” Things
This complexification requires a massive metabolic input. We rely on institutions to manage these relationships, but those institutions run on physical resources.
The Dirty Jobs: We rarely think of the people in the sewers, the mines, or the slaughterhouses who deal exclusively in Brute Facts so that the rest of us can play in the world of Institutional Facts. Do we really have any idea about the experiences of soldiers in Ukraine chased by exploding drones?
The Spinoza Question: Baruch Spinoza, the lens-grinder, is the perfect intersection of the two worlds. We revere Spinoza for his “God”—a philosophical construct of infinite substance. But Spinoza had to eat. He had to participate in Capitalism. He spent his days grinding glass lenses (Brute Fact labor) to sell to customers, earning money to buy the time to write Ethics.
The Question: Would we have Spinoza’s philosophy without his lens-grinding? No. And, more importantly, who is going to sell the spectacles? High philosophy and social constructs always rest on a foundation of commerce, labor, and social relations.
The “Teeth” of Social Constructs
We must discard the notion that because something is “constructed,” it is “fake.” As the sociologist W.I. Thomas famously noted: “If men define situations as real, they are real in their consequences.”
Social constructs have teeth. They can liberate you, and they can kill you.
Money: It has no intrinsic value (Brute Fact). But the lack of it causes starvation (Brute Consequence). That “idea” decides who eats.
Race: Biologically, humans share 99.9% of their DNA. The boundaries we draw are social decisions, often based on superficial phenotypes like skin melanin. Yet, the construct of “Race” built the Atlantic slave trade and redlining districts. The category is invented; the generational poverty is absolute.
Time: Being “late” is a violation of a social contract, not a law of physics. Yet, being late can cost you your livelihood.
Gender: While biological sex is a material reality, the performance of gender—the clothing, the roles, the expectations—is a fluctuating script.
The Inertia of Culture
Inertia is a big reason why changing the world is so agonizingly difficult. You cannot simply “opt out” of a social construct alone. You can decide individually that “diamonds are worthless rocks” (a Brute Fact truth), but if you try to buy a house with them, the bank will treat them as valuable assets (Institutional Fact).
Culture is a heavy flywheel.
Culture is a heavy flywheel, a saying popularized in business by Jim Collins but rooted in mechanics, that describes momentum, inertia, and the immense difficulty of change.
1. Immense Input, Slow Acceleration (The Setup)
A mechanical flywheel is massive and heavy. It takes a tremendous amount of energy to get it moving. In cultural terms, this represents the thousands of years of agrarian adaptation (the plow, the settling of tribes) required to build the patriarchy. It didn’t happen overnight; it was a slow, grinding accumulation of energy.
2. Stored Kinetic Energy (The Momentum)
Once a flywheel spins, it stores energy. If you stop powering the engine, the wheel keeps spinning for a long time. Even though we removed the “engine” (we no longer rely on plow agriculture for survival), the “wheel” of culture (gender roles, social hierarchies) continues to spin because it holds 10,000 years of momentum.
3. Resistance to Disturbance (The Stabilization)
A flywheel stabilizes a machine; it smooths out power interruptions. Culture resists sudden shocks. You can pass a law (a shock) or invent a new technology (a shock/interruption), but the heavy flywheel of culture dampens the effect. This is why modern societies still exhibit behaviors rooted in the Stone Age.
Past inputs dictate present motion. The current engine is not driving us; we are coasting on the momentum of the last millennium.
Culture evolves under complex, chaotic influences, rarely bending to the will of “Great Men” or isolated intellectuals. We are not going to solve this by debating string theory or the latest “Intellectual Dark Web” talking points. We solve it by understanding that Capitalism is the current “Context C” in which we all live, and it demands that we grind the lenses if we want to see the face of God.
Are you ready to face the most terrifying scientific theories that keep physicists awake at night? In this deep-dive documentary, we explore the darkest corners of reality, from False Vacuum Decay and the Dark Forest Theory to the disturbing logic of Roko’s Basilisk and Quantum Immortality. We analyze the Fermi Paradox, Simulation Theory, and the Boltzmann Brain paradox to ask one question: Is our reality a trap? Discover why the laws of physics might be more horrifying than any fiction.
This video is not just a list of scary facts; it is a journey into existential dread, structured as a spiral descending from physical threats to metaphysical nightmares. We begin with the fragility of the universe itself—how the vacuum of space could collapse or how strangelets could devour the Earth. We then confront the hostile silence of the cosmos, examining why alien civilizations might be hiding from “Berserker” probes or “Grabby Aliens.”
Moving inward, we challenge your perception of reality. Using Donald Hoffman’s Interface Theory and the concept of Superdeterminism, we ask if you are seeing the truth or just a user interface designed to hide the scary reality. Finally, we tackle the ultimate existential risks: the crushing inevitability of Entropy, the trap of Eternal Recurrence, the threat of AI Alignment and Gray Goo, and the mind-bending possibility that you are a solitary Boltzmann Brain hallucinating your entire life in the void.
Join us for a scientific investigation into the limits of human knowledge, where Quantum Mechanics meets Cosmic Horror.
Is any of this real?
Popularized by philosopher Nick Bostrom (and Elon Musk), this theory suggests that what we experience as “reality” is actually a computer simulation created by a more advanced intelligence.
If a civilization ever reaches a “post-human” (WTF!?) stage with immense computing power, they will likely run ancestor simulations. Since there would be billions of simulations and only one “base reality,” the probability that we are in that base reality is nearly zero.
Some physicists argue that the fact that our universe is “pixelated” at the most minute scale (the Planck length) looks suspiciously like computer code.
But let’s strip away the sci-fi gloss. Theories like these are illuminating and exciting to cogitate, but are ultimately a luxury product of the physical world. To even articulate it requires a massive, sloppy supply chain: tenure committees, grant money, printing presses, caffeine, and the wet chemical storms of the human endocrine system. We are biological animals using our brains and nervous systems to hallucinate that we are clean, dry software. The theory doesn’t reveal the universe; it demonstrates our desperate need to escape the messy reality of our own biology.
This theory posits that our three-dimensional universe is actually a projection of information encoded on a distant, two-dimensional surface—much like a hologram on a credit card, which appears 3D but is flat.
The idea emerged from black hole thermodynamics (specifically the work of Stephen Hawking and Leonard Susskind). They realized that information about an object falling into a black hole is stored on the surface (the event horizon), not in the volume inside the black hole. If this applies to black holes, it might apply to the entire universe.
And then what? An Alien from the event horizon reengineers our climate for us. Don’t get me wrong, physics is fascinating.
Digital Physics (“It from Bit”)
Coined by legendary physicist John Archibald Wheeler, this theory suggests that the universe is not made of matter or energy, but of information. Every particle, every field, and every force is ultimately a series of yes/no questions (bits).
The universe is a giant data processing system.
We pay for the theorising and the research. Why? It might lead to profits or an advantage in the Great Game, or we are just curious.
“Come on, man, use value, growth, everybody wins.”
Consciousness: Is the Universe alive?
This concept harkens back to the ancient philosophical view that consciousness is not a unique trait of human brains, but a fundamental property of matter, like mass or charge.
According to this view, an electron has a rudimentary form of““experienc”” or consciousness. When billions of them come together in a brain, those micro-experiences combine to form human consciousness.
Neuroscientists are struggling to explain how dead matter (neurons) gives rise to subjective experience (the Hard Problem). Panpsychism solves this by saying matter was never dead to begin with.
Convenient.
It would be nice to be able to do the math and physics behind the theorising.
Let’s be clear: I know Ben. He is a genuine thinker with skills and imagination—sincere, expert, and driven by a boundless, optimistic curiosity. The world needs men like Ben. But Ben is the host organism. For every honest explorer like him, there is a swarm of parasites drafting off his wake. These pretenders don’t care about the science; they care about the spread. They strip-mine his authentic intellect to manufacture profitable bullshit, selling a diluted version of his vision to people who don’t know the difference.
Now, this is not to suggest that we are all empty vessels, waiting to be filled by the overflow of another person’s mind. We are not merely passive receivers of the signal.
Almost all “creations” are reconstructions. We stand on the shoulders of giants until we forget whose neck we are stepping on. A genuinely original thought is possible, but it is an agonizing rarity. Most human beings live and die without ever producing one. Consider John Nash. He was not satisfied with mere competence; the need for the unique consumed him. His life demonstrates the terrifying price of that ambition. To hunt for a thought that belongs to no one else is not a hobby; it is an obsession that can break you.
Thou Shalt Not Commit Logical Fallacies
Imagine the career path: you dive into the dark jungle of a terrifying theory, harvest the existential dread, and package it for the trade paperback market. How many volumes can you squeeze out of the Simulation Hypothesis? Who buys them? The bored, the anxious, and the pseudo-intellectual, or, like me, the science fiction fan and want-to-be physicist. Do we probe for truth, or do we serve demographics? Whether I argue that a quartz crystal has consciousness or that we are merely code, the result is the same: I manufacture content. I define ‘mass,’ ‘charge,’ and ‘soul’ not to explain the universe, but to entertain my fans. The only relevant question remains: Does this specific brand of metaphysical jargon sell books?
AI BREAK:
In complexity science and systems theory, the entity you are describing is technically called a Complex Adaptive Agent (or simply an Agent) operating within a Complex Adaptive System (CAS).
This concept is the bridge between biology, sociology, and economics. It explains how individual agents—whether they are cells, ants, or humans—can act independently yet produce sophisticated, order-rich structures without any central command.
1. The Agent
In a Complex Adaptive System, an agent is any distinct unit capable of making decisions or reacting to its environment.
Examples: A single neuron in a brain, a trader in a stock market, a bird in a flock, or a voter in a democracy.
Local Knowledge: Crucially, the agent does not know what the whole system is doing. It only acts on local information (e.g., a bird only pays attention to the 2-3 birds continuously next to it, not the whole flock).
2. Interconnected & Interdependent
Interconnected: The agents are linked. If one agent changes its state (e.g., a neuron firing), it sends a signal to its neighbors.
Interdependent: The survival or success of one agent relies on the behavior of others. You cannot analyze one agent in isolation (reductionism) because its identity is defined by its relationships.
3. Spontaneously Self-Organizing
This is the system’s ability to create order without a boss or an architect.
No Central Brain: There is no “CEO agent” telling the colony how to build a bridge. The bridge structure arises spontaneously because every ant is following simple, local rules (like “if you touch a gap, link u”).
Autopoiesis: In living systems, this is often called autopoiesis (self-creation). The system (like a cell) constantly rebuilds itself using its own components.
4. Emergent
Emergence is the “magic” trick of complexity. It refers to properties that belong to the whole but cannot be found in the parts.
Example: Consciousness is an emergent property. You can study a single neuron for a thousand years and never find “thought.” Thought only emerges when billions of interconnected neurons interact.
The Formula:
1 + 1 = 3. The extra value is the emergent property.
The Political/Social Connection
Critique of Capitalism/Hierarchy: Traditional capitalist or monarchist views often assume a Top-Down hierarchy (God -> King -> People, or CEO -> Worker).
CAS View: Complexity theory argues that the most robust systems are Bottom-Up Order (Democracy/Community), which emerges from the interactions of interdependent people (Agents), not from the dictates of a ruler.
Socialist Parallel: The idea that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts, and that the welfare of the agent is tied to the welfare of the system, echoes the socialist focus on the collective over the individual “profit.”
One thing seems highly probable: if our way of managing things, Global Market Capitalism, kills the living systems we depend on, all of this inquiry ends, whether it’s scientific, utilitarian, profitable, or not.
More theories:
Thomas Aquinas, the GOAT of medieval philosophy, dedicated part of his Summa Theologica to this. He asked: “Can several angels be in the same place?”
I am a huge fan of Aquinas; his logic was elegant and rigorous:
Angels are incorporeal (is that right? How would I know?). They have no body, no mass, and no volume. They are pure intellect/spirit. (What is intellect and spirit?)
Therefore, they do not take up space as a human or a rock does.
However, an angel is defined by where it acts or applies its power. (What do we mean by power?)
So... what is the answer?
Depending on which rule set you use, there are three possible answers:
Answer A: One (The Aquinas View)
Thomas Aquinas argued that while angels don’t have dimensions, they act at a specific location. He argued that two distinct spiritual powers (spiritual powers?) cannot act entirely on the same point at the same time.
Verdict: Only one angel can be on the head of a pin at any given moment.
There you go!
Answer B: Infinity (The “Ghost” View)
If you reject Aquinas’s rule about “action” and focus simply on physics, angels have zero mass and zero volume. (What are they?)
Verdict: Because you can stack infinite zeros without ever filling a cup, an infinite number of angels can fit on a pinhead.
Answer C: Zero (The Materialist View)
If angels are purely spiritual, they do not exist in spatial dimensions at all. Asking where they are is like asking, “How much does the color blue weigh?” It is a category error.
Verdict: Zero. Angels exist in a realm outside of physical space (the pin). (What is a nonphysical realm outside space and time?)
***This is why I love practical, how-to videos on YouTube. How to lay bricks, how to dig a well, how to grow spuds, how to darn socks…
Biocentrism
Proposed by biologist Robert Lanza, this theory flips the standard model on its head. Instead of the universe creating life, life creates the universe.
Space and time are not objective realities but tools our minds use to organize information. Without a conscious observer, the universe exists only as a probability wave (linked to the Quantum Observer Effect). Lanza argues that biology is the central driving force of reality, not physics.
Orchestrated Objective Reduction (Orch-OR)
A theory by Nobel laureate Roger Penrose and anesthesiologist Stuart Hameroff. It argues that consciousness originates from quantum vibrations inside microtubules (tiny structures within brain cells).
It suggests the brain is a biological quantum computer. For years, physicists ridiculed this, saying the brain is “too warm and we” for delicate quantum states. However, recent experiments have begun to show quantum effects in biological systems (like photosynthesis), bringing this theory back into the spotlight.
***Well, there you have it: if we can find a way to make complex civilization sustainable, someday we might have all the answers and finally know who and what our cosmic daddy is, and how he does what he does. Or, we may create a cosmic daddy thereby becoming a cosmic daddy. I know, you want to be the cosmic daddy.
And if you are the philosopher type, how about doing your head in with a book about the scientific evidence for God—the mother of all social constructs!
The law of large numbers is a fundamental principle in probability theory that asserts that, as a random experiment is repeated numerous times, the average of the outcomes will converge toward the expected value, or actual average, of those outcomes.
Impossible Event: An event that cannot happen is called an impossible event. For example, getting both head and tail in simultaneously in tossing a coin. The probability of an impossible event is 0, i.e., P(E) = 0.
The principle hinges on the idea that seemingly improbable events, from the individual to the cosmic scale, are commonplace because of several factors.
God is the ultimate brand. He sells well because He has zero manufacturing costs and infinite demand. Even after centuries of debate, we still have no idea what the ‘product’ actually is—what God is made of, or how He operates within the laws of physics. But the specifics don’t matter to the shareholders.
What matters is that men want to believe they know the right story. They want a God who looks like them and votes like them. This anthropomorphic projection serves the Players of the Great Game perfectly. It allows them to bypass the messy work of ethical reasoning and appeal to the ‘Man Upstairs.’ We have taken the ineffable, terrifying power of the ‘OG Creator’ and rebranded it as Gods-R-Us, a convenient franchise that validates our social constructs and keeps the cash flow positive.
The “Great Reversal” and the Rhetoric of Certainty
Why bring God into this discussion of Capitalism? Because God is an enabler, empowerer, and justifier of the deeds of strong men with powerful cliques of mostly male supporters. Without Big Gods, it seems, we wouldn’t have The Great Game.
This is not a discussion of the value of spirituality, or other forms of mystical connection with Great Nature, such as generic deism, animism, polytheism, pantheism, ecospirituality, or naturalistic spirituality, although I do mention Spinoza.
God, The Science, The Evidence (originally titled Dieu, la science, les preuves) by Michel-Yves Bolloré and Olivier Bonnassies marks a significant moment in the contemporary dialogue between faith and reason, primarily due to its aggressive claim that the era of materialist dominance is over. The authors, leveraging their backgrounds in engineering and industry, propose a narrative of a “Great Reversal” in the history of thought. (More end-of-history nonsense, as if we’ve finally arrived.) They argue that while the scientific trajectory from Copernicus to Freud seemed to distance humanity from the divine, the discoveries of the 20th and 21st centuries—specifically in thermodynamics, cosmology, and molecular biology—have swung the pendulum back, transforming the existence of a Creator from a matter of faith into a rational necessity supported by “proofs”.
While reading the book, I kept thinking about the misuse of probability, the anthropomorphic nature of the “Intelligent Designer,” His coronation of Homo sapiens, and the socio-political implications of such apologetics in an age of polycrisis. The book functions less as an objective inquiry into the nature of reality and more as a sophisticated rhetorical construct designed to leverage the prestige of “hard science” for ideological and theological ends. By presenting highly selective interpretations of scientific data—particularly regarding the fine-tuning of universal constants and the complexity of biological life—the authors construct a “God of the Gaps” whose existence is predicated entirely on the current boundaries of our knowledge. These are age old arguments repackaged in a new vocabulary for a modern audience dependent on science, engineering, technology, and capitalist markets.
The “God” revealed by these supposed scientific proofs is logically vacuous. Improbable numbers tell us nothing about the nature of God. A deity inferred from the fine-structure constant or the expansion rate of the universe possesses no necessary connection to the personal, intervening God of the Judeo-Christian tradition. This entity is a philosophical abstraction, a “Cosmic Architect” devoid of the, mystical, moral, and relational attributes that define religious experience. The authors rely on historical arguments and dismiss materialist philosophy, a move that reveals the project’s true nature: it is a theological defense masquerading as a scientific demonstration.
While global culture destroys living systems, our primary justification is that God has a plan, or everything happens for a reason.
Below, I’ll deconstruct the mathematical and scientific fallacies at the heart of the book, particularly the misuse of the Law of Large Numbers and the “Junkyard Tornado” argument. What are the classical arguments for God’s existence through the lens of evolutionary psychology and the “storytelling” nature of the human mind? I think that our propensity to detect “agency” in the cosmos is a cognitive adaptation rather than a perception of objective reality. I’m interested in the difference between the “interventionist” God of Bolloré and Bonnassies with the “immanent” God of Baruch Spinoza—Deus sive Natura. Why do we retreat into supernaturalism? I think failing to listen to Great Nature in every possible way poses a significant ethical danger in the face of the modern polycrisis, particularly climate change, and ongoing ecocide. If we are moral agents, we must do something to stop the destruction of living systems.
Is God a Capitalist—does “He” want us to live long and prosper?
The Statistical Illusion: The Law of Large Numbers and the Nature of Chance
A central pillar of God, The Science, The Evidence is the argument from improbability. The authors repeatedly cite staggering numbers—odds of 1 in 10^{40,000} for the spontaneous formation of enzymes, or the vanishingly small tolerance of gravitational parameters—to argue that “chance” is an irrational explanation for the universe and life. This rhetorical strategy relies on overwhelming the lay reader with magnitude, banking on the intuitive assumption that “extremely unlikely” is synonymous with “impossible.” However, this approach betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of probability theory, specifically the Law of Large Numbers and the nature of a posteriori probability in complex systems.
The Misapplication of the Law of Large Numbers
The Law of Large Numbers states that as the number of trials in a probabilistic process increases, the actual results will converge on the expected theoretical probabilities. In the book, the authors invoke a colloquial, inverted version of this law, suggesting that if an outcome is sufficiently improbable (such as a specific universe or a specific protein), it cannot happen by chance alone and thus requires a designer.
This reasoning is flawed because it treats the outcome we observe (our specific universe, our specific biology) as a prediction made before the event, rather than an observation made after the fact. This is known as the “Lottery Fallacy.” The odds of any specific individual winning a national lottery are millions-to-one against. If John Smith wins, it would be fallacious to argue that because the odds of John Smith winning were so low, the lottery must have been rigged in his favor. The low probability applies to the specific prediction, but the probability that someone wins is 1 (100%).
Similarly, the authors consider the universe as it exists and calculate the probability that this specific configuration arose by chance, finding it infinitesimally small. However, matter interacting under the laws of physics must produce someconfiguration. The authors fail to demonstrate that this configuration is the only one capable of sustaining any form of complexity or “interest” from a physical perspective. They conflate “improbable” with “impossible,” ignoring the fact that in an infinite or sufficiently vast system (which modern cosmology suggests), the realization of improbable events is not just possible; it is inevitable.
The Fallacy of the Junkyard Tornado
Nowhere is the misuse of mathematics more egregious than in the book’s treatment of biology. The authors resurrect the “Junkyard Tornado” argument, famously attributed to astrophysicist Fred Hoyle (and echoed by creationists), which posits that the probability of a higher life form emerging by chance is comparable to a tornado sweeping through a junkyard and assembling a fully functional Boeing 747 by chance.
Sequential vs. Simultaneous Trials
The calculation cited—1 chance in 10^{40,000} for the assembly of the necessary enzymes—assumes that the trials occur sequentially. It imagines a single “roll of the dice” occurring, failing, and then another roll occurring. Under this model, the universe’s age is insufficient to produce life. However, this is a straw man of prebiotic chemistry.
In the primordial oceans of Earth (or any similar planet), chemical interactions did not happen one at a time. They happened simultaneously, involving Avogadro’s number of molecules (6.022×10236.022 to the 23rd power) interacting in countless micro-environments every microsecond for hundreds of millions of years. When one moves from sequential trials to simultaneous trials on a planetary scale, the probabilistic resources available explode exponentially. The “search space” for stable molecular configurations is explored not by a single agent rolling dice, but by a massively parallel processing system (the ocean).
Albert Einstein’s famous quote, “God does not play dice,” expresses his disbelief in the inherent randomness and probability central to quantum mechanics, suggesting the universe operates under deterministic, understandable laws, not chance, a concept he debated fiercely with Niels Bohr in the 1920s and 30s. He used “God” metaphorically for the creator of these fundamental laws, not a divine being, emphasizing that underlying rules govern everything, even if quantum mechanics suggested otherwise.
The Error of “Modern” Complexity
The calculation also commits the error of assuming that the target of abiogenesis was a “modern” bacterium or a complex protein like hemoglobin. The authors ask, “What are the odds of a ribosome appearing by chance?” This is akin to asking, “What are the odds of a Ferrari forming from iron ore in one step?”
Evolutionary biology and abiogenesis research posit that the first life forms were incredibly simple—likely self-replicating peptides or RNA molecules, perhaps only 30-40 subunits long, not thousands. The probability of forming such simple replicators is orders of magnitude higher than forming a modern cell. Once a simple replicator exists, natural selection takes over. The authors’ math fails to account for this transition. They calculate the odds of the end product (the 747) appearing in a single step, rather than the odds of the first step (a wheel or a bolt) appearing, followed by a process that preserves functional assemblies.
Physics and the “Parameter Space”
The authors apply similar logic to cosmology, arguing that the fundamental constants of nature (such as the gravitational constant G and the cosmological constant) are “fine-tuned” to a degree of precision that defies chance. They claim that if G were different by one part in 10^{40}, stars would not form.
The Stenger Rebuttal: Coupled Constants
Physicist Victor Stenger has rigorously debunked the premise that life is impossible if constants vary. The authors’ error lies in varying one constant while holding all others fixed. In reality, the constants of nature are often coupled. For example, the strength of gravity and the strength of electromagnetism are related to the fundamental properties of spacetime and matter.
Stenger’s simulations, which vary multiple constants simultaneously, demonstrate that a wide region of the “parameter space” (the set of all possible values for constants) results in universes capable of sustaining stars and long-lived structures. While these stars might differ from our sun (e.g., burning for a shorter time or being redder), they would still provide the energy gradients necessary for complexity. The “life-permitting” zone is not a needle in a haystack; it is a significant region of the possibility landscape. The authors’ insistence on this specific universe as the only viable one is an example of anthropocentric bias—assuming that “life” must look exactly like us.
The Multiverse and the Law of Large Numbers
Finally, the authors dismiss the Multiverse hypothesis as a desperate attempt to avoid God. Yet, the Multiverse is a direct prediction of Inflationary Cosmology—the very theory they cite to prove the Big Bang. If inflation occurred (which explains the uniformity of the cosmic microwave background), it likely occurs eternally, generating an infinite number of “bubble universes” with varying constants.
In an infinite Multiverse, the Law of Large Numbers guarantees that every physically possible universe will exist. The probability of a life-permitting universe existing is 1. The fact that we observe a life-permitting universe is not a miracle; it is an observational necessity (the Anthropic Principle). We are here to observe it because this is the type of universe that permits observers. The authors’ rejection of this is not scientific; it is a preference for a singular, miraculous narrative over a statistical, naturalistic one.
Deconstructing Classical Theism: Classical Arguments as Narrative Artifacts
The major classical arguments for God’s existence, with an explanation of why they reveal more about human storytelling than divine reality.
The “Cognitive Science of Religion” (CSR) views religious beliefs as byproducts of cognitive mechanisms evolved for survival. The “God” derived from these arguments is not an objective entity but a reflection of the human mind’s need for agency, narrative closure, and moral order.
The Cosmological Argument (The Argument from First Cause)
The Argument: Everything that begins to exist has a cause. The universe began to exist. Therefore, the universe has a cause (God).
The Storytelling Nature: This argument satisfies the cognitive bias known as “teleological reasoning”—the assumption that everything exists for a reason and comes from an agent. As storytelling animals (Homo narrans), humans struggle with the concepts of infinite regress and brute existence. A story needs a “Once upon a time,” and the Cosmological Argument provides the ultimate opening line.
Why it tells us nothing about God: As Hume noted, even if we grant a “First Cause,” this cause need not be a person, a spirit, or a moral being. It could be a quantum fluctuation, a brane collision, or a mindless principle. The leap from “Cause” to “Father” is purely a narrative necessity, not a logical one. It fills the “gap” in the story but offers no content about the “character” of the cause.20
The Teleological Argument (The Argument from Design)
The Argument: The universe exhibits complex order (like a watch). Order implies a designer. Therefore, the universe has a Designer.
The Storytelling Nature: This relies on the Hyperactive Agency Detection Device (HADD). Humans evolved to detect agents (predators and prey) in their environment. We are hardwired to see “intent” in patterns. When we see the complexity of a cell or the orbit of a planet, our brain defaults to “Who made this?” rather than “How did this evolve?” It is an anthropomorphic projection of our own tool-making capacity onto the cosmos.
Why it tells us nothing about God: As Kant argued, we can only infer a designer relative to the artifact. A watchmaker is limited by his materials and skills. If the universe is the artifact, the designer is responsible for its flaws—cancer, tsunamis, entropy. The “God” of Design is a limited, perhaps incompetent, architect (or a committee of them, as Hume jested), not the omnipotent God of faith. It tells us we crave order, not that the order is divine.
The Moral Argument
The Argument: Objective moral values exist. Without God, objective moral values would not exist. Therefore, God exists.
The Storytelling Nature: This argument reflects the “Imagined Order” described by Yuval Noah Harari. For large groups of humans to cooperate, they need shared myths (laws, rights, gods) that are treated as objective. The Moral Argument is the philosophical expression of this survival mechanism—the fear that without a “Cosmic Enforcer,” the social order would collapse. It is a projection of the tribal “Alpha” or patriarch onto the universe to ensure social cohesion.
There are no gods, no nations, no money and no human rights, except in our collective imagination. —Yuval Noah Harari (He’s not a favorite of mine but the quote is terse.)
Why it tells us nothing about God: It conflates “socially useful” with “ontologically true.” That we need to believe in objective morals to survive does not mean the source of those morals is a supernatural entity. It reveals our evolution as social primates, not the existence of a celestial judge.
“[T]he choice of human groupings for cultural comparisons is not a natural or scientific choice, but a political one.”― Pascal Boyer, Religion Explained: The Evolutionary Origins of Religious Thought
The Ontological Argument
The Argument: God is “that than which nothing greater can be conceived.” Existence is a “great-making” property. Therefore, God must exist (because if He didn’t, He wouldn’t be the greatest).
The Storytelling Nature: This is the ultimate triumph of language over reality. It assumes that because we can define a character in our head, the character must exist in the world. It reflects the magical thinking that words have power over substance—a common feature in mythological systems (e.g., casting spells).
Why it tells us nothing about God: Kant famously refuted this by stating, “existence is not a predicate.” You cannot define something into being. This argument tells us about the structure of human language and concepts, but it provides zero data about the external world. It is a word game, not a discovery.
The Biological Misconceptions: Complexity, Materialism, and the Great Grift/Con
I think books like these represent, as James Randy said, “flim flam” for people who don’t understand physics, large numbers, statistics, or probabilities. I think saying this is justified when analyzing how the authors treat the philosophy of materialism and the science of biology. They use “materialist” as a pejorative, equating it with irrationality, while simultaneously using a hyper-mechanistic (materialist) view of God as a “super-engineer.”
The Straw Man of Materialism
The authors define “materialism” as the belief that “chance alone” governs the Universe. This is a caricature. Scientific naturalism (the proper term) does not assert that everything is random; it claims that laws and constants govern the Universe.
Determinism vs. Chance: Physics is largely deterministic (or probabilistic within strict limits in quantum mechanics). Chemistry is deterministic. Biology results from deterministic selection acting on random variation. By reducing materialism to “pure chance,” the authors create a false dichotomy: either “Random Chaos” or “God.” They ignore the third, actual position of science: “Law-Governed Evolution.”
The “Irreducible Complexity” Rebrand
I generally do not find logical syllogisms to be the best way of expressing scientific arguments, which are probabilistic in nature. Rather than arguing that an irreducibly complex system “must have been brought about by intelligent design,” this is better nuanced by stating that such a system is better explained by design than by unguided evolutionary processes. Is it impossible that such a system could be brought about by unguided evolution? No, but it is exceedingly improbable. Another reason I prefer not to use syllogisms in expressing arguments is that often a piece of evidence can increase the probability of a hypothesis without establishing it as true. Presenting each argument as a syllogism leads to the unfortunate misimpression that one can evaluate each evidence separately and, upon finding each individually to be non-decisive, move on to the next — rather than considering the evidential force of all the evidence taken in aggregate. —Dr Jonathan McLatchie (Fellow of The Discovery Institute)
The arguments in the book regarding the “impossibility” of intermediate stages in the development of the eye or the flagellum are repackaged versions of “Irreducible Complexity,” a concept championed by the Intelligent Design movement and soundly rejected by the scientific community (e.g., in the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial).
What the school board settled on was this: starting in January 2005, science teachers would be required to read the following statement to students in ninth grade biology at Dover High School:
The Pennsylvania Academic Standards require students to learn about Darwin’s Theory of Evolution and eventually to take a standardized test of which evolution is a part.
Because Darwin’s Theory is a theory, it continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered. The Theory is not a fact. Gaps in the Theory exist for which there is no evidence. A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations.
Intelligent Design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin’s view. The reference book, Of Pandas and People, is available for students who might be interested in gaining an understanding of what Intelligent Design actually involves.
With respect to any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind. The school leaves the discussion of the Origins of Life to individual students and their families. As a Standards-driven district, class instruction focuses upon preparing students to achieve proficiency on Standards-based assessments.
By trading on people’s misunderstanding of what a scientific theory is, the statement was intended to make the theory of evolution appear weak and inconclusive and offer intelligent design as a robust alternative to it.
The disclaimer was challenged in court, and soon enough an epic trial unfolded. Evolution was under attack once again by religious extremists and seeking rescue from the courts.
The Argument: Some biological systems are so complex that if you remove one part, they stop working. Therefore, they could not have evolved step by step.
The Rebuttal: Evolution often works by exaptation (co-option). A structure might evolve for one purpose (e.g., a secretory system) and later be co-opted for another (e.g., a flagellar motor). The “intermediate” stages were functional, just for a different job. The authors’ refusal to engage with this vast body of biological literature suggests an ideological blindness rather than a scientific inquiry.
The “Information” Fallacy
A recurring theme is that DNA contains “information,” and “information always comes from a mind.”
The Con: This relies on an equivocation on the word “information.” In Information Theory (Shannon), information is simply a measure of the reduction of uncertainty; it requires no semantic meaning or conscious sender. DNA “code” is a metaphor for the chemical correspondence between codons and amino acids. It is not a message written by a ghost; it is a physical template shaped by the survival of the fittest. Attributing it to a “Mind” is a category error—mistaking the map for the territory.
Shannon’s Information Theory, founded by Claude Shannon in 1948, is the mathematical framework for quantifying, storing, and communicating information, treating it as a measurable entity (bits) to overcome noise. It introduced key concepts like Entropy (uncertainty) and the Noisy-Channel Coding Theorem, proving that reliable communication over noisy channels is possible by encoding data efficiently, forming the bedrock for digital communication, data compression (ZIP, MP3), and storage.
Deus Sive Natura: The Spinozist Alternative to the Interventionist God
For me, Spinoza’s God is a comfortable proximal train of thought approaching an understanding of God without psychedelics or mystical experiences, and even those may have nothing at all to do with a creator God concerned with me. My preference, I think, highlights the fundamental flaw in the book’s theology. Bolloré and Bonnassies argue for an Interventionist God—a deity who stands outside the Universe and tinkers with the constants, sparks the Big Bang, and performs miracles to prove His existence. In contrast, Baruch Spinoza offers a Naturalist God (Deus sive Natura)—a concept that is fully compatible with science precisely because it rejects the miraculous.
Transcendence vs. Immanence
The Book’s God (Transcendent): This God is an external agent. He is a “Supreme Intelligence” who makes choices, has a will, and intervenes in history. And God thinks Homo sapiens are his supreme creations. This model creates the “God of the Gaps” problem: as science explains more (e.g., how the eye evolved), this God has less to do. He is constantly retreating.
Spinoza’s God (Immanent): For Spinoza, God is the Universe (or rather, the infinite substance of which the Universe is a mode). God does not “create” nature; God is nature. There is no “outside.” This God does not “intervene” because that would mean violating His own nature (the laws of physics, etc.).
Spinoza’s God explains the order of the Universe not as a design choice, but as a logical necessity. The laws of physics are the “thoughts” of God. Science is not the enemy of this God; it is the study of God.
Necessity vs. Teleology
The Book’s God (Teleological): The authors argue that God tuned the Universe for a purpose (human life = human supremacy). Teleology—the belief in final causes. Spinoza famously mocked this as the “sanctuary of ignorance.” He argued that humans project their own obsession with purpose onto a purposeless reality. We think the sun exists to warm us, but it just exists.
Spinoza’s God (Necessitarian): In Spinozism, things are the way they are because they must be. The sum of the angles of a triangle is 180 degrees, not because God “chose” it, but because it is the nature of a triangle. Similarly, the Universe exists as it does by necessity, removing the problem of “improbable numbers”—the numbers are not lottery tickets; they are geometric truths.
The Theology of the Polycrisis: Faith, Fatalism, and the Technical Challenge of Survival
Faith is a comfort, but it is not a strategy. It cannot solve the problem of a global economy structured as an omnicidal heat engine, nor can it mitigate the cascading failures of the polycrisis. The worldview that retreats into mysticism in the face of existential risk is dangerous because it denies our fundamental nature: we are biological entities woven into the fabric of a dying ecosystem.
Spinoza’s analysis remains vital. He understood the difference between the divine and the dogmatic. History confirms this: Jesus was not a Christian, Marx was not a Marxist, and Buddha was not a Buddhist. These men were disruptors; the ‘Isms’ created in their wake are containment strategies. Religious and political institutions are power structures designed to compel the masses to worship their own subjugation. They sacralize the greed of the ‘Players’ and rebrand the suffering of the poor as spiritual discipline. When modern nationalists invoke ‘Western Civilization’ to justify dominance, they are channeling the bureaucratic empire-building of Saint Paul, not the radical, kenotic love of the historical Jesus.
In the context of power dynamics—whether geopolitical, biological, or ideological—containment is the art of strangulation without touching the victim’s throat.
It is a strategy of attrition. You do not attack the enemy directly; you isolate them, cut off their resources (calories, capital, or allies), and wait for their internal contradictions to cause a collapse.
Here is how the “Players” execute containment across different domains:
1. The Geopolitical Stranglehold (The Kennan Playbook)
George F. Kennan drafted the blueprint in 1947 to deal with the Soviet Union. He argued that direct war was suicide, but doing nothing was fatal. The solution was containment: a “long-term, patient but firm and vigilant containment of Russian expansive tendencies.”
The Mechanism: The Anglosphere builds a ring of alliances, military bases, and trade pacts around the target nation (The Heartland).
The Goal: Deny the target access to the open ocean and global markets. You force them to burn their internal energy to survive.
2026 Application: Look at the US’s military positioning in the South China Sea or at economic sanctions on Russia. It is the same Victorian game of “The Great Bear” vs. “The Whale,” updated with hypersonics.
2. Domestic Containment (The Cordon Sanitaire)
Notice how a ruling class handles a “virus” inside its own borders—be it a populist uprising, a radical ideology, or a “cancelable” individual.
The Mechanism: The “Cathedral” (media, academia, tech) does not argue with the dissident; that gives them oxygen. Instead, they build a wall.
De-platforming: Remove the megaphone.
De-banking: Cut off the capital flow.
Shadowbanning: Let them speak into a void where no one can hear.
The Goal: To treat the opposing idea like a pathogen. You prevent it from jumping hosts. The idea doesn’t die because a lot of research proved it wrong; it dies because it starved to death in a quarantine cell.
3. Biological and Cyber Containment
The state’s logic is recursive. What works for nations works for code and cells.
Cyber: When a system detects a rogue AI or malware, it doesn’t just delete it; it “sandboxes” it. It creates a fake reality for the code to run in, observing its behavior without letting it touch the kernel.
Epidemiology: We saw this globally. The strategy is to break the transmission vector. You identify the “super-spreaders” and remove them from the graph.
Containment is the weapon of the status quo. It assumes that time is on your side. If you can keep the “cancer” (the rival nation, the bad idea, the virus) locked in a box long enough, the laws of thermodynamics take over. The contained entity runs out of energy and dies, while the container watches from a safe distance.
The Architect of Dogma and the Prophet of Reason: Spinoza’s Deconstruction of the Pauline Institution and the Recovery of the Philosophical Jesus
The Theological-Political Fracture
Benedict de Spinoza
In the intellectual history of the West, few texts have severed the continuity of tradition as completely as Baruch Spinoza’s Tractatus Theologico-Politicus (TTP), published anonymously in 1670. Emerging from the volatile political climate of the Dutch Republic, the treatise was ostensibly a defense of the “freedom to philosophize,” yet it functioned as a demolition of the theological foundations upon which European ecclesiastical and political authority rested. Central to this demolition was Spinoza’s audacious re-evaluation of Christianity’s origins. Spinoza posited a radical rupture between Jesus of Nazareth—a Jewish reformer and supreme philosopher who taught a universal, rational morality—and the “Christianity” that subsequently developed into an institution of power, constructed mainly by the Apostles, preeminently by Paul of Tarsus.
U.S. Congresspeople, Senators, and Presidents claim to be doing God’s work.
Let’s explore Spinoza’s thesis that historical Christianity is, in essence, an Apostle Paul institution designed to serve the interests of power—both clerical and monarchical—rather than the liberating intent of its founder. This distinction is not merely a historical observation for Spinoza; it is a political weapon. By separating the “mind of Christ” (reason and charity) from the “institutions of the Church” (dogma and obedience), Spinoza sought to strip the clergy of their claim to divine right, thereby empowering the secular State to govern without the interference of a “state within a state.”
Let’s traverse the intricate landscape of Spinoza’s biblical hermeneutics, his metaphysical naturalism, and his political theory. It will detail how Spinoza reconstructs Jesus not as the incarnate deity of the Council of Nicaea, but as the embodiment of “Eternal Wisdom”—a human being who communicated with God “mind to mind” rather than through the “imagination” that characterized the Hebrew prophets. Conversely, it will dissect Spinoza’s portrayal of the Apostles as “teachers” rather than prophets, men who, lacking Jesus’ intuitive clarity, resorted to argumentation, accommodation, and the construction of theological systems to manage the unruly masses of the Gentile world. Finally, it will demonstrate how this “Pauline” turn transformed the universal religion of love into a sectarian religion of obedience, creating a mechanism of social control that monarchs and priests have utilized to maintain their dominion over the “wretched” multitude.
The Historical Exigency: The Crisis of the Dutch Republic
To understand the urgency of Spinoza’s critique, one must situate it within the crisis of the Dutch Golden Age. Spinoza was writing during the “First Stadtholderless Period,” a time when the liberal, republican regents, led by Johan de Witt, were locked in a precarious struggle against the Orangist faction seeking to restore the monarchy of the House of Orange. The Orangists were fervently supported by the predikanten—the strict Calvinist clergy—who mobilized the populace against the republicans by accusing them of atheism and heresy.
Spinoza identified this alliance between the monarchical faction and the clergy as the primary threat to the stability of the State and the freedom of the individual. The clergy derived their power from their exclusive claim to interpret Scripture, which enabled them to judge political actions by “divine” standards. Spinoza recognized that as long as the Bible was viewed as a supernatural repository of political and scientific truth, the clergy would hold the “keys to the kingdom.”Thus, the TTP was designed to shatter this authority by proving that the “Word of God” is not a book, but a living truth inscribed on the human heart (Reason), and that the institutional structures of the Church are human inventions, subject to the control of the sovereign State.
The Structure of the Argument
Organized into five major sections, each exploring a dimension of Spinoza’s deconstruction:
The Metaphysics of Prophecy: How Spinoza distinguishes Jesus’ intellectual intuition from the imaginative prophecy of the Old Testament and the Apostles.
The Jewish Reformer: The historical reconstruction of Jesus as a Jew concerned with the interiorization of the Mosaic Law.
The Pauline Construction: The analysis of Paul’s transformation of Jesus’ message into a theological system suitable for the Gentiles.
The Politics of Obedience: How the Pauline institution utilizes superstition, fear, and mystery to serve political power.
The Legacy of Critique: The implications of Spinoza’s thought for modern concepts of secularism, materialism, and the critique of ideology.
The Metaphysics of Prophecy: Imagination vs. Intellect
Spinoza’s separation of Jesus from the Apostles is rooted in his epistemological framework, specifically his theory of prophecy. In the TTP, Spinoza establishes a strictly naturalistic account of revelation. “Prophecy,” he argues, is a function of the imagination, a faculty of the mind that produces images and associations but does not yield clear and distinct ideas (which belong to the intellect).
The Prophets of the Old Testament
Spinoza argues that the Hebrew prophets were not philosophers. They were men of vivid imagination and profound moral virtue, but they did not necessarily possess superior intellectual understanding of the Nature of God.
Mediated Revelation: When the Bible says “God spoke” to Moses or Isaiah, Spinoza interprets this to mean that the prophet imagined a voice, a vision, or a sign. God “accommodated” his message to the prophet’s preconceived notions and the limitations of his understanding. This is why the prophets often contradict one another on speculative matters (e.g., whether God has a body or changes his mind) while agreeing on moral issues (justice and charity).
The Certitude of Prophecy: The certainty of the prophets was moral, not mathematical. It was based on a “sign” given to the imagination, not on the intrinsic necessity of the truth itself.
The Singularity of Christ: Mentem ad Mentem
Against this backdrop, Spinoza presents Jesus of Nazareth as a unique ontological anomaly. He asserts that “Christ communed with God mind to mind” (mentem ad mentem). This phrase is the linchpin of Spinoza’s Christology.
Intellectual Intuition: Unlike Moses, who needed the sound of a trumpet or a burning bush, Jesus perceived the things revealed to him “truly and adequately.” He understood the will of God not as an external command from a lawgiver, but as the eternal necessity of God’s Nature.
The Mouthpiece of God: Spinoza refers to Jesus as the os Dei (mouthpiece of God) and the manifestation of the Sapientia Dei (Wisdom of God). This identification aligns Jesus with the philosophical attribute of Reason itself. Jesus did not merely “hear” the Word of God; he was the articulation of the divine logic inherent in the universe.
The Non-Political Kingdom
Because Jesus understood God intellectually, he realized that the “Kingdom of God” is not a political territory but a state of mind—specifically, the State of “blessedness” (beatitudo) that comes from the intellectual love of God (amor dei intellectualis).
Separation from the State: Unlike Moses, who sought to build a specific political regime (the Hebrew Theocracy), Jesus recognized that the proper “Divine Law” is universal and independent of any state. This insight is crucial for Spinoza’s political argument: if Jesus divorced religion from the State, then the clerical attempt to control the State is anti-Christian.
The Collapse of the Mosaic Constitution
Spinoza views the Law of Moses not as a path to eternal salvation, but as the political constitution of the Hebrew State. Its purpose was to ensure the Israelites’ temporal prosperity and security in the land of Canaan.
Obedience for Reward: The Mosaic Law functioned through a system of temporal rewards (land, victory) and punishments (exile, plague). It required external obedience to rituals and statutes.
The Crisis: By the time of Jesus, the Hebrew State had been destroyed, and the people were under Roman occupation. The “political” function of the Law was defunct. The Pharisees, however, continued to enforce the external rituals as if they were the essence of piety.
The Interiorization of the Law
Jesus’ “reform” was to salvage the moral core of Judaism from the wreckage of its political shell.
From External to Internal: Jesus taught that since the State was gone, the “Law” must be written on the heart. He shifted the focus from ritual purity (which serves the social order) to moral intent (which serves the individual’s blessedness).
Critique of the Pharisees: Spinoza interprets Jesus’ conflict with the Pharisees as a philosophical critique of “superstition.” The Pharisees believed that meticulous observance of rites coerced God into granting favor. Jesus taught that God’s favor (salvation) is nothing other than the peace of mind that follows from virtuous action.
Accommodation to Jewish Concepts
Despite his philosophical purity, Spinoza argues that Jesus still had to “accommodate” his teaching to the people’s ignorance.
Teaching as a Lawgiver: Although Jesus knew that virtue is its own reward, ordinary people were accustomed to thinking in terms of Law and judgment. Therefore, Jesus taught moral truths as if they were commands from a judge, using parables and the language of rewards (heaven) and punishments (hell).
The Difference: However, Spinoza insists that Jesus knew he was speaking metaphorically. The Apostles, particularly Paul, would later mistake these metaphors for metaphysical realities.
The Pauline Construction: From Teacher to Theologian
The pivot point in Spinoza’s narrative is the transition from the personal authority of Jesus to the institutional authority of the Apostles. Spinoza contends that the Apostles were not “prophets” in the same sense as the Old Testament seers, nor did they possess the intellectual intuition of Jesus. They were “teachers” (doctores) who had to interpret what they had seen and heard.
The Apostles as “Doctors” of the Church
In Chapter 11 of the TTP, Spinoza conducts a philological analysis of the Epistles. He concludes that the Apostles wrote not by divine command but by their own lights, often in response to specific administrative problems in the early churches.
Opinion vs. Revelation: Spinoza highlights passages in which Paul distinguishes his own advice from the Lord’s command (e.g., 1 Corinthians 7:40: “I think also that I have the Spirit of God”). For Spinoza, this “I think” (puto) reveals that Paul was reasoning rather than prophesying. He was deducing conclusions from premises, a process subject to error and dispute.
Disagreement and Debate: Spinoza points to the “sharp contention” between Paul and Barnabas (Acts 15:39) and the conflict between Paul and Peter at Antioch (Galatians 2:11) as evidence that the Apostles did not possess a unified, infallible divine revelation. They argued, debated, and compromised—behaviors characteristic of philosophers and politicians, not prophets.
The Gentile Problem and the Invention of Theology
The central challenge for the Apostles, led by Paul, was the mission to the Gentiles. The Gentiles had no history with the Mosaic Law and no cultural framework for Jewish monotheism. To convert them, Paul had to “accommodate” the message of Jesus to a Hellenistic and Roman audience.
De-politicizing the Message: Paul had to strip the Gospel of its Jewish political elements (circumcision, dietary laws) to make it universal.
Re-mythologizing the Message: To replace the authority of the Mosaic Law, Paul constructed a new theological edifice. He introduced the concepts of Original Sin (to explain the universal need for salvation without the Law) and Vicarious Atonement (to explain how salvation is achieved through Christ).
Spinoza’s Verdict: Spinoza views these doctrines not as the “kernel” of Jesus’ teaching, but as the “husk”—necessary accommodations to the Gentile imagination. Paul transformed the death of a philosopher-martyr into a cosmic sacrifice to satisfy a monarchical God. This was a brilliant act of religious engineering, but it moved Christianity away from Reason (which requires no sacrifice) toward superstition (which demands blood).
The Resurrection as Institutional Foundation
Spinoza denies the physical Resurrection of Jesus, viewing it as a physical impossibility. However, he acknowledges that the Apostles believed they saw the risen Christ.
The Power of Imagination: Spinoza suggests that the Apostles, inflamed by their love for Jesus and their grief, projected his image in visions.
The Political Utility: Paul seized upon the Resurrection as the cornerstone of the new faith (”If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile,” 1 Cor 15:14). By basing the religion on a miracle rather than a teaching, Paul ensured that the institution (which guards the testimony of the miracle) became necessary for salvation. One can discover ethical truths by Reason alone, but one can only know of the Resurrection through the Church.
The Institution that Serves Power
Spinoza’s analysis in the TTP serves as a genealogy of the political theology that dominated Europe. He argues that the institutional structure built by the Apostles, particularly the Pauline insistence on “faith” (doctrine) over “works” (charity), inevitably creates a tool for tyranny.
The Psychology of Dependence
In the Preface to the TTP, Spinoza famously links superstition to fear. “If men could manage all their affairs by a certain plan, or if fortune were always favorable to them, they would never be in the grip of superstition.” But because human life is precarious, men oscillate between hope and fear, making them susceptible to anyone who promises security.
The Clerical Opportunity: The “Pauline institution” exploits this vulnerability. By positing a transcendent God who is angry (Original Sin) and requires appeasement (Sacrifice), the Church positions itself as the sole mediator. The sacraments, managed by the clergy, become the mechanisms of security.
Serving Power: This creates a docile populace. If the people believe their eternal salvation depends on obedience to the clergy, they will obey the clergy even against their own rational self-interest or the laws of the State.
The Alliance with Monarchy
Spinoza observes that monarchical regimes rely on this religious dynamic to maintain power. “The greatest secret of monarchic rule... is to keep men deceived and to cloak the fear by which they must be held in check with the specious name of religion.”
Paul’s Politics: Paul’s command in Romans 13 (“Let every person be subject to the governing authorities”) is often cited as a support for the status quo. Spinoza argues that while Paul intended to keep Christians safe from Roman persecution, the institutionalization of this obedience turned the Church into a pillar of autocracy.
The Divine Right of Kings: The theological model of the universe—one God, one King, one Truth—mirrors the political model of monarchy. By reinforcing the image of God as a celestial King who demands absolute obedience, the Pauline institution legitimates earthly kings.
The “State Within a State” (Imperium in Imperio)
The most dangerous legacy of the Apostolic institution, for Spinoza, is the separation of spiritual and temporal authority.
The Hebrew Unity: In Spinoza’s Hebrew State, religion and politics were one. The Law of God was the Law of the State. There was no separate “church.”
The Christian Split: Because the Apostles had no political power, they established a “spiritual government” alongside the Roman “temporal government.” They claimed jurisdiction over matters of morals, beliefs, and marriage.
The Conflict: As Christianity grew, this “spiritual” jurisdiction expanded, eventually challenging the State’s sovereignty. Spinoza argues that this imperium in imperio is the root of the religious wars and civil strife in Europe. A sovereign cannot rule if a separate institution claims the allegiance of the citizens’ souls.
Dogma as an Instrument of Control
Spinoza critiques the transformation of “Faith” from a moral category (loyalty to God/Justice) to an intellectual category (assent to propositions).
The Definition of Faith: For Spinoza (and, he argues, for Jesus), faith is “to think of God such that obedience to Him follows” (TTP Ch. 14). It is judged by works (justice and charity).
The Pauline Shift: Under the influence of Paul’s theological arguments, the Church defined faith as correct belief regarding the Nature of Christ (substance, nature, person).
The Inquisition: Once faith is defined as “correct opinion,” the institution must police thought. Dissent becomes heresy. This “serves power” by allowing the authorities to persecute political enemies under the guise of religious orthodoxy.
Historical and Cultural Implications: Spinoza as the Anti-Paul
Spinoza’s project can be read as an attempt to reverse the Pauline “corruption” and restore the philosophical purity of Jesus, but within a modern, secular framework.
The Secularization of the “Holy Spirit”
Spinoza reinterprets the “Spirit of Christ” not as a ghostly third person of the Trinity, but as the idea of God which leads men to virtue.
Universalism: This Spirit is present in all men, regardless of their knowledge of the historical Jesus. A Turk or a Chinese philosopher who lives according to Reason possesses the Spirit of Christ more than a baptized Christian who lives by passion and hatred.
The True Catholicity: Spinoza argues that the true “Catholic” (Universal) religion is the religion of Reason, which requires no miracles or historical narratives. The Pauline institution, by insisting on the historical narrative of Jesus (Crucifixion/Resurrection), actually restricts the universality of religion.
Spinoza’s Impact on Modernity
Spinoza’s critique laid the groundwork for the Enlightenment’s approach to religion.
Erastianism: Spinoza advocates the State’s control over external religious forms (ceremonies and church organization) to prevent the clergy from challenging the sovereign. This effectively neutralizes the “Apostle Paul institution” as a political rival.
Liberalism: Simultaneously, Spinoza argues for the absolute freedom of the internal mind. The State can control the Church, but it cannot control the individual’s Reason. This bifurcated approach—state control of the institution, absolute freedom for the individual—is Spinoza’s solution to the theologico-political problem.
The Materialist Legacy
The snippets provided in the research material hint at a connection between Spinoza and later materialist thought (Marxism/Dialectical Materialism). While Spinoza predates Marx by two centuries, his critique of the “Pauline institution” prefigures the materialist critique of ideology.
Religion as Superstructure: Spinoza treats the intricate theology of Paul not as divine revelation but as a product of the “imagination” responding to material and political necessities (the need to govern the Gentiles). This anticipates the Marxist view that religious dogmas are superstructural reflections of social bases.
The “Multitude”: Spinoza’s fear of the “mob” manipulated by the clergy resonates with later critiques of how reactionary forces mobilize the proletariat against their own interests using religious nationalism. Contemporary “Left Spinozists” (such as Negri) see in Spinoza’s “multitude” (multitudo) the potential for a democratic power that bypasses the transcendent authority of both the Church and the State.
Granular Breakdown of Spinoza’s Textual Evidence
The following section details the specific arguments Spinoza deploys in the central chapters of the TTP.
TTP Chapter 11: The Apostles wrote as Teachers (Doctores)
Argument: The Apostles’ authority is not absolute. They wrote letters (epistolae) based on their own judgment.
Proof: Paul says, “I speak as a fool” (2 Cor 11:23) and “I have no commandment of the Lord” (1 Cor 7:25). Spinoza argues that if they were prophesying, they would not speak with hesitation.
Implication: We are free to reject Paul’s arguments if they contradict Reason, whereas we cannot reject the “Divine Law” (Charity), which is self-evident.
TTP Chapter 12: The True Original of the Divine Law
Argument: The “Word of God” is not the Bible (paper and ink), but the Divine Law inscribed on the human mind.
Polemic: Spinoza attacks the Bibliolatry of the Protestants (who replaced the Pope with a Book). He argues that the Bible’s text is corrupt, fragmentary, and tampered with.
Relevance to Jesus: Jesus preached the Word of God (the Living Law); the Pauline institution worships the “image” of the Word (the Written Text). This fetishization of the text serves power because it requires professional interpreters (theologians).
TTP Chapter 14: Faith vs. Philosophy
Argument: The aim of Philosophy is Truth; the aim of Faith is Obedience and Piety. They are separate domains.
The Separation: Jesus knew the Truth (Philosophy). The Apostles taught Obedience (Faith) using narratives adapted to the people.
The Error of Theology: The Pauline institution tries to make Philosophy subservient to Theology (e.g., forcing Reason to accept the Trinity). Spinoza argues for the complete separation of the two. This allows the philosopher to be free from the Church, and the simple believer to be saved by obedience without needing to be a philosopher.
The Liberation of the Spirit
Spinoza’s understanding of Christianity is a rescue operation. He seeks to rescue the content of Jesus’ teaching (universal love and rational intuition) from the form of the Pauline institution (sectarian dogma and clerical hierarchy).
The Institutional Betrayal: The structure built by the Apostles, though perhaps necessary for the chaotic conditions of the ancient world, calcified into a machine of oppression. It serves power by keeping the masses in a state of imaginative fear, dependent on mysteries that only the clergy can unlock. It creates a “state within a state” that threatens the sovereignty of civil government.
The Historical Jesus: Beneath the layers of Pauline theology lies the historical Jesus—a Jewish sage who saw that the era of theocratic states was over and that the era of universal, internal religion had begun. Jesus is the patron saint of the philosopher because he represents the direct, unmediated access to God/Nature.
The Political Outcome: For Spinoza, dismantling the Pauline institution is the prerequisite for a free society. By reducing religion to the simple practice of justice and charity (the “creed” of Jesus), the State can allow total freedom of thought. The dogmas of Paul are relegated to the sphere of private opinion, stripping them of their power to command the sword of the magistrate.
In the final analysis, Spinoza asserts that the “Christianity” of the Church is a political artifact, a “pious fraud” that served its purpose in taming the barbarians but now stands as an obstacle to the maturity of the human race. The true “Spirit of Christ” is not found in the cathedrals or the confessions of faith, but in the unrestricted use of Reason and the active practice of benevolence.
Why talk about religion and Spinoza? Because we must understand how powerful Players of the Great Game design their institutions of control, and how acquiescent ordinary people are to these social constructs. “Western culture and Market Capitalism are intertwined with Christianity. Even secular economists and political philosophers are influenced to some degree by Christian religious thought and logic.
People sacrifice their lives for God and Country, while a small minority of cynics or true believers benefit.
***Throughout this journey, I am asking you to examine your beliefs.
Worship Whatnot, if not, know Nature as you know yourself, and hold that knowledge tenderly with reverence.
The Hazard of “Magic Thinking”
The worldview of God, The Science, The Evidence, fosters a specific type of cognitive bias known as Providentialism. If one accepts that a Supreme Intelligence meticulously fine-tuned the universe for human existence (the Anthropic Principle), one is implicitly encouraged to believe that this same Intelligence acts as a safety net.
Given that we now know that planets are common, that many of them are found within their stars’ habitable zones, and that organic materials are common in the Universe, there ought to be many places that are suitable for life. But even under the right circumstances, we don’t yet know how likely it is for life to originate. The Anthropic Principle states that we, as living, conscious observers, must necessarily find ourselves in a place with conditions suitable for life, or else we wouldn’t be here to observe those conditions. In other words, having already won the “life lottery”, it’s unsurprising to find ourselves in possession of a winning ticket. We don’t yet know, though, how many other winners there are, how many players didn’t win, and what the odds are in the game. Scientists are endeavoring to obtain better statistics to help us answer these questions.
Climate Inaction: Research into “religious determinism” indicates that believers in an interventionist God are less likely to support aggressive climate action. The logic is: “God created the climate; God controls the climate; therefore, humans cannot destroy it, or God will fix it if we do.” The book’s emphasis on the “miraculous” (e.g., Fatima) reinforces the idea that supernatural solutions are available for material problems.
“The sun, at one moment surrounded with scarlet flame, at another aureoled in yellow and deep purple, seemed to be in an exceedingly swift and whirling movement, at times appearing to be loosened from the sky and to be approaching the earth, strongly radiating heat.” — Domingos Pinto Coelho, writing for the Catholic newspaper Ordem.
The Technical Reality: The polycrisis (climate, resource depletion, biodiversity loss) is a sociopolitical, sociological, cultural, technical, moral, and ethical challenge governed by the laws of thermodynamics, and other laws inherent in our Nature and Great Nature itself—some of the very laws the authors cite but misapply. Entropy does not care about theology. A “technical solution” in the sense of a miracle technology (fusion, geoengineering) or a divine rescue is a dangerous fantasy. The solution requires political will and radical structural/systemic/cultural change, concepts undermined by a theology of waiting for a Savior.
Spinozist Ethics as a Survival Strategy
A Spinozist or “Systems Thinking” approach aligns with my view that science is a valuable tool for understanding Nature.
Intellectual Love of Nature: For Spinoza, the highest virtue is the “intellectual love of God,” which translates to understanding the causal web of reality. To love God is to understand the Carbon Cycle. To serve God is to align human systems with ecological limits. This is not to downplay emotions, feelings, and mystical experiences. Emotion and intellect are required and relished for what they are.
Responsibility: Because there is no external “Fixer,” the responsibility falls entirely on humanity. We are not the “children” of a celestial father who will clean up our mess; we are modes of Nature who must obey Nature’s laws or perish. This grim but realistic view is far more likely to generate the urgency required for the polycrisis than the comforting “con” of the Intelligent Designer.
“When we think about Spinoza’s intellectual inheritance, it’s important not to reify a tradition like “Christianity.” What we call Christianity has always, right from the start, been multicultural and diverse, an eclectic mixture of Jewish and Greek and Roman philosophies, and often full of the tensions that come with this eclecticism; it subsequently absorbed Islamic influences too, and of course as Christian teachings spread to different regions they blended with local folk traditions. So by situating Spinoza in a broadly Christian context, we’re not cutting him off from all those diverse religious and philosophical currents. On the contrary, he was very resistant to the Christian churches’ efforts to seal themselves off from cultural forms perceived as “other”, which in fact meant denying or suppressing their own heritage.” —Clare Carlisle
The Political Economy of Apologetics: The Bolloré Agenda
I always want to know an author’s agenda, primarily the ideological and political reasons for the book they are writing. The production of this text cannot be separated from the specific socio-political context of the authors, particularly Michel-Yves Bolloré.
Michel-Yves Bolloré generally declines to discuss his political views publicly, stating that his work is non-political. However, his personal beliefs are strongly tied to his Roman Catholic faith and conservative social perspectives, which often align with Christian right viewpoints in the U.S.
The Bolloré Empire and the “Rechristianization” of France
Michel-Yves Bolloré is the brother of Vincent Bolloré, one of France’s most powerful and controversial media tycoons. The “Bolloré Group” has systematically acquired media outlets (Canal+, CNews, Europe 1, Hachette) and shifted them toward a conservative, nationalist, and traditionalist Catholic editorial line.
***Let me say that I am not against Christians. I don’t identify as a secularist or an atheist. My concern is with our relationship with living systems, with the whole of life, and with our exploration of Great nature. I am pro-peace and anti-war. I am pro-life in the broadest sense.
Rechristianization means to make a place or people Christian again, often after periods of secularization, decline, or non-Christian rule, involving efforts to re-establish Christian practices, symbols, and influence in society through movements, missions, or cultural revival, seen historically in post-Roman Europe, post-Revolutionary France, and modern Russia. It’s a deliberate attempt to restore Christian faith and culture in areas where it has weakened, contrasting with initial Christianization.
The Ideological Project: Critics characterize this as a “Gramscian” project from the right—a war for cultural hegemony. The goal is to dismantle the secular consensus of the French Republic (Laïcité) and restore Catholic traditionalism as the moral bedrock of society.
The Book as a Weapon: God, the Science, The Evidence is a strategic asset in this culture war. By framing Catholicism not as a “faith” but as the only “rational” conclusion of modern science, the authors attempt to delegitimize secularism, painting materialists as “irrational” and “anti-science.” This inversion of reality is a classic rhetorical tactic of the far-right media ecosystem that the Bollorés control.
The Role of “Marie de Nazareth”
Co-author Olivier Bonnassies founded the “Association Marie de Nazareth,” an organization dedicated to evangelization and the promotion of Marian apparitions (such as Fatima).
I have also written about Opus Dei and The Family/Fellowship. I was raised a Catholic, and as a child and teenager, lived in Ireland and Colorado.
The Hidden Agenda: While the book presents itself as a neutral scientific inquiry, its trajectory—from the Big Bang to the Miracle of Fatima—reveals its true purpose: to guide the reader through a funnel from Deism to specific Catholic dogma. For me, it isn’t ethical to present science in this way. The book represents a theological and cultural project that miscommunicates science. The book is nothing more than a Trojan horse for a specific religious ideology that includes political reactionary elements.
To understand the true nature of this debate, one must turn away from the apologists who seek to torture science until it confesses to theology. Instead, look to the disciplines that explain why we generate theology in the first place: Evolutionary Psychology (such as the work of Pascal Boyer), Cognitive Science, and Systems Theory. The antidote to the ‘con’ of organized religion is not to find God in the margins of quantum mechanics, but to study statistics, physics, and biology. There, you will find the magnificent, self-sufficient, and godless mechanism of Great Nature itself.
A watershed book that masterfully integrates insights from evolutionary biology, genetics, psychology, economics, and more to explore the development and workings of human societies
“There is no good reason why human societies should not be described and explained with the same precision and success as the rest of nature.” Thus argues evolutionary psychologist Pascal Boyer in this uniquely innovative book.
Integrating recent insights from evolutionary biology, genetics, psychology, economics, and other fields, Boyer offers precise models of why humans engage in social behaviors such as forming families, tribes, and nations, or creating gender roles. In fascinating, thought-provoking passages, he explores questions such as, Why is there conflict between groups? Why do people believe low-value information such as rumors? Why are there religions? What is social justice? What explains morality? Boyer provides a new picture of cultural transmission that draws on the pragmatics of human communication, the constructive nature of memory in human brains, and human motivation for group formation and cooperation.
I would love to see humanity have a ‘come to Great Nature’ moment—to let the biosphere take the wheel. One can be fascinated by the human construct of Big Gods and the rich tapestry of mythology without being enslaved by it. You can have it all: the history, the art, the community. But you must admit the Spinozan truth: you do not know what God is, nor what He is made of. You only know the stories—the necessary fictions we invented to scale our tribes into city-states and civilizations. Belief feels good, but ‘believing in belief’ without understanding the mechanism leaves you vulnerable. It opens the door for the “tyranny of evil men” to hijack your faith and use it as a weapon against you.
The Contingency of the Market Order: A Theological-Political Analysis of Capitalist Realism, Economic Theology, and the Sociology of Belief
People say, Science is just a religion.
OK, let’s move on and interrogate the ontological status of global capitalism through a comparative framework derived from political theology, evolutionary economics, cognitive Science, and anthropology. Good God, what a mouthful. I’m interested in whether arguments about the existence of God can be transposed to deconstruct the perceived inevitability of capitalism. I posit that capitalism operates as a “secular religion” or an “imagined order.” Yet another complex, freaking social construct. This order is sustained not by immutable natural laws or biological necessity, but by collective intersubjective belief, ritualistic reinforcement, and the management of affect.
I am not a fan of “The End of History” thesis, which posits liberal capitalism as the final form of human governance—I will try to expose it as a secularized eschatology. By mapping theological arguments (Design, Consensus, Theodicy) onto economic theory (The Invisible Hand, Human Nature, Creative Destruction), I want to demonstrate that the “market” is a contingent historical outcome. It serves as a comprehensive “theodicy” that explains social suffering as a means to future growth, much as religious theodicy explains evil as a means to salvation.
I aim to synthesize empirical evidence from “complexity economics” and anthropology to refute the claim that capitalism is the optimal or “natural” outcome of human evolution. Instead, the evidence suggests the economy is a complex, path-dependent system shaped by power, state violence, and historical accident. The current polycrisis/metacrisis—the intersection of ecological collapse, social fragmentation, and financial instability—is analyzed as a “crisis of faith” in the market’s providential capacity, giving rise to “techno-salvationism” as a desperate attempt to preserve the theological structure of the current order.
Capitalism is a contingent “imagined order” rather than an objective reality, and this is the necessary precursor to imagining post-capitalist sociopolitical outcomes.
Will we become hunter-gatherers again, after living systems have established a new balance? Will we be able to find a place in new ecosystems and habitats? Or, would we rather die and hope to meet our maker? There is a video in the conclusion of this post about how we may have lived long ago that might give us confidence if we think there is a chance that MTI flames out in the near future.
The Metaphysics of Capitalist Realism and the End of History
The Atmosphere of Inevitability
Let’s begin with Capitalist Realism, a theoretical framework developed by Mark Fisher to describe the unique ideological climate of the post-Soviet era. Fisher defines capitalist realism not merely as a set of political beliefs but as a “pervasive atmosphere“ that conditions the regulation of work, education, and cultural production. It is the widespread sense that “not only is capitalism the only viable political and economic system, but also that it is now impossible even to imagine a coherent alternative to it.”
This psychological blockade functions much like religious orthodoxy in a theocratic society. To question the market is not merely to be factually wrong; it is to be “unrealistic,” “irrational,” or “heretical.” This mirrors the theological concept of “natural law” in pre-modern societies, where the divine order was considered the only possible structure of existence. As Fisher notes, the power of this realism is encapsulated in the slogan attributed to Fredric Jameson and Slavoj Žižek: “It is easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism.”
This sentiment reflects a profound ontological shift. In previous eras, capitalism was viewed as one contending system among others (e.g., feudalism, socialism, theocracy). However, following the collapse of the Soviet Union, capitalism achieved a status akin to a law of physics. It presents itself not as an ideology but as “reality” itself. The “realism” here is analogous to the depressive perspective in psychology, in which the subject believes that any positive state or hope is a dangerous illusion.
The “End of History” thesis proposed by Francis Fukuyama reinforces this ontological closure. (More on this below.) Fukuyama argued that humankind’s ideological evolution had reached its endpoint with the universalization of Western liberal democracy. This thesis can be understood as a secularized eschatology—a doctrine of “last things.” In religious theology, eschatology concerns the final destiny of the soul and humankind. In capitalist realism, the “end of history” posits that the dialectical struggle of history has been resolved. There are no more qualitative leaps to be made; there is only the quantitative adjustment of the existing system.
These contradictions create a “bipolar oscillation” in the cultural psyche: a weak hope that something new might emerge, collapsing into a morose conviction that nothing new can ever happen. The future is canceled, replaced by the eternal recurrence of the present that echoes Walter Benjamin’s “weak messianism,” in which the revolutionary potential of the moment is continuously suppressed. The cultural landscape becomes dominated by nostalgia and “retromania,” as the capacity to generate new social forms atrophies under the weight of market ubiquity.
“The only way of knowing a person is to love them without hope. There is no document of civilization that is not at the same time a document of barbarism.” —Walter Benjamin
The Mechanisms of Reflexive Impotence
Capitalist realism maintains its hegemony not through enthusiastic consent, but through reflexive impotence. Subjects acknowledge the flaws of the system—inequality, environmental degradation, mental health crises—but feel powerless to change them. This is not apathy; it is a structural incapacity to translate dissent into action.
The system preempts resistance by absorbing its own critique. Fisher observes that anti-capitalist media (e.g., films like Wall-E or Avatar) perform our anti-capitalism for us. The film does the heavy lifting of critiquing the corporation, allowing the viewer to consume resistance as a commodity while remaining a passive participant in the system. This interpassivity enables the subject to feel they have engaged with the problem without ever threatening the underlying structure.
Furthermore, the post-political nature of neoliberalism removes economic decisions from democratic contestation. By framing economic outcomes as the result of “natural” market forces (akin to weather or gravity), capitalism insulates itself from political sovereignty. “There is no alternative” (TINA) becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, enforced by the “invisible barrier constraining thought and action.”
The “Imagined Order”: Harari’s Intersubjective Reality
Although I am not a fan of historian Yuval Noah Harari, his thoughts here provide a crucial bridge between the “God” and “Capitalism” arguments through his concept of the imagined order. Harari posits that the distinguishing feature of Homo sapiens is the ability to cooperate in large numbers based on shared fictions.
Unlike “objective” reality (rivers, trees, lions) or “subjective” reality (pain, personal desire), the “imagined order” is intersubjective. It exists only within the shared communication network of thousands or millions of people.
Religion as Imagined Order: Gods, nations, and laws are not physical entities but exist because a collective believes in them.
Capitalism as Imagined Order: Limited liability companies, human rights, and money are equally fictional.
Harari argues that capitalism differs from traditional religions primarily in its success rate. It is the “first religion in history whose followers actually do what they are asked to do.” (Arguably.) The central myth of capitalism is that reinvesting profits leads to growth, which increases the “collective pie” and benefits everyone—a narrative of salvation through growth.
Crucially, an imagined order can only be maintained if the population truly believes it is an objective reality. As Harari notes, “You never admit that the order is imagined. You always insist that the order sustaining society is an objective reality created by the great gods or by the laws of nature.” Capitalist realism is the modern mechanism for enforcing this insistence. By treating the Market as a natural force, we deny its status as an intersubjective myth, thereby rendering it immune to heretical challenge.
The Argument from Design vs. The Evolutionary Contingency of Markets
The Invisible Hand as Secular Providence
The transition from a theocentric worldview to an economistic one was not a rupture but a translation. The Italian philosopher Giorgio Agamben, in his genealogical research on Economic Theology, argues that modern economic management (oikonomia) is the secular heir to Christian Trinitarian theology.
The central mechanism of this translation is the Invisible Hand. Originally a marginal metaphor in Adam Smith’s work, it has become the central dogma of market fundamentalism. The “Invisible Hand” posits that the pursuit of individual self-interest unintentionally promotes the collective good. This structure—individual chaos leading to ordered good—is isomorphic to the theological concept of Divine Providence.
In Christian theology, God governs the world not through constant miraculous intervention (which would violate free will) but through a general “economy” of laws that guide human actions toward a divine plan. In classical political economy, the “Market” takes the place of God. It is an “atheist science” only in name; structurally, it relies on a “secular theology” where the “Invisible Hand” acts as a non-human intelligence that harmonizes conflicting interests.
This argument functions identically to the Teleological Argument (Argument from Design) in theology. Just as the complexity of the eye is used to argue for an Intelligent Designer, the complexity of the global economy is used to argue for the “wisdom” of the Market. Central planning is rejected not just as inefficient, but as a form of hubris—a usurpation of the divine prerogative of the Market to organize human affairs.
Divine Providence
The Invisible Hand
Harmonizes individual actions into a beneficial whole without central command.
Original Sin
Scarcity
The fundamental condition of suffering that drives human labor and action.
Eschatology (Salvation)
Economic Growth
The promise of a future state of abundance where suffering is eliminated.
Theodicy (Justifying Evil)
Creative Destruction
Suffering (bankruptcy, unemployment) is justified as necessary for efficiency/good.
Faith/Dogma
The system collapses if “belief” (credit) is withdrawn.
Omniscience
The Market knows all available information and prices assets correctly.
Complexity Economics: Refuting the “Designer”
If the “Invisible Hand” is the secular equivalent of the “Watchmaker,” then Complexity Economics and Evolutionary Economics serve as the Darwinian critique. These fields challenge the “equilibrium” view of mainstream neoclassical economics, which assumes a static, optimal state akin to a divinely ordered cosmos.
Evolutionary economics views the economy as a Complex Adaptive System (CAS).
No Global Controller: Just as ecosystems have no central planner, economies are dispersed networks of interaction. There is no “Hand” guiding it; there is only emergent order.
Path Dependence: The current state of the economy is not the result of an optimal design but of historical accidents and “lock-in” effects. We use the QWERTY keyboard not because it is the most efficient, but because of a specific history. Similarly, we use capitalism not because it is the “end of history,” but because of one particular trajectory involving colonialism, industrialization, and state violence.
Non-Equilibrium: The economy is never in equilibrium. It is in a constant state of flux, mutation, and selection. This refutes the “Efficient Market Hypothesis” (the dogma of market omniscience) by showing that markets are prone to bubbles, crashes, and inherent instability (by design, volatility pays).
This scientific perspective de-deifies the Market. It reveals that the “order” we see is not the result of a benevolent providence but of evolutionary selection pressures. Crucially, unlike biological evolution, economic evolution is shaped by institutions and power. We can “design” better institutions (like the Commons) without resorting to a central planner or a mystical “Market God.”
Spinoza’s Critique of Teleology in Economics
Baruch Spinoza’s philosophy offers a powerful critique of this “economic providence.” Spinoza argued that humans falsely attribute “purposes” (teleology) to nature because they are ignorant of the true causes of events. We imagine God created eyes for seeing, rather than seeing being a result of physical causes.
Similarly, in economics, we imagine the Market has a “purpose” (efficiency, prosperity). We attribute agency to the “Invisible Hand.” Spinoza’s critique suggests that this is a projection of human imagination. The Market has no purpose; it has only effects.
Anti-Anthropocentrism: Spinoza challenges the idea that the universe (or the economy) revolves around human needs. The “market” does not care about human well-being; it operates according to the laws of accumulation and power. Attributing “wisdom” to it is a superstitious error.
Contingency: For Spinoza, everything that exists is a result of specific causes, not a divine plan. This implies that the current economic order is contingent—it could have been otherwise, and it can be otherwise again.
The Argument from Consensus vs. The Anthropological Record
The “Sensus Divinitatis” of the Market
Theologians sometimes argue for God’s existence based on the Sensus Divinitatis (Sense of the Divine)—the fact that nearly all cultures have some form of religion implies that God is a reality.
Capitalist realism employs a similar argument: “Human Nature.” The argument posits that humans are naturally selfish, competitive, and prone to “truck, barter, and exchange.” Therefore, capitalism is not just a system; it is the inevitable expression of human biology. It is the “consensus” of the species.
The Myth of Barter and the Primacy of Debt
Anthropologist David Graeber systematically dismantles this “consensus” argument in Debt: The First 5,000 Years. Standard economic textbooks (the “scripture” of capitalist realism) rely on a creation myth: “In the beginning, there was barter.” This narrative suggests that people swapped chickens for shoes, found it inefficient, and thus invented money.
Graeber’s research shows this is historically false:
Barter is Rare: Pure barter predominantly occurs between strangers or enemies who lack a social bond. It is not the foundational mode of human exchange.
Credit Came First: In tight-knit communities (which characterize most of human history), exchange was based on “virtual credit” or social obligation. “I owe you one” preceded the physical coin.
Markets are State Creations: Markets did not arise spontaneously from the bottom up; they were often imposed by states to provision armies. States paid soldiers in coin and demanded taxes in the same coin, forcing the peasantry into the market system.
These insights are devastating to the “inevitability” argument. If the market is a state project designed to facilitate military logistics and taxation, rather than a natural expression of human nature, then it is a political choice, not a biological destiny.
Gift Economies and “Everyday Communism”
Anthropology provides overwhelming evidence of economic systems that defy capitalist logic, proving that the “profit motive” is not universal.
Gift Economies: In societies such as the Trobriand Islanders (Kula Ring) or the Kwakiutl (Potlatch), status is gained by giving away wealth rather than accumulating it. These systems prioritize social density and reciprocity over material accumulation. The “gift” creates a bond of debt and gratitude that holds society together, whereas the “market transaction” dissolves the bond (once paid, we are strangers again).
The Commons: Elinor Ostrom’s Nobel Prize-winning work demonstrated that communities can successfully manage “common-pool resources” (forests, fisheries) through collective governance without resorting to private property or state control. This refutes the “Tragedy of the Commons,” another central myth of capitalist realism.
Everyday Communism: Graeber argues that all societies, even capitalist ones, rely on a baseline of “communism” (from each according to ability, to each according to need) to function. Families, friendships, and even internal corporate teams operate on cooperation rather than market exchange. “If you ask someone to pass the salt, they don’t ask for payment.” Capitalism is a thin veneer over a vast ocean of cooperative communism.
Polanyi and the “Double Movement”
Karl Polanyi’s The Great Transformation complements this by distinguishing between “embedded” and “disembedded” economies.
Embedded Economy: For most of history, economic life was submerged in social relationships. Exchange was governed by reciprocity, redistribution, and communal status.
Disembedded Economy: The 19th century saw a violent attempt to separate the economy from society, creating a “self-regulating market.” Polanyi argues this was inherently unstable and destructive to the human fabric, leading to the “Double Movement”—society inevitably pushing back through regulation and social protection to save itself from the market.
These findings confirm that the “free market” is not natural; it is a utopian project that requires constant state violence to maintain against the natural human tendency toward social protection.
The Cognitive Science of Economic Faith
Folk Economics and Hyperactive Agency Detection
Evolutionary psychology identifies a Hyperactive Agency Detection Device (HADD) in the human brain (although there is scant evidence, the idea is useful). We evolved to detect agents (predators, rivals) in our environment. When we encounter complex, unpredictable systems like the weather or the economy, we instinctively attribute agency to them.
The likelihood that you will perceive a strange noise as a ghost is dependent on whether you live in a culture where ghost beliefs are common. If your culture is full of mischievous pixies, you are likely to attribute unexpected noises to mischievous pixies. The inferences you make will be dependent on the beliefs you already hold. So yes, many of us have had the experience of hearing an unsettling noise and thinking “burglar!” or being in a spooky place, hearing an unexpected whistle of wind and thinking “GHOST!” not because we have a hyperactive agency detection devise, but because of the expectations we have been endowed with due to cultural learning.
So, why is this story interesting? Two main reasons, I think. Firstly, that HADD is so often invoked, means it is important that we as skeptics are aware of the shaky foundations on which it sits. Secondly, and most importantly to me, it illustrates both the biggest problems and biggest potential in evolutionary psychology and adjacent disciplines. A common criticism of evolutionary psychology is that those who work in the area often tell very nice, plausible stories about the human mind with ideas that seem very logical but are ultimately unfalsifiable. The story of HADD and the research around it is showing something quite different. Yes, the idea has taken hold because it is a nice, pleasingly logical, easy to follow story, but it did allow researchers who are currently still working in the field of human evolutionary behavioural sciences (including evolutionary psychology) to generate falsifiable hypothesis and conduct research investigating this very idea. The idea is probably wrong, HADD probably doesn’t exist, and now researchers are continuing the work of trying to figure out an explanation that better fits and better predicts human behaviour. Yes, even evolutionary psychology can be self-correcting. —The Skeptic Reason With Compassion
Pascal Boyer’s research on Folk Economics shows that laypeople intuitively treat the economy as a goal-oriented agent. We talk about what “The Market wants,” “The Market fears,” or “The Market decides.” This cognitive slip turns the abstract system of exchange into a “god-like” entity.
Moralization: We intuitively apply moral categories to economic events. Debt is seen as “sin” (moral failing), and wealth is seen as “virtue” (blessing). This makes austerity policies (punishing the debtor) feel intuitively “right,” even if they are economically disastrous.
Zero-Sum Bias: Humans often intuit trade as zero-sum (if you win, I lose), which fuels protectionism. However, capitalist realism exploits a different bias—the “fairness” bias—to argue that market outcomes are inherently just.
Commodity Fetishism as Cognitive Error
Marx’s theory of Commodity Fetishism aligns with this cognitive view. In capitalism, social relations between people (labor) are disguised as relations between things (prices/commodities). The commodity takes on a “phantom objectivity”; it seems to have value inherent in its physical body, just as a religious fetish is believed to house a spirit.
AI Overview (Gemini vetted by Moi)
Phantom objectivity
is a concept from Western Marxist philosophy, most prominently developed by Georg Lukács in his 1923 work History and Class Consciousness. It refers to the phenomenon where social relations, processes, and human labor appear to people as independent, objective, “thing-like” realities (reification) that govern them, rather than as products of their own social activity.
Core Aspects and Definition
Reification (Verdinglichung): The root of phantom objectivity is reification, which means “thing-ification”—taking human social relations and treating them as objective, natural, and unchangeable things.
The Illusion of Independence: Human actions (specifically labor and market transactions) create a, system that then appears to operate on its own, “phantom” laws. This conceals the underlying human-to-human relations.
The “Second Nature”: As commodification spreads under capitalism, these reified social relations form a “second nature” that seems as immutable as natural, physical laws.
Universalization: Lukács argues that in modern capitalism, this form of objectivity becomes the universal, dominant structure of society, affecting not just the economy but also the consciousness of individuals and the structure of law and bureaucracy.
Key Characteristics
Quantification: In a reified society, qualitative, human, and social characteristics are replaced by quantitative, measurable, and calculable facts.
Rationalization: Reification is linked to the extreme rationalization and fragmentation of work (e.g., Taylorism), where the worker becomes a mechanical part of a pre-existing system.
Contemplative Stance: Individuals adopt a passive, “contemplative” attitude toward this system, believing they can only navigate or predict these “natural” laws, rather than change them.
Alienation: Phantom objectivity is a high form of social alienation, where the product of labor confronts the worker as a foreign, autonomous power.
Context and Applications
Marxist Theory: It stems from Marx’s theory of commodity fetishism, where the value of a product appears as a natural property of the thing itself, rather than a social relation of labor.
Modern Technology/Systems: It is applied to explain how technologies, algorithms, and complex systems (like AI) are viewed as objective, neutral, and autonomous, obscuring the human, political, and economic decisions behind their development.
Bureaucracy: It describes how legal and bureaucratic systems appear as impersonal, rigid, and objective, even though they are human constructs.
In essence, “phantom objectivity” explains why social, economic, and political systems under capitalism appear as “naturally” fixed, preventing people from realizing they have the power to change them.
Modern research links this to Animism. Just as indigenous Animism attributes a soul to nature, capitalist Animism attributes a soul to capital. We treat money as if it is “productive” on its own (“make your money work for you”), obscuring the human labor that actually creates value. This fetishism makes the social construct of value appear as an objective natural fact, rendering it difficult to challenge.
The Affective Economy and the Willing Slave
The persistence of capitalism is not just cognitive; it is emotional. Why do we submit to this order? Why do we “love” our servitude?
Spinoza and the Capture of Desire
Frédéric Lordon, in Willing Slaves of Capital, turns to the philosophy of Baruch Spinoza to answer this. Spinoza rejected the mind-body dualism, arguing that desire (conatus) is the essence of human existence. We strive to persevere in being and to increase our power of acting.
Lordon argues that capitalism does not just coerce us; it captures our conatus.
Colinearization: The genius of neoliberalism is to align the employee’s desire with the “master-desire” of the employer/capital. We are not just paid to work; we are asked to be “passionate,” “engaged,” and “entrepreneurial.” The system provides “joyful affects” (status, consumption, achievement) that motivate participation.
Epithumogenesis: The system engineers our desires. We don’t just work for money; we work for identity. We learn to love the chains that bind us because they provide a sense of agency and meaning.
Conatus is a Latin term that means effort, drive, or tendency. The concept, fundamental to Spinoza’s philosophy, refers to the innate force of every being to persevere in existence and increase its power to act, being the human essence and the basis for the pursuit of freedom and well-being. This concept describes the vital drive for self-preservation, which in humans manifests as the awareness of this very force, moving us to seek what increases our capacity to exist and act, and to flee from what diminishes it.
The Affective Landscape of Capitalist Realism
Fisher’s “capitalist realism” is the result of this affective capture. It produces a Depressive Hedonia—a state where we pursue pleasure (hedonia) but are unable to find deep meaning, trapped in a depressive loop of consumption.
The system relies on a duality of affects:
Joyful Affects: Consumption, career success, the thrill of the “win” (Gamification of work).
Sad Affects: Fear of poverty, social exclusion, shame of debt (Schuld).
Lordon argues that the “Willing Slave” is created when the joyful effects of belonging to the institution outweigh the sad effects of subjection. However, this is a fragile equilibrium. As precarity rises, the “joyful” mask slips, revealing the “sad” coercion underneath (the threat of starvation/homelessness).
Spinoza’s Concept of Contingency vs. Determinism
Spinoza’s philosophy also offers a way out. While he argues that humans are determined by causes, he also advocates the Materialism of the Encounter (a concept developed by Althusser, drawing on Spinoza). History is not a linear necessity; it is a series of contingent encounters. The current order is a result of specific historical encounters (e.g., primitive accumulation, colonialism) that solidified into a structure.
This implies that new encounters can give rise to new structures. We are not condemned to the market by “Human Nature”; we are held there by a specific configuration of affects and institutions that can be reconfigured.
The Theodicy of the Market in the Anthropocene
The “God” of the Market faces its ultimate challenge not from atheists, but from the biological and physical reality of Earth with its living systems.
The Polycrisis as Theological Crisis
The current era is defined by the Polycrisis: the intersection of climate emergency, ecological collapse, and social instability. This represents a collision between the Imagined Order (infinite growth) and the Real Order (planetary boundaries).
In theological terms, this is the Problem of Evil. If the Market is wise and benevolent (allocating resources efficiently), why is it destroying the biosphere?
Capitalism offers a Theodicy (justification of God):
Externalities: The damage is just an “error” in pricing that can be fixed.
Creative Destruction: The destruction of the old (nature) is necessary for the creation of the new (capital).
Creative destruction, as formulated by Joseph Schumpeter, refers to the perennial process by which the modalities and outputs of production are transformed under capitalism, through the destruction of economic structures and the creation of new ones. In this view, capitalism is a violently evolutionary process, generating radical innovations that simultaneously advance society’s productive capacities and upend existing enterprises. While Schumpeter initially drew upon Marx in delineating the turbulent path of capitalist development generated by creative destruction, he departed from the latter author in emphasizing the positive material effects of this process over its self-destructive tendencies. —University of Santa Cruz
Adaptation: The market will “innovate” its way out of the crisis.
Techno-Salvationism and the Cargo Cult
Faced with the physical limits of the Earth, capitalist realism gives rise to a new theological variant: Techno-Salvationism. This belief holds that future technologies (geoengineering, fusion, AI) will miraculously solve the ecological crisis without requiring a change in the social order.
This is a millenarian cult. It requires “faith” in technologies that do not yet exist to justify continuing destructive behavior today. It functions as a Katechon (a restraining force) against political change. By promising that technology will save us, it delays the necessary structural adaptation.
Techno-Optimism as Idolatry: It worships the “tool” rather than the “system.” It assumes that the tool (technology) can override the system’s logic (infinite accumulation), when in fact the system directs the tool toward profit, not survival.
The “End of the World” vs. The End of Capitalism
We return to Fisher’s slogan: “It is easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism.” The rise of apocalyptic and dystopian fiction reflects this incapacity. We can imagine zombies, asteroids, and climate collapse (the end of the world), but we cannot imagine a society that operates on non-market principles.
This is the ultimate triumph of Capitalist Realism: it persuades us to accept the actual end of the world (via climate collapse, ecocide, the destruction of habitat, strategic nuclear war) rather than accept the end of the imagined world (capitalism).
The Contingency of the Encounter
Whether arguments about God’s existence applied to capitalism yield a definitive answer, capitalism functions as a comprehensive metaphysical system—a secular religion—that mimics the structure of theological belief.
1. The Argument from Design is Refuted by Complexity:
The market is not a divinely ordered cosmos; it is a complex, path-dependent evolutionary system. Its “order” is emergent, not designed, and it is rife with instability and inefficiency. There is no “Invisible Hand” ensuring the best of all possible worlds; there is only the blind selection of profit, often at the expense of survival.
2. Anthropology refutes the Argument from Consensus:
The “universality” of capitalism is a myth. Humans have thrived for millennia in diverse economic ontologies—gift economies, commons, and credit-based systems. The “profit motive” is a recent cultural invention, not a biological imperative.
3. The Argument from Inevitability is Refuted by Political Theology:
The sense of “inevitability” is a product of “Capitalist Realism”—an atmosphere of secular theology that suppresses the imagination. By exposing the theological roots of economic concepts (Providence, Theodicy, Eschatology), we reveal them as contingent beliefs rather than natural laws.
4. The Psychological Mechanism is Refuted by Critical Cognition:
We submit to the market not because it is natural, but because it captures our conatus (desire) and exploits our cognitive biases (agency detection). We are “willing slaves” only because our affective landscape has been engineered.
Final Thoughts
Capitalism is one of many possible sociopolitical outcomes. It is a historical contingency, sustained by a specific “imagined order” and a “secular theology.” The “Polycrisis” represents the moment where the “Real” invades the “Realism.” As the imagined order of endless growth crashes against the physical reality of the biosphere, the capacity to imagine alternatives—to “atheize” the market—becomes not just a philosophical exercise, but a survival imperative.
The “End of History” was a mirage. The future is not canceled; it is merely waiting for the collapse of the current theology to be born. The “materialism of the encounter” suggests that new encounters—between ecology, technology, and human desire—can generate new, non-capitalist forms of life. The market is not God; it is a tool that has become an idol, and idols can be broken.
***Will we exterminate Goliath?
Who is going to plant the corn?
The Hopi tribe of Arizona is famous for its deep spiritual connection to corn (“Corn is life”). There is a well-known philosophical concept—often shared by Hopi elders—that when society collapses or when people lose their way, the faithful will be the ones who remember how to plant.
“When the Great Spirit offered the tribes different gifts, the Hopi chose the planting stick and the short ear of corn. They chose the hard life of labor and faith. The question is not who will rule, but who will plant the corn when the rains do not come.”
“Only when the last tree has been cut down, the last fish been caught, and the last stream poisoned, will we realize we cannot eat money” — Often attributed to the Cree (or Osage)
“It is easy to be a warrior and fight. The harder question is: Who is going to stay home and plant the corn?”
The Structure of the Cosmos: Is there more?
The Architecture of the Real: Contemplating a Minimum Viable Metaphysics —Jim Rutt
The Metaphysical Necessity in a Post-Positivist Age
The intellectual trajectory of the 20th century was primarily defined by a concerted effort to eliminate metaphysics from serious inquiry. The logical positivists of the Vienna Circle, inspired by the rapid ascendance of empirical science, sought to demarcate meaningful statements solely as those verifiable through sensory experience or logical tautology. In this climate, metaphysics—the study of the fundamental nature of reality beyond the immediate physical—was relegated to the status of “needless bullshit,” a sentiment famously echoed in the misattributed quote often cited by systems thinker Jim Rutt: “When I hear the word metaphysics, I reach for my pistol.”
However, the 21st century finds itself in a “metacrisis,” a fragmentation of coherent worldviews precipitated by the very success and specialization of the sciences. We find ourselves with a proliferation of maps—quantum mechanics, evolutionary biology, cognitive science, sociology—but no underlying territory upon which to overlay them. Into this void steps the concept of a “Minimum Viable Metaphysics” (MVM), a framework proposed by Rutt that eschews the grand, rigid “palaces” of classical philosophy in favor of a pragmatic “scaffold.”
Let’s explore the technical foundations of Rutt’s assumptions, tracing their lineage through Effective Field Theory (EFT)in physics, Ontic Structural Realism (OSR) in the philosophy of science, Far-from-Equilibrium Thermodynamics(Prigogine), and Complexity Theory (Kauffman, Holland). It argues that MVM represents a sophisticated form of Naturalistic Realism that navigates the treacherous channel between the Scylla of naive empiricism and the Charybdis of radical skepticism. By fleshing out Rutt’s “tiny number of assumptions”—specifically the Reality Principle and the Asymmetry Principle—with rigorous definitions and historical context, we demonstrate how this scaffolding provides the necessary preconditions for intelligibility and agency in a complex universe.
The Distinction Between Palace and Scaffold
To understand the specific intervention MVM attempts to make, one must distinguish it from the metaphysical projects of the past. Historical metaphysics often engaged in “system-building,” constructing elaborate logical edifices that purported to explain the totality of existence from a set of a priori first principles. One might look to Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz’sMonadology, which posited a universe of windowless, synchronously interacting spiritual atoms, or to Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel’s Absolute Idealism, which posited the unfolding of the universe as the dialectical self-actualization of the Geist (Spirit).
Rutt criticizes these systems as “palaces”—rigid, ornate, and ultimately brittle. If a single fundamental premise is contradicted by empirical discovery (as Euclidean geometry was by General Relativity), the entire palace collapses. Furthermore, these systems often succumb to the “Great Substitution,” where one metaphysical vocabulary is simply swapped for another (e.g., Theology for Reason, Reason for Code) without altering the underlying dogmatic structure.
In contrast, MVM is proposed as scaffolding. Scaffolding is functional, modular, and temporary. It is not the building itself but the structure that allows the building (knowledge) to be constructed. It admits its own provisional nature. This aligns with the philosophical stance of Fallibilism, which holds that no belief (theory, view, thesis) can ever be rationally supported or justified conclusively. However, unlike radical skepticism, MVM asserts that we must make specific commitments to get any traction at all. As Rutt notes, “without a very tiny number of assumptions... we can’t get started”. These assumptions are derived not through deduction (logical entailment) or simple induction (pattern recognition), but through abduction—inference to the best explanation. We assume the external world exists not because we can prove it, but because it is the most parsimonious explanation for the coherence of our sensory inputs.
The Reality Principle: Anchoring Existence
The foundational axiom of MVM is the Reality Principle: the commitment to the claim that “The universe exists... as a domain that persists and resists.” While this assertion appears banal to the pragmatist, it is a contested battleground in the philosophy of science and epistemology. Establishing the independence of the external world requires defending against both radical skepticism (solipsism) and the instrumentalist interpretations of modern physics.
The Adversary: Last Thursdayism and the Omphalos Hypothesis
To rigorously define the Reality Principle, one must confront its logical negation. Rutt explicitly references Last Thursdayism as the archetype of a “functionally useless” but “logically irrefutable” hypothesis.
This concept traces its lineage to the Omphalos Hypothesis, articulated by the naturalist Philip Henry Gosse in his 1857 treatise Omphalos: An Attempt to Untie the Geological Knot. Gosse, struggling to reconcile the mounting geological evidence of an ancient Earth with the biblical narrative of a six-day creation, proposed that God created the world prochronically—that is, with the appearance of history. Just as Adam was created as a mature man with a navel (omphalos in Greek), which implies a birth he never experienced, the Earth was created with strata, fossils, and dendrochronological rings that implied a past it never endured.
Last Thursdayism is the secular reductio ad absurdum of Gosse’s theology. It posits that the universe was created last Thursday (or five minutes ago, as Bertrand Russell suggested), complete with false memories in our brains, light from distant stars in transit, and history books detailing events that never occurred.
The Epistemological Acid
The danger of Last Thursdayism is its unfalsifiability. There is no empirical experiment that can distinguish between a universe that is 13.8 billion years old and one created yesterday with a perfectly consistent false history. If the past is an illusion, the continuity of cause and effect is broken.
The Problem of Induction: Science relies on the assumption that the future will resemble the past (uniformitarianism). If the past is a fabrication, we have no dataset from which to induce laws.
Rutt’s Rebuttal: The Reality Principle does not “disprove” Last Thursdayism. Instead, it rejects it on pragmaticand abductive grounds. A universe that deceives its observers is a “universal acid” that dissolves the possibility of inquiry. To do science, we must axiomatically reject the deceptive creator (or the deceptive simulation). We commit to the universe as a “domain that persists and resists,” meaning it has an ontological weight independent of our perception of it.
Model-Dependent Realism vs. Scientific Realism
If we accept the universe exists, what is the nature of our knowledge of it? The Reality Principle must navigate the tension between Scientific Realism and Model-Dependent Realism.
Scientific Realism is the traditional view that the entities described by our best scientific theories—electrons, quarks, spacetime curvature—actually exist in the world, independent of our minds.
Model-Dependent Realism, a term coined by Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow in The Grand Design, offers a more nuanced, perhaps more skeptical, view. They argue:
“There is no picture-or theory-independent concept of reality. Instead, we will adopt a view that we will call model-dependent realism: the idea that a physical theory or world picture is a model... and a set of rules that connect the elements of the model to observations.”
In this framework, asking “Is an electron real?” is a category error. The meaningful question is, “Is the model of the electron useful?” If two models (e.g., General Relativity and a hypothetical quantum gravity theory) disagree in their ontology but agree in their predictions within a specific domain, both are “real” within their valid scopes.
Rutt’s MVM synthesizes these positions. It accepts the instrumentalism of models—acknowledging that our “scaffold” is not the building itself—but retains the ontological commitment of realism. The scaffold touches a real building; the map corresponds to a real territory. This synthesis finds its most rigorous philosophical expression in Ontic Structural Realism.
Ontic Structural Realism (OSR): The Metaphysics of Relations
The most robust philosophical partner for Rutt’s MVM is Ontic Structural Realism (OSR). Developed by philosophers such as James Ladyman, Don Ross, and Steven French, OSR was formulated to rescue scientific realism from the “pessimistic meta-induction”—the observation that the history of science is a graveyard of discarded theories (phlogiston, caloric, the luminiferous ether).
OSR posits a radical solution: Structure is what is real, not objects. In the transition from Newtonian gravity to General Relativity, the “object” of gravitational force disappeared, but the mathematical structure of the equations (e.g., the preservation of Poisson’s equation as a limiting case) was preserved.
Key Tenets of OSR:
Ontological Priority of Relations: The world is not composed of “things” (particles) with intrinsic properties that then interact. It is composed of relational structures (fields, entanglements). Particles are merely nodes in these structures.14 As Ladyman and Ross argue in “Every Thing Must Go,” “The world is not made of things, but of structure.”
Group Theory and Invariance: Physics defines entities by their invariance under transformation groups. An electron is not a tiny billiard ball; it is an entity defined by its invariance under the U(1) gauge symmetry of electromagnetism and the Poincaré group of spacetime.
Resolution of Quantum Paradoxes: OSR resolves the indistinguishability problem in quantum mechanics. If two electrons are swapped, the physical state does not change. This suggests they possess no “haecceity” (this-ness) or individual identity. OSR accepts this fully: there are no individuals, only the structural relations of the field.
Rutt’s assertion that “mathematics and logic don’t need the physical universe to exist... they operate in the realm of pure form and relation” hints at this structuralist view. The “Reality Principle” in MVM is thus best understood as: Reality is the persistence of structural relations (invariants) across time and interaction.
Divergence: The Freud/Rutt Distinction
It is critical to distinguish Rutt’s metaphysical “Reality Principle” from the term’s origin in psychoanalysis. Sigmund Freud introduced the Reality Principle (Realitätsprinzip) in 1911 to describe the regulatory mechanism of the Ego, which opposes the Pleasure Principle (Lustprinzip) of the Id.
Freud’s Usage: The Pleasure Principle seeks immediate gratification of instinctual drives. The Reality Principle defers gratification in light of the constraints of the external world. It is a psychological adaptation—a “reality-testing” function that allows the organism to survive by acknowledging the “Ananke” (Necessity) of the environment.
Rutt’s Usage: Rutt elevates this from a psychological function to an ontological commitment. For Freud, the “reality” was the social and physical constraint on the psyche. For Rutt, the “Reality Principle” is the assertion that those constraints are not hallucinations.
Synthesis: Interestingly, both usages converge on the notion of resistance. For Freud, reality is that which frustrates the wish. For Rutt (and French philosopher Maine de Biran), reality is that which “resists” our will (“persist and resist”). MVM asserts that this resistance is the hallmark of the Real.
The Asymmetry Principle: The Engine of Becoming
The second pillar of MVM is the Asymmetry Principle: “At or near the origin, the universe was not an exact uniformity. There were ripples... difference is the first condition of development.”
In physics, perfect symmetry is often synonymous with stasis or “death.” For the universe to evolve complexity—stars, chemistry, life—symmetries must be broken. This section details the physical mechanisms of asymmetry, linking cosmology, thermodynamics, and particle physics.
The Physics of Origins: Inflation and CMB Anisotropies
Rutt’s “ripples” are not metaphorical; they refer to the primordial density perturbations generated during Cosmic Inflation and visualized in the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB).
Cosmic Inflation is the theory that the universe underwent a period of exponential expansion in the first fraction of a second after the Big Bang. Proposed by Alan Guth, this theory solves the “Horizon Problem” (why the universe is the same temperature everywhere) and the “Flatness Problem.”
Crucially, Inflation provides the mechanism for the initial asymmetry:
Quantum Fluctuations: The “Inflaton” field, like all quantum fields, is subject to Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle. It fluctuates the vacuum energy.
Magnification: During Inflation, these microscopic quantum fluctuations are stretched faster than the speed of light, “freezing” them into the macroscopic fabric of spacetime.
The Imprint: When Inflation ends, these frozen fluctuations manifest as slight differences in the density of the quark-gluon plasma (1 part in 100,000). These are visible today as temperature anisotropies in the Cosmic Background Radiation (CMB).
Structure Formation: Gravity amplifies this asymmetry. Slightly denser regions attract more matter, becoming denser still. These “ripples” eventually collapsed to form the galaxies, stars, and planets we inhabit. Without this initial violation of uniformity, the universe would be a featureless, maximizing-entropy gas.
The Past Hypothesis and the Arrow of Time
The Asymmetry Principle is inextricably linked to the Second Law of Thermodynamics and the arrow of time. The Second Law states that entropy (disorder) tends to increase in a closed system. However, for entropy to increase today, it must have been lower yesterday. Tracing this logic back 13.8 billion years leads to the Past Hypothesis.
Coined by philosopher David Albert, the Past Hypothesis is the postulate that the universe began in a specific state of extremely low entropy.
The Gravitational Paradox
This presents a conceptual difficulty. The early universe was a hot, dense soup of particles—a state that usually corresponds to high entropy (thermal equilibrium). How can this be low entropy?
The Solution: In a system dominated by gravity, uniformity is unstable and thus represents low entropy. High entropy in a gravitating system corresponds to clumping (black holes). The fact that the matter was distributed smoothly (but not perfectly so) represents a state of immense potential energy (gravitational potential).
The “Winding” of the Universe: The Past Hypothesis acts as the boundary condition that “wound up” the universe. It is the ultimate source of all “useful work” (Gibbs Free Energy). Every time a star shines, a plant photosynthesizes, or a human thinks, they are exploiting the energy gradient established by the Past Hypothesis. Rutt’s MVM must assume this initial low-entropy state to explain why the universe is dynamic rather than static.
Symmetry Breaking and Mass
In particle physics, asymmetry is the origin of distinct forces and matter described by the Gauge Theory and Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking.
Gauge Symmetry: The Standard Model is defined by the symmetry group. These mathematical groups describe the invariances of the fundamental fields (Strong, Weak, Electromagnetic).
The Higgs Mechanism: In the very early universe, the electromagnetic and weak nuclear forces were unified(symmetric). At a certain energy threshold, the Higgs Field acquired a non-zero vacuum expectation value (it “turned on”), and “broke” the electroweak symmetry, separating the massless photon (light) from the massive W and Z bosons (weak force).
Implication: If this symmetry had not broken, electrons would be massless, atoms would not form, and chemistry would be impossible. The “Asymmetry Principle” thus operates at the level of fundamental laws as well as cosmological initial conditions.
The Scaffold of Intelligibility: Scale and Law
Rutt argues that MVM provides a “scaffold” for inquiry. In physics, the rigorous mathematical formulation of this scaffolding concept is Effective Field Theory (EFT). This framework explains how science can be successful (valid) without being complete (final).
Effective Field Theories (EFT): The Tower of Knowledge
For centuries, philosophers worried about the “problem of induction” or how we can know anything without knowing everything. If the laws of physics change at microscopic scales we haven’t probed yet, how can we trust our bridge engineering?
EFT provides the answer through the concept of Decoupling.
Definition: An EFT describes physical phenomena at a chosen length scale or energy scale, while ignoring the substructure at shorter distances.
The Cutoff: Every EFT has an energy “cutoff.” Below this energy, the theory works perfectly. Above it, new physics enters.
Example: Fermi’s theory of Beta decay treated the interaction as a point contact between particles. It worked perfectly at low energies. At higher energies (above the mass of the W boson), the “point” was revealed to be the exchange of a W boson. Fermi’s theory was an “effective” theory of the “fundamental” Electroweak theory.
The Tower of Theories:
Physics is organized as a hierarchy (or tower) of EFTs.
Scale
Degrees of Freedom
Human Scale
Classical Mechanics / Fluid Dynamics
Rigid bodies, Fluids
Atomic Scale
Quantum Mechanics / QED
Nuclei, Electrons
Sub-Nuclear
Standard Model (QCD)
Quarks, Gluons
Planck Scale
Quantum Gravity (String Theory?)
Strings? Spin Networks?
Philosophical Significance for MVM:
EFT validates Rutt’s “scaffolding” approach. We do not need the “Palace” of a Theory of Everything (Quantum Gravity) to have “viable” metaphysics for the mesoscale. We can have a Minimum Viable Metaphysics that operates effectively at the scale of human agency and social systems, while remaining agnostic about the “bottom turtle” (the Planck Scale).
The Planck Scale: The Basement of the Scaffold
The Planck Scale represents the theoretical limit of our current scaffold. Defined by the Planck constants, this is the scale where the smooth geometry of General Relativity and the quantum fluctuations of QFT collide.
At this scale:
Spacetime breakdown: Concepts like “distance” and “before/after” may cease to have meaning, replaced by a “quantum foam” or discrete network structure (e.g., Loop Quantum Gravity).
Implications for MVM: Rutt acknowledges that the “mesoscale” (where clocks tick and rulers measure) is an emergent domain. MVM commits to the mesoscale as an effective reality, even if the fundamental layer looks radically different.
Epistemology: Abduction and the “No Paradox” View
How do we reason within this scaffold? Rutt distinguishes three modes of thought:
Deduction: Logical entailment. Useful for formal systems, but it relies on axioms.
Induction: Pattern recognition. Inferring laws from repeated observations.
Abduction: Inference to the best explanation. Given the data and our background knowledge, what is the most likely hypothesis?
Rutt favors Abduction as the primary tool of MVM. We “abduct” that the external world exists because it explains the coherence of our experiences better than Solipsism.
Abductive reasoning is a form of logical inference that starts with an observation and seeks the simplest, most likely explanation, often called “inference to the best explanation”. It’s how we make educated guesses to solve problems with incomplete information, forming plausible hypotheses rather than guaranteed truths, like a detective piecing together clues or figuring out why a sandwich is half-eaten.
The “No Paradox” Stance:
Rutt asserts: “There are no paradoxes in the real world, but we certainly can have paradoxes in our formal systems.”
Zeno’s Paradox: An arrow never reaches the target in the formal system of infinite divisibility. In reality, it hits the target.
Quantum Paradoxes: Schrödinger’s Cat is often cited as a paradox. MVM would argue the paradox lies in the map, not the territory. A “realist” interpretation (like Pilot Wave, Many Worlds, or OSR) would resolve the paradox by refining the metaphysics.
This stance aligns with Naturalism: The universe is self-consistent. If our theory yields a contradiction, the theory is wrong, not the universe.
The Dynamics of Complexity: From Matter to Mind
Having established that the universe exists (Reality Principle) and how it evolves via entropy and symmetry breaking (Asymmetry Principle), MVM must explain the rise of complexity. How does a cooling universe of hydrogen produce Shakespeare? This requires integrating Complexity Science and Non-Equilibrium Thermodynamics.
Dissipative Structures: Order out of Chaos
Classical thermodynamics (equilibrium) predicts the heat death of the universe. However, local pockets of order (stars, life, cities) can arise if they are open systems. Nobel laureate Ilya Prigogine coined the term Dissipative Structures to describe these systems.
Definition: A system operating far from thermodynamic equilibrium that exchanges energy and matter with its environment.
Mechanism: By dissipating high-quality energy (e.g., sunlight) into low-quality heat, the system maintains a highly ordered internal structure.
Examples: A hurricane, a Bénard convection cell (hexagonal patterns in heated fluid), a living cell, a corporation.
Bifurcation: As energy flow increases, these systems can spontaneously break symmetry and jump to higher levels of complexity, a process Prigogine called “Order by Fluctuations.”
MVM incorporates this to explain how “ripples” (Asymmetry) turn into “agents.” Life is a dissipative structure that maintains itself against the Second Law by consuming the “Past Hypothesis.”
The Adjacent Possible: The Ontology of Innovation
The evolution of these structures is described by the concept of the Adjacent Possible, introduced by theoretical biologist Stuart Kauffman.
Definition: The Adjacent Possible consists of all those molecular, morphological, behavioral, or technological configurations that are one step away from the actual, but do not yet exist.
Chemistry: Given a set of molecules, the adjacent possible is the set of all new molecules that a single reaction can create.
The Dynamics of Expansion:
When the system actualizes a new state (e.g., synthesizing a new protein, inventing the transistor), it opens up a newhorizon of adjacent possibilities that did not exist before. The Adjacent Possible expands faster than the actual.
Non-Ergodicity: Kauffman argues that the universe is non-ergodic; it does not explore all possible states. The number of possible proteins of length 200 is vastly larger than the number of particles in the universe or nanoseconds since the Big Bang.
Metaphysical Implication: The universe is on a unique trajectory; history matters. We cannot predict the future because the present is constantly creating the space of possibilities, providing the metaphysical ground for Innovation and a form of Free Will—the ability to select which adjacent possibilities to actualize.
Complex Adaptive Systems (CAS)
The “agents” occupying the Adjacent Possible are modeled as Complex Adaptive Systems, a term popularized by John Holland at the Santa Fe Institute.
Rutt’s metaphysics is explicitly a metaphysics of CAS. It rejects the “Clockwork Universe” (Laplace’s Demon) in favor of an “Evolutionary Universe” where agents co-evolve with their fitness landscapes.
Emergence and Supervenience: The Layered World
The final structural component of MVM is the relationship between the scaffold layers. If physics is the basement, how does biology or sociology sit on top of it without collapsing into it?
Weak vs. Strong Emergence
Philosophers distinguish between two types of emergence:
Weak Emergence: The high-level pattern is unexpected but, in principle, deducible from the low-level rules if one had infinite computing power.
Example: The “Gliders” in Conway’s Game of Life, traffic jams.
Strong Emergence: The high-level pattern possesses downward causation or causal powers that are not reducible to the sum of the parts. The whole is more than the sum of the parts in an ontological sense.
Rutt’s MVM likely adopts a Pragmatic Strong Emergence. While a God-like computer might simulate the universe from quarks (Weak Emergence), for any embedded observer, the higher levels (biology, culture) have autonomous causal power. The “laws” of economics cannot be replaced by the Standard Model of particle physics.
Supervenience: Dependence Without Reduction
The technical philosophical term for this relationship is Supervenience.
Definition: Set A (mental properties) supervenes on Set B (physical properties) if there can be no difference in A without a difference in B.
Role in MVM: Supervenience allows MVM to be Physicalist (everything rests on the Reality Principle/Physics) without being Reductionist (claiming love is “nothing but” neurons). The biological supervenes on the chemical, which supervenes on the physical. Each layer is real and lawful within its own Effective Field Theory.
Major Transitions in Evolution
This layering is not static; it was built over time. MVM incorporates the framework of Major Transitions in Evolution(Maynard Smith & Szathmary) to describe how the scaffold was erected.
Key Transitions:
Replicating Molecules to Populations in Compartments (Cells)
Independent Replicators to Chromosomes
Prokaryotes to Eukaryotes (Symbiosis)
Asexual Clones to Sexual Populations
Unicellular to Multicellular
Solitary Individuals to Colonies (Eusociality)
Primate Societies to Human Societies (Language)
Each transition involves a new way of storing and transmitting information (DNA to Epigenetics to Neural to Language/Symbolic) and often involves entities losing independence to form a higher-level cooperative unit. MVM views humanity as currently undergoing a potential new transition—usually framed as “Game B”—to a metastable, high-complexity civilization that respects planetary boundaries.
Conclusion: The Minimum Viable Architecture
The power of Jim Rutt’s Minimum Viable Metaphysics lies in its integration of these diverse fields into a coherent operational system/framework for understanding Reality (Great Nature), enabling us to explore it. It is not a claim to Ultimate Truth, but a claim to Maximum Utility in the face of the Metacrisis.
By anchoring itself in the Reality Principle (supported by Ontic Structural Realism), it rejects the paralysis of postmodern skepticism. By adopting the Asymmetry Principle (supported by Inflation and the Past Hypothesis), it explains the arrow of time and the capacity for change. By utilizing the Scaffold of EFT, it allows for valid knowledge at the human scale without requiring a Theory of Everything. And by embracing Complexity (Dissipative Structures, CAS, the Adjacent Possible), it provides a framework for agency, innovation, and the open-ended evolution of the future.
In this view, MVM is the ground code for the operating system of a sentient species attempting to navigate a non-ergodic universe. It provides the confidence that the world is intelligible and the caution that it is unpredictable—a scaffold strong enough to stand on, yet light enough to dismantle and rebuild as we climb higher into the tower of complexity.
More views of what is, is
The Many-Worlds Interpretation (Multiverse)
Multiverse is a mainstream interpretation of quantum mechanics that is nonetheless incredibly strange. It states that wave-function collapse—where a particle chooses one state—never occurs.
Every time a quantum event has multiple possible outcomes, all of them happen. The universe splits into branching, parallel realities. In one timeline, you ate toast for breakfast; in another, you ate cereal. There are infinite versions of you living out every possible life.
Quantum Darwinism
This theory attempts to explain how the fuzzy, weird quantum world becomes the solid, objective world we see.
Quantum Darwinism suggests that quantum states compete with each other to“reproduce” their information into the environment. Only the fittest states (those that can create many copies of themselves in the environment) survive to become the reality we perceive. It’s natural selection applied to quantum physics.
The Zoo Hypothesis
A proposed solution to the Fermi Paradox: “If aliens exist, where are they? It suggests that advanced extraterrestrial civilizations exist and know about us, but they have agreed to strictly observe us without interfering, like zookeepers watching animals.
We might be in a galactic nature preserve or under quarantine until we reach a certain level of technological or ethical maturity.
The Galactic Quarantine The Zoo Hypothesis suggests we are being watched by aliens who refuse to interfere until we mature. It’s a humbling thought: we might be the galaxy’s problem child, trapped in a nursery until we stop breaking the furniture. But while we look to the stars for answers, we are being ground down by a very terrestrial engine.
The Machine of Words and Things.
Capitalism is a biophysical shredder. It is a system that turns “Great Nature” into products, fueled by status anxiety and endless competition. We comfort ourselves with Words—fantasies that we are Tony Stark, or that a magical technology will save us in the final act. We tell ourselves that today’s tragedies are just a preamble to greatness. But Biophysical Reality doesn’t care about our hero’s journey. It only cares about energy limits and ecological thresholds.
The Popper Principle: “We can let our theories die in our stead.”
“When I am contradicted it arouses my attention, not my wrath. I move towards the man who contradicts me: he is instructing me. The cause of truth ought to be common to us both.” —Michel de Montaigne, The Art of Conversation “De l'art de conferer”
The Cacophony of Survival
Why don’t we stop the machine? Because we are too busy surviving it. The noise of the market drowns out the signal of systemic change:
The hustle: “I need a clickbait title for my Trump economy script.”
The vanity: “You need more intensity minutes and cold showers to flaunt that temple.”
The desperation: “I’m running to catch the bus to my third job.”
The escape: “I’m going to be a Buddhist monk, and transcend the bull shit.”
From the gamer in a five-star hotel in Geneva to the person with an addiction looking for a squat, we are all too occupied by our specific role in the script to rewrite the play.
Understanding the Engine
To change something, we must understand it.
Capitalism is not a synonym for “prosperity,” “progress,” “freedom,” “democracy,” or “markets.” It is a specific mode of production based on private ownership and the commodification of human time, spirit, and everything we touch. It is entropic.
I have to say that I am not at all convinced that we will ever create a global society at our current scale capable of accomplishing anything truly good for living systems or posterity. We may simply be hitting the Great Filter—that theoretical barrier in the evolution of life that prevents civilizations from advancing to a Type I planetary society. We have mastered the atom and the genome, yet we lack the collective wisdom to use them for anything other than more sophisticated forms of tribal warfare and extraction.
Will We Make It?
The development of technical galactic civilizations is most often categorized by the Kardashev Scale, a framework that quantifies a civilization’s level of technological advancement based on its ability to harness energy. A Type I (Planetary) civilization has achieved mastery over the resources of its home world, controlling roughly $10^{16} watts of power—enough to manipulate global weather patterns, harness all solar insolation, and potentially mitigate planetary disasters. Type II (Stellar) represents an exponential leap to $10^{26} watts, requiring megastructures such as a Dyson Sphere to capture the total radiative output of a host star, rendering the civilization immune to extinction events within its solar system. The theoretical apex, Type III (Galactic), commands the energy of an entire galaxy ($10^{36} watts), likely utilizing Von Neumann probes—self-replicating spacecraft—to colonize every star system in the Milky Way within a few million years, a timeframe that is astronomically brief compared to the universe’s age.
The Fermi Paradox arises from the glaring contradiction between this theoretical timeline and our current observations: given that the galaxy is 10 billion years old, a Type III civilization should have already emerged and saturated the galaxy with its presence. The “Great Silence”—the total absence of radio signals, megastructures, or visiting probes—suggests the existence of a Great Filter, a probabilistic barrier that makes the transition from inanimate matter to a space-faring Type III civilization vanishingly rare. If the filter lies in our past (e.g., the extreme rarity of abiogenesis or eukaryotic life), humanity may be the first to reach this stage. However, if the filter lies ahead, it implies that technical civilizations invariably encounter a catastrophic threshold—such as nuclear annihilation, resource exhaustion, or unchecked artificial intelligence—that results in self-destruction before they can ascend the Kardashev ladder.
Alternative solutions to the paradox move beyond simple extinction events and propose sociological or tactical reasons for the silence. The Dark Forest hypothesis posits that the galaxy is a predatory environment where advanced civilizations actively conceal their energy signatures to avoid detection and preemptive destruction by rivals. Conversely, the Zoo Hypothesis (mentioned above) suggests that Type II or III civilizations exist but enforce a non-interference policy, treating Earth as a protected wilderness or a sociological experiment. These theories imply that the “silence” is not a sign of emptiness, but rather a deliberate camouflage adopted by apex civilizations that have survived the Great Filter by learning to remain quiet.
AI Overview:
Energy requirements and engineering capabilities for the three primary stages of the Kardashev Scale.
Type I: The Planetary Civilization
This stage represents the complete mastery of a home planet's resources. A Type I civilization has transitioned from relying on dead fossil fuels to managing the total energy sum of its parent star that reaches the planet's surface.
Energy Output: Approximately $10^{16} to $10^{17} Watts.
Primary Engineering Feats:
Fusion Mastery: The ability to sustain controlled nuclear fusion on a global scale, effectively creating “miniature stars” on the planet to supplement solar collection.
Planetary Climate Control: Technologies capable of manipulating the atmosphere and hydrosphere to avert ice ages, neutralize hurricanes, and optimize agriculture globally.
Orbital Infrastructure: Construction of “Space Elevators” (tethers anchored to the equator extending to geostationary orbit) to reduce the cost of moving materials into space near zero, facilitating massive orbital construction.
Antimatter Production: Capability to produce antimatter in kilogram quantities for high-density energy storage and propulsion.
Type II: The Stellar Civilization
The transition to Type II is the most dramatic leap in the scale, requiring a civilization to leave its home planet and disassemble other planets to encompass its host star. This civilization is immune to extinction from natural causes.
Energy Output: Approximately $10^{26} Watts (The total luminosity of a G-type main-sequence star like the Sun).
Primary Engineering Feats:
Dyson Swarms: Rather than a rigid shell (which is mechanically unstable), a Type II civilization would construct a dense swarm of billions of solar satellites orbiting the star, capturing nearly 100% of its radiative output.
Star Lifting: Using magnetic fields to “mine” the star itself, lifting elementary particles like hydrogen and helium off the stellar surface to extend the star’s lifespan or to harvest matter for construction.
Stellar Engines: The construction of megastructures (such as a Shkadov Thruster) that use the star’s own radiation pressure to move the entire solar system through the galaxy, allowing the civilization to dodge supernovae or steer toward resource-rich clusters.
Matrioshka Brains: A nested set of Dyson shells that use the star’s energy to power a computer system of immense computational capacity, using the waste heat of inner shells to power outer shells.
Type III: The Galactic Civilization
A Type III civilization has colonized its entire host galaxy. To an outside observer, such a galaxy might appear unusually dim in the visible spectrum but bright in the infrared, due to the waste heat of pervasive industry.
Energy Output: Approximately $10^{36} to $10^{37} Watts (The total luminosity of the Milky Way).
Primary Engineering Feats:
Black Hole Farming: Utilizing the Penrose Process to extract rotational energy from the ergosphere of supermassive black holes at the galactic center—the most efficient energy source known to physics.
Faster-Than-Light (FTL) Travel: While theoretically speculative, managing a galactic empire likely requires the manipulation of spacetime metrics (Warp Drives) or the stabilization of Einstein-Rosen bridges (Wormholes) to overcome the light-speed barrier.
Galactic Terraforming: The systematic restructuring of stellar orbits and the artificial induction of star formation to ensure a steady supply of energy for billions of years.
Planck Energy Manipulation: Mastery over physics at the Planck scale (10^{19} GeV), potentially allowing for the manipulation of the fabric of reality, creating “pocket universes” or altering physical constants within localized regions.
***I don’t think we will ever get anywhere near Type I. Natural limits abound. However, imagination, curiosity, and our ability to create models and scenarios seem limitless.
To accomplish something suitable for the future of living systems, like stabilizing the biosphere, eliminating unnecessary suffering, or becoming a peaceful global community full of unique, thriving cultures, we’d need a level of international coordination that seems psychosocially impossible for us to achieve. At large population densities, we are, at our core, primates evolved for local status games, not planetary stewardship. We are brilliant at inventing tools to amplify our power, but incompetent at inventing institutions to restrain our greed. In the cosmic timescale, humanity might not be a protagonist, but merely a flash in the pan—a brief, chaotic explosion of plastic and radio waves that burns itself out before it ever leaves the cradle.
Will we ever cohere into a global society capable of achieving anything truly enduring? The ‘Civilization’ project requires a shared operating system, but we are currently running incompatible software. We are splintering into a thousand different realities, each walled off by its own algorithms, alternative facts, and tribal gods without a grounded culture. We cannot agree on the temperature of the planet, the definition of a woman, or the history of our own nations.
How can we possibly tackle the Metacrisis when we cannot even agree on the nature of the problem? We are too busy paying the rent, chasing the Ferrari, or managing our brand to look up. The noise of our daily survival—the cacophony of billions of people hustling within a rigged game—drowns out the signal of our potential. We are building a Tower of Babel out of fiber optics, and instead of reaching the heavens, we are simply shouting past each other into the void.
We are certainly capable of grand accomplishments—we can build data centers, wage wars, and manufacture trillions of widgets—but are these important? We channel our greatest minds into optimizing ad-click rates, designing high-frequency trading algorithms, and engineering addictive dopamine loops for social media.
We have mistaken complexity for progress (whatever you mean by progress). We assume that because we have smartphones, we are advancing. But a society that consumes its own life-support system to produce digital distractions is not advanced; it is suicidal. We seem destined to remain an adolescent species, obsessed with toys and dominance, forever postponing the hard, mature work of stewardship and equity. We are not building a cathedral for the ages; we are building a casino for the weekend, and we are seemingly content to play until the house collapses.
The Totality of the Market
Capitalism is frequently misunderstood as merely a synonym for the market or trade activities that have existed for millennia across diverse civilizations. However, a rigorous excavation of political economy reveals that capitalism is not simply the exchange of goods but a specific, historically contingent mode of production characterized by the commodification of labor, the private ownership of the means of production, and, crucially, the imperative of endless capital accumulation requiring constant growth.
Capitalism transforms the world by exploiting workers who make goods and services for mainly exploited workers to buy and consume. It’s entropic as hell.
He worked on the line AND bought a Model T!
If we want to understand capitalism, it helps to have read outside our core ideological belief system.
My goal isn’t to sell you an ideology, but to offer another helpful lens for imagining a political economy that doesn’t kill living systems.
The video below is from a living, breathing Communist living in Vietnam. He’s really not that scary, and his treatment of his subject is perfectly reasonable.
People do stuff, call it what you will.
I’m not a communist, whatever one means by that; the kinds of social systems I dream of are very different, more obscure, and will most probably never manifest.
The Dialectics of Becoming: Materialism, Ecology, and the Global Fracture
The Ontology of Matter in Motion
The Inversion of Hegel
To understand the ontology of dialectical materialism, one must first confront the intellectual rupture that birthed it. The concept of “dialectics” was refined by G.W.F. Hegel, who viewed history as the unfolding of the “Absolute Spirit” (Idea) through a process of contradiction and resolution. For Hegel, the material world was a shadow cast by the development of the Spirit. History moved because ideas clashed.
Marx and Engels inverted this. In their view, “matter precedes thought.” The material world—the observable, tangible reality of nature and society—exists independently of human consciousness. Ideas, philosophies, and religions are not the drivers of history but the “superstructural” reflections of the material “base”—specifically, the mode of production (how humans organize to survive). This materialism is not “mechanical” (viewing the world as a clockwork machine of fixed parts) but “dialectical” (viewing the world as a complex of processes). As Engels famously noted in Dialectics of Nature, the world consists not of “ready-made things” but of “processes” in which things come into being and pass away.
This inversion has profound cultural implications. A dialectical materialist does not look for the “soul” of a nation to explain its politics; they look at the land tenure laws, the factory conditions, and the trade deficits. They understand that “social being determines consciousness.” This grounding in the “concrete” creates an ontology that is inherently hostile to mysticism yet deeply sensitive to the “hidden” connections between seemingly disparate phenomena—between the price of tea in London and the starvation of a peasant in India.
The Three Laws of Dialectics as Lived Experience
While often reduced to dogma in Soviet textbooks, the “Three Laws of Dialectics” formalized by Engels offer a sophisticated phenomenology of change. These laws describe how a dialectical worldview perceives time, crisis, and progress.
The Law of the Unity and Conflict of Opposites
This is the core of dialectics: the recognition that everything contains its own negation. Contradiction is not an error (as in formal logic) but the engine of life.
The refusal of binary moralities. A dialectical thinker sees “order” and “chaos” not as separate states but as mutually constitutive forces. Capitalism is recognized as a force that unleashed unprecedented productive capacity (thesis) while simultaneously creating unprecedented misery and ecological destruction (antithesis). The system is not “broken” when it generates poverty; it is functioning according to its internal contradictions.
In lived experience, this manifests as an awareness of the “dark side” of every progress. It is the understanding that the “peace” of the suburbs is sustained by the “violence” of the extraction zones.
The Law of the Transformation of Quantity into Quality
Gradual changes accumulate unnoticed until a threshold is reached, causing a sudden, qualitative leap. Water heats in degrees (quantitatively) until 100°C, when it suddenly becomes steam (qualitatively).
A sensitivity to “tipping points” and a rejection of linear gradualism. This law explains why societies can endure oppression for decades (accumulation) and then explode in revolution overnight (leap). It creates a worldview that expects rupture rather than continuity. The sensation of “waiting for the drop.” It is visible in the cultural anxiety of late capitalism—the feeling that debt, carbon, and tension are accumulating and that a phase shift is inevitable.
The Law of the Negation of the Negation
Development moves in spirals, not circles. The plant negates a seed; the new seed negates the plant. The new seed is not the original seed; it is the original seed sublated (preserved and raised) into a higher form.
Progress is neither a straight line nor a return to the past. It is a “progressive return.” In the Marxist schema, socialism is the negation of capitalist private property, returning humanity to the communal ownership of “primitive communism” on a higher technological basis.
The concept of “Sublation” (Aufhebung) is evident in cultural movements that seek to retrieve lost indigenous or pre-capitalist wisdom (a connection to the land) and fuse it with modern technological capacity, rather than simply “going back” to the past.
The Ontology of Becoming vs. Being
The most fundamental distinction of this worldview is the rejection of static “Being” in favor of “Becoming.” As noted in recent scholarship on dialectical ontology, “being is understood as a constant ‘coming-to-be and ceasing-to-be.”
The Metaphysical View: A tree is a distinct object, separate from the soil and the air. It is.
The Dialectical View: A tree is a process—a temporary stabilization of solar energy, soil nutrients, and carbon. It is a “metabolism.” It is constantly exchanging matter with its environment.
This ontology threatens the Western desire for categorization and control. If things are constantly becoming other than what they are, they cannot be fully mastered, owned, or defined by static laws. This friction is central to the “fear” discussed later: accepting dialectics is accepting the transience of all established orders, including one’s own identity and privileges.
Epistemology: Practice, Truth, and the Rejection of Positivism
The Critique of Positivism
The dominant epistemology of the West, particularly in the Anglosphere, is positivism (or empiricism). This view holds that science is the accumulation of neutral facts observed by a detached subject. It assumes that “facts” exist independently of the observer’s social position or history.
Dialectical materialism rejects this as naive. It argues that there is no “view from nowhere.” All knowledge is situated. “Social being determines consciousness.” A classic example is the concept of “mental health.” A positivist sees depression as a chemical imbalance (a biological fact). A dialectical materialist sees the chemical imbalance, but also considers the “Capitalist Realism” that produces the stress, the alienation of labor that strips life of meaning, and the privatization of community that isolates the individual. To treat the “fact” of depression without the “relation” of society is to succumb to an illusion.
The Society of the Spectacle is a 1967 work of philosophy and Marxist critical theory by Guy Debord where he develops and presents the concept of the Spectacle. The book is considered a seminal text for the Situationist movement. Debord published a follow-up book Comments on the Society of the Spectacle in 1988.
Guy Debord
Constant (Constant A. Nieuwenhuys)
[no title] (1975–6)
Praxis as the Criterion of Truth
How do we know what is true? For the dialectical materialist, truth is not found in contemplation but in practice (praxis). As Mao Zedong wrote in On Practice, “If you want to know the taste of a pear, you must change the pear by eating it yourself.”
This means that we only truly understand the world by trying to change it. The scientist understands the atom by smashing it; the revolutionary understands society by organizing against it. This creates an epistemology of engagement.
Cultural Sign: A deep suspicion of “armchair theory” or “neutral” journalism. In a dialectical worldview, neutrality is impossible; to claim neutrality is usually to side with the status quo. “The philosophers have only interpreted the world... the point is to change it” (Marx’s 11th Thesis on Feuerbach).
The Epistemic Fallacy and Analytical Marxism
In the late 20th century, a group of Western philosophers known as “Analytical Marxists” (G.A. Cohen, John Roemer) attempted to “save” Marxism by stripping it of its dialectical elements. They argued that dialectics was “obscurantist,” “yoga,” or “bullshit,” and sought to reconstruct Marxism using formal logic and rational choice theory.
This effort failed to gain traction outside the academy because it removed the very thing that made Marxism potent: the ability to grasp the fluid, contradictory nature of reality. By forcing Marxism into the static boxes of formal logic (where A cannot be non-A), they rendered it incapable of explaining a world where capitalism is both a force of growth and a force of destruction. This rejection of dialectics in the West was not just an intellectual choice; it was an act of “epistemic cleansing” driven by the Cold War pressure to conform to “scientific” (read: positivist) standards.
The Western Fear: Ontological Security and the Dread of the Real
Why are white European cultures so afraid of engaging with this perspective? The evidence suggests this fear is not merely intellectual but psychological and existential, rooted in the specific formation of the Western subject.
Ontological Security and the Illusion of Permanence
Sociologists Anthony Giddens and Jennifer Mitzen define “ontological security” as the need for a stable sense of self and a reliable world order to function. The modern Western subject—the “white European” ego—is constructed around the Cartesian ideal of the autonomous, rational individual who stands outside nature and controls it.
Dialectical materialism terrifies this subject because it dissolves this autonomy. It says: “You are not an island. You are a nexus of social relations. Your wealth is the product of someone else’s poverty. Your stability is a temporary phase in a process of decay.”
The Fear of Flux: To accept dialectics is to accept that “Whiteness,” “The West,” and “Capitalism” are historical categories that arose and will inevitably pass away. For a culture built on the accumulation of permanent assets (property, legacy), the idea of “universal transience” is deeply destabilizing. The rejection of dialectics is a defense mechanism to maintain the illusion that the current order is eternal.
Psychoanalysis: The Fear of the Real (Žižek)
Slavoj Žižek utilizes Lacanian psychoanalysis to explain this fear. He argues that Western ideology functions as a screen to protect us from the “Real”—the traumatic, chaotic void that underlies our symbolic reality.
The Dialectic as the Real: Capitalist ideology tells us a story of endless growth and technological progress. Dialectical materialism tears this screen down. It points to the Real of the metabolic rift (climate collapse), the Realof the sweatshop (labor exploitation). The “fear” is the fear of the Real bursting through the bubble of ideology. It is the fear that the supermarket shelves might actually be empty, that the “externalities” of capitalism are, in fact, internal contradictions coming home to roost.
Adorno and Horkheimer: The Fear of Nature
In Dialectic of Enlightenment, Adorno and Horkheimer trace this fear back to the origins of Western civilization. They argue that the Enlightenment was driven by the fear of nature’s overwhelming power. To conquer this fear, Western man sought to dominate nature through reason and technology.
Mimesis vs. Domination: Pre-modern cultures practiced mimesis—mimicking nature to relate to it. The Enlightenment crushed mimesis. But by repressing nature, Western civilization made itself rigid and paranoid. The fear of understanding dialectics is the fear of the “Return of the Repressed.” It is the fear that if we stop dominating nature (and by extension, the Global South), we will be swallowed by it. Dialectics, which demands a metabolic partnership with nature rather than domination, feels like a surrender to the chaotic forces the West has spent centuries trying to cage.
Author
Capitalist Realism as a Defense Mechanism
Mark Fisher’s concept of “Capitalist Realism”—the widespread belief that there is no alternative to capitalism—can be seen as the ultimate victory of the anti-dialectical mind. It is a “static” ontology where the future has been cancelled. The West prefers the depression of a cancelled future to the anxiety of a revolutionary one. Understanding dialectics means accepting that an alternative is possible, which entails the terrifying responsibility of bringing it about. The fear is thus a fear of freedom.
Dialectics in the Global South: Adaptation and Resistance
If the West fears dialectics, the Global South has historically embraced it. This is not due to a “cultural” affinity for theory, but because of the material reality of colonialism. In the colonies, the contradictions of capitalism were never hidden behind a welfare state or consumer abundance. They were naked: the gun, the germ, the technology, the story or institution (religion), the whip, the mine.
The Materiality of Colonial Contradiction
For the colonized subject, the “Unity of Opposites” is a daily experience. The “civilizing mission” (Thesis) is experienced as “barbaric exploitation” (Antithesis). The dialectic is not a theory to be learned in a classroom; it is the logic of survival. As Amilcar Cabral noted, for the African revolutionary, “culture is a weapon”—a tool to negate the negation of colonial rule.
Mao Zedong: The Particularity of Contradiction
Mao Zedong’s intervention was crucial for the Global South because he rejected the Eurocentric “Universalism” of Soviet dogma. In On Contradiction, he emphasized the Particularity of Contradiction.
The Principal Contradiction: Mao argued that in every process, one contradiction is dominant. In Europe, it might be Labor vs. Capital. But in China (and, by extension, Vietnam, Peru, and Tanzania), the principal contradiction was often Imperialism vs. The Nation, or Peasant vs. Feudal Lord.
Significance: This allowed Global South movements to adapt Marxism to their own realities. They didn’t have to wait for “capitalism to develop” (as European Marxists claimed). They could identify their principal contradiction and act on it. This is why dialectics flourished in the rice paddies of Asia and the mountains of Latin America while it withered in the seminar rooms of Europe.
José Carlos Mariátegui: Indigenous Dialectics
In Peru, José Carlos Mariátegui provided one of the most brilliant applications of dialectical materialism to the Global South. In Seven Interpretive Essays on Peruvian Reality, he tackled the “Problem of the Indian.”
The Land as Base: Mariátegui argued that the “Indian Problem” was not racial, educational, or moral. It was economic. It was the problem of the Gamonal (the feudal landlord). Without resolving the land question, no “cultural” uplift was possible.
The Incan Synthesis: Crucially, Mariátegui saw the Incan ayllu (communal village) not as a backward relic, but as the material foundation for a modern Peruvian socialism. He argued for a dialectical synthesis of “Incan Communism” and “Modern Technology.” He famously stated, “Marxism is not a tracing paper; it is a heroic creation.” This represents the “Negation of the Negation” returning to the communal spirit of the Inca, but on a higher, modern level.
Amilcar Cabral: Class Suicide and the Weapon of Theory
Amilcar Cabral, leading the PAIGC in Guinea-Bissau, used dialectics to analyze the colony’s class structure. He identified a unique contradiction: the petite bourgeoisie (civil servants, intellectuals) were the only ones with the technical skills to run a state, but their class interests aligned with those of the colonizer.
The Solution: For the revolution to succeed, this class had to commit “Class Suicide.” They had to renounce their own class interests and present themselves as workers for the people. This is a profound ethical application of the dialectical law of negation. Cabral’s theory was rooted in the soil; he was an agronomist who understood that you cannot force a crop to grow where the soil does not support it. Politics, like agriculture, must obey the laws of the specific material reality.
Ecology: The Metabolic Rift and the Earth’s Dialectic
So what about Dialectical Materialism’s relation to “natural systems”? This is perhaps the most urgent domain of dialectical inquiry today. Classical bourgeois economics treats nature as an “externality”—a free gift to be exploited. Dialectical materialism views nature as the inorganic body of humanity.
The Metabolic Rift (Stoffwechsel)
Karl Marx was deeply concerned with the soil chemistry of 19th-century agriculture. He observed that capitalist urbanization created a “rift” in the metabolic interaction between man and earth. Nutrients were extracted from the countryside soil, shipped to cities as food, and then discharged into rivers as waste, causing pollution. The nutrients never returned to the soil.
The Rift Today: John Bellamy Foster and the “Metabolic Rift” school argue that this concept explains the planetary crisis. The “Rift” has expanded from the soil cycle to the carbon cycle (climate change) and the nitrogen cycle. Capitalism acts as a “robbery system,” stealing from the earth’s (living systems) future to fuel the accumulation of the present.
Jason W. Moore and World-Ecology
Jason W. Moore pushes the dialectic further. He argues that we should not view “Society” and “Nature” as separate entities interacting with one another (a Cartesian dualism). Instead, he proposes World-Ecology. Capitalism is not just a specialized economic operation; it is a way of organizing nature.
Cheap Nature: Moore argues that capitalism functions by appropriating “The Four Cheaps”: Labor, Food, Energy, and Raw Materials. The crisis of the 21st century is that nature is no longer cheap. The “easy” oil is gone; the “free” carbon sinks are full. The dialectic of World-Ecology reveals that the “Fear of Nature” in the West is the fear of the end of the “Cheap Nature” regime.
The Red Deal: Indigenous Dialectics
The Red Deal, a manifesto by The Red Nation, represents a synthesis of Indigenous wisdom and dialectical materialist critique. It argues that climate change is the direct result of colonial relations—the severing of the kinship bonds between humans and the non-human world.
Land Back as Ecology: The Red Deal argues that “Land Back”—the return of land to Indigenous jurisdiction—is the most effective climate policy. This is not just a moral claim but a materialist one: Indigenous land management (the negation of capitalist extraction) has empirically proven to sustain biodiversity. The “cultural sign” here is the refusal to separate “Social Justice” from “Ecological Survival.” They are one dialectical struggle.
The Phenomenology of Climate Grief
In the Anthropocene, the lived experience of the dialectic is “Climate Grief” or “Solastalgia.” Western psychology often pathologizes this as “depression” (an individual error). A dialectical view sees it as a healthy, rational response to the destruction of one’s “inorganic body” (the earth).
Grief as Praxis: Grief is the recognition of connection. We only grieve what we are part of. Honoring this grief is a dialectical act—it turns the “negative” emotion into a “positive” mobilization for defense. It is the “negation of the negation” played out in the human heart.
Human Limits and Capacities: The Promethean Debate
H. sapiens has natural limits and capacities. Within Marxism, there is a fierce debate between “Prometheanism” and “Eco-Socialism.”
The Promethean Charge
Critics (and some supporters, such as the Accelerationists) view Marx as a “Promethean”—someone who believed humans should totally dominate nature through technology. Accelerationists argue we should “accelerate” capitalism’s technological tendencies to achieve a post-work utopia of abundance.
The Eco-Socialist Rebuttal
Thinkers like Kohei Saito and John Bellamy Foster argue that the “mature” Marx abandoned Prometheanism. He recognized the “insuperable limits” of the earth.
Dialectical Limits: A dialectical view of human capacity is not that we are limitless, but that the recognition of necessity defines our freedom. We are free to create, but only within the metabolic limits of the biosphere. The attempt to breach these limits (capitalism) leads not to freedom but to catastrophe (unfreedom). True capacity is the ability to regulate the metabolism rationally.
Degrowth vs. Accelerationism
This debate represents a dialectical split in the contemporary Left:
Thesis (Accelerationism): Technology will save us; push through the limits.
Antithesis (Degrowth): Technology is the problem; retreat within the limits.
Synthesis (Eco-Leninism): As Andreas Malm proposed, we need a state strong enough to dismantle fossil capital (degrowth of the bad) while accelerating green technology (growth of the good). This requires a “War Communism” for the climate—a dialectical strategy of emergency.
Cultural Signs and Aesthetics: Seeing Dialectically
How does a dialectical worldview manifest in art and culture?
Ways of Seeing (John Berger)
John Berger’s seminal work, Ways of Seeing, teaches viewers to look dialectically. When looking at a Renaissance oil painting, Berger asks us not to focus on the “genius” of the artist, but on the property relations depicted. Oil painting was a medium that celebrated private property—it made objects look possessable.
The Double Vision: A dialectical gaze sees the object and the social relation behind it simultaneously. It sees the landscape painting and the landowner who paid for it. It demystifies the “spiritual” aura of art, revealing its material base.
Brechtian Theatre: The Alienation Effect
Bertolt Brecht developed “Epic Theatre” to teach dialectics. He rejected the Aristotelian theatre of “immersion,” in which the audience loses itself in the story. He wanted the audience to remain awake and critical.
Verfremdungseffekt (Alienation Effect): Brecht used techniques (placards, lighting, breaking the fourth wall) to “make the familiar strange.” He wanted to show that “human nature” is not fixed. By alienating the action, the audience sees that the tragedy on stage is not “fate”—it is a result of specific, changeable social conditions. This is the aesthetic of possibility.
***I played Galy Gay in Man is Man at the Black Box theatre in Seattle long ago.
Metamodernism: The New Oscillation
Postmodernism was a culture of cynicism and irony (the End of History). Metamodernism is emerging as a new structure of feeling that “oscillates” between modern sincerity (hope) and postmodern irony (skepticism).
Dialectical Emotion: Metamodernism is a “pragmatic idealism.” It knows the world is broken (cynicism), but acts as if it can be saved (sincerity). This oscillation is a dialectical movement—holding two contradictory states in tension to create a new forward momentum.
The Necessity of the Negative
The “fear” of dialectical materialism in recent “white” (metaphorically) European culture is the fear of the negative. It is the fear of admitting that the current order contains the seeds of its own destruction. It is the fear of the “Other” (nature, the Global South, a multi-polar world order) speaking back/out.
But as we have shown, the dialectical worldview is not a doctrine of destruction. It is an ontology of hope. By recognizing that nothing is static, it affirms that no oppression is eternal. Recognizing the metabolic rift offers the only scientific path to repairing our relationship with the Earth/GAIA (living systems). By embracing the “Negation of the Negation,” we can envision a future that is not a return to the past but a leap into a new, higher form of human existence.
For the Global South (colonized cultures), for the Indigenous land defender, and for the climate-grieving youth, dialectical materialism is not a dusty 19th-century philosophy. It is the living grammar of their struggle. It is the understanding that while the “arc of the moral universe” does not bend toward justice on its own, it can be bent by the forceful, conscious application of human praxis.
Capitalism is a system in which the economic sphere is disembedded from the social, eventually subsuming the social entirely—a phenomenon that critical theorists describe as the economization of all aspects of life.
The allure of capitalism as an ideology lies in its remarkable capacity to present itself as a natural law rather than a constructed system. By coding social relations into legal rights and monetary values, it renders the political invisible, transforming power struggles into technocratic questions of efficiency. We must explore the capitalist system, moving beyond surface-level definitions to examine the code of capital that sustains it, the psychological mechanisms that ensure its hegemony, and the structural incentives that drive ecological and civilizational collapse.
Let’s analyze the legal modules identified by Katharina Pistor that transform simple assets into wealth-generating capital, the psychological conditioning described by Mark Fisher’sCapitalist Realism, and the historical trajectory of societal collapse outlined in Luke Kemp’s Goliath’s Curse. We will also interrogate why alternative systems—from the market socialism of the East to the democratic confederalism of Rojava—have failed to displace the capitalist orthodoxy in the West, exploring the role of anti-communist purges, structural barriers, and the deep-seated ideological capture of Western culture.
A core understanding: The Capital Code.
***Reading is essential.
Infotainment Debate Break: White Men Under Threat!
“I will NOT apologize for things people did in the past to people who are dead to make people who are living feel better, and you CAN’T make me!”
“I was an Empire baby who had the terrible misfortune of having been born after the Empire had already been lost. Have you no compassion, Sir!?”
But First—WAR: Good God, You All
***I’ll have to do another 100 pages on this topic. There are libraries of expert content on the subject, but we can always apply the perspectives listed at the top of this piece to deepen our understanding.
The Iron Lung of Empire: The War Economy
To discuss the modern economy without centering the War Machine is to describe a slaughterhouse without mentioning the knife. The Military-Industrial Complex (MIC) is not merely a sector of the US economy; it is the operating system of global, financialized capitalism. It is the hidden circulatory system that keeps the “free market” alive. No politician, no retirement fund, and no citizen is isolated from its reach. From the GPS on your phone to the jet engine on your holiday flight, the material comforts of the West are the civilian byproducts of a system designed to kill.
War is a Racket, as General Smedley Butler famously declared in 1935, but today it is much more than a racket—it is the structural pillar of Western solvency. The United States does not have a “defense budget”; it has a state-subsidized industrial policy that launders public tax dollars into private corporate profits (Raytheon, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, to name a tiny fraction), which are then recycled into political campaigns to ensure the forever war never ends is the ultimate “circular trade,” enforced not by market logic, but by the jackboot.
The Primary Omnicidal Heat Engine
We must strip away the patriotism and view the MIC through the lens of thermodynamics. The US Department of Defense is the world’s single largest institutional consumer of petroleum and its largest polluter. It is the primary omnicidal heat engine of our civilization. It burns the planet to secure the resources needed to burn more of it, while destroying the lives of ordinary people.
The global oil market—the lifeblood of the “petrochemical age”—is stabilized by the US Navy’s carrier groups. The US Dollar is not backed by gold; uranium-enriched munitions back it. The global reserve currency status, which allows the American Empire to print money and export inflation, rests entirely on the threat of overwhelming kinetic force.
We are told that the military drives innovation. This is the “broken window fallacy” writ large. Yes, we got the Internet, Radar, and GPS from the military, but at what cost? We have directed our species’ greatest minds toward the science of destruction rather than the science of living systems. We have perfected drone warfare, but ignored the soil.
Silicon Valley is the MIC in a hoodie.
Do not be fooled by the separation of “Big Tech” and “Defense.” They are the same ecosystem. The AI boom, the surveillance state, and the data centers discussed in previous sections are dual-use technologies. The “Great Game” of the 21st century is a fusion of Silicon Valley data-mining and Pentagon kinetics. The algorithms designed to keep you addicted to your screen are the same algorithms being trained to pilot autonomous weaponised drone swarms. The “smart city” is just a civilian application of the “electronic battlefield.”
The Existential Choice
This brings us to the final, brutal truth: The War Machine is an existential threat to living systems. In ancient empires, war was a method of acquisition. In the nuclear and biological age, war is a method of suicide. The MIC requires an enemy to justify its budget; therefore, it will manufacture enemies until it manufactures the apocalypse. It drains the capital, the cognitive energy, and the moral legitimacy required to address the Polycrisis. You cannot solve Climate Change while operating a military machine that emits more carbon than entire nations. You cannot solve Inequality when the nation’s wealth is funneled into hypersonic weapons rather than hospitals.
There is no path to cultures fit for posterity that includes the Military-Industrial Complex. It is a cancer on the body politic and a parasite on the biosphere. Dismantling the Global War Machine is not a policy preference; it is a biological imperative. We either turn off the engine, or the engine cooks the passengers.
Does infotainment do any good? What do you think? I watched PBS in middle school, way back in the 70s. Did their productions do any good? Too little, but I’m still happy we had the kind of PBS I remember from my youth. Progress. I need a new MacBook Pro; my 2014 model is reaching the end of its life—no more software updates; the processor is too old. Planned obsolescence, that’s progress. (The Myth of Progress | Samuel Miller McDonald
Mehdi Hasan et al, can report and debate about the Empires until the supernova; bright, eloquent journalists will always have a gig ‘having the conversation’ about how the Players spend the world’s resources and spread their social disease because the petty bourgeoisie, and the plebs and proles won’t organize to terminate Goliath—they are addicted to it—and if they do, they’ll get crushed by the institutions powerful men make. The technology of the monopoly on violence has never been more ubiquitous, sophisticated, and powerful.
People these days won’t sacrifice an hour on NETFLIX, a dose of Ozempic, or the next episode of “I told you so!” on the Tubes to stop the vandals from their quest for profits and control.
Despite decades of journalism, the destruction of living systems continues unabated; our metastatic social disease is incurable. In the near future, no one will notice the stench of the rotting corpse of global modern, techno-industrial, financialized capitalism because it will be programmed/engineered to smell like roses.
Eat, pray, love, the Cosmos is conscious, benevolent, concerned about you,
and waiting to embrace you in death
Take a walk in the woods
Be good to yourself
Believe fairy tales
Goliath always wins
Now, let’s enjoy His Story. The Anglosphere has nothing to be ashamed of. I guess.
Notice Nigel’s poppy lapel pin, so proud, so proud to be associated with veterans or foreign wars. What is he signalling besides support for the armed forces and fallen soldiers?
Note the title of his book below. What do you think about it?
Nigel is a politician; he’s a thought leader, he probably fancies himself a capitalist, not only a scholar of moral theology. These are the people we allow to run the show. With men like him influencing us, how do you think this thing of ours will end?
In the meantime, what new forms of slavery will the masters of industry create?
Nigel said he can’t feel guilty about something he didn’t do, and Medhi said, Are you proud of Britain’s defeat of the Nazis in World War Two? He really got him.
I am proud of the Soviet Union’s defeat of the Nazis in WWII, and I’m a U.S. citizen.
‘White Men Under Threat’ stories are all over social media platforms these days; it’s a brand new genre of infotainment.
Note Nigel’s hand waving when addressing the woman’s question regarding cancel culture and accountability.
Poor fella, life’s hard for wealthy white Anglo prodigal Gents.
Gurminder was the woman debating with Nigel in the video above:
Gurminder K. Bhambra argues that sociology and other social sciences traditionally focus on the modern world, often in contrast to non-modern or pre-modern worlds studied by different disciplines. She contends that this modern world is inherently colonial, a fact overlooked in standard social science accounts. Recognizing the link between colonialism and modernity is therefore necessary to transform the field of sociology and establish what she terms a “reparatory sociology.”
Bhambra argues that modernity did not emerge solely within Europe and then spread, but was shaped by global connections and processes of colonization, enslavement, and imperialism.
She suggests that when historical accounts are shown to be flawed, conceptual frameworks need to be re-evaluated in light of more accurate historical narratives.
Bhambra challenges the common understanding of the state as solely national by highlighting the imperial origins of states like Britain, which were built on both extraction and redistribution. This challenges standard social science concepts of distributive justice and welfare.
Bhambra emphasizes the importance of scholars being transparent and honest about the purpose and politics behind their work, as exemplified by Patricia Hill Collins.
The Ontology of Capital: Etymology, History, and Definition
The Word and the Thing
The etymology of capitalism reveals the shifting nature of the beast. The root, caput (Latin for head), initially referred to heads of cattle—movable wealth in an agrarian society. By the 12th and 13th centuries, capitale emerged to denote funds, stocks of merchandise, or sums of money carrying interest. However, the term capitalism is a relatively modern invention, disparaged by socialists in the mid-19th century to describe a political system that privileged the owners of capital.
It is critical to distinguish between capital (wealth that produces more wealth) and capitalism (the system directing that process). As indicated by historical analysis, the term capitalism predates capitalism, appearing in the mid-17th century to describe the owners of wealth. The system itself, however, did not fully crystallize until the breakdown of feudalism and the rise of the Industrial Revolution cemented the separation of the worker from the means of production.
Mercantilism vs. Capitalism
To understand the distinctiveness of modern capitalism, one must contrast it with its predecessor, mercantilism. While both systems utilize markets, their logic is fundamentally different. Mercantilism, dominant from the 16th to the 18th centuries, was a system of state power where economic activity was subservient to the national interest—specifically the accumulation of bullion (gold and silver). It was characterized by zero-sum thinking: one nation’s gain was another’s loss.
Capitalism, conversely, operates on the premise of infinite growth and positive-sum outcomes through mutual exchange—at least in theory. Where mercantilism relied on state monopolies and strict regulation of trade to enrich the sovereign, capitalism (particularly in its liberal iteration) ostensibly separates the economic from the political, relying on competitive markets to allocate resources. However, as we will explore through the lens of legal coding, this separation is largely illusory; the state remains the ultimate enforcer of the private rights that constitute capital.
The transition was not merely economic but metabolic. As Marx noted, the shift from feudal agrarianism to capitalist industrialism created a metabolic rift, disrupting the cyclical interaction between humanity and the earth. The sedentary merchant of the commercial revolution paved the way for the industrial capitalist, who did not merely move goods but reorganized the very nature of production and time.
The Classical Liberal Foundation: Locke and Smith
The intellectual architecture of capitalism rests heavily on the works of John Locke and Adam Smith, who provided the moral and efficiency arguments that still underpin the ideology today.
John Locke articulated the moral justification for private property in his Second Treatise of Government. He argued that ownership derives from labor: “The labour of his body, and the work of his hands, we may say, are properly his. Whatsoever then he removes out of the state that nature hath provided, and left it in, he hath mixed his labour with, and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property” Locke went further, justifying the enclosure of common lands by arguing that private appropriation increases the common stock of humanity: “he who appropriates land to himself by his labour, does not lessen, but increase the common stock of mankinb.” This provided a convenient moral cover for the privatization of the commons, a process Marx would later term “primitive accumulation.”
Man rules supremely and will make the Universe his own by turning the Earth into a machine his transhuman majesty can control.
Brutus Kilgore Dick IV —author
Adam Smith, often mischaracterized as a proponent of unrestrained greed, argued for markets based on efficiency and the “invisible hand” He posited that the pursuit of self-interest inadvertently serves the public good: “It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.” However, Smith was acutely aware of the dangers of merchant conspiracies, warning that “People of the same trade seldom meet together... but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.” He also harbored deep suspicions of the joint-stock company (the ancestor of the modern corporation), fearing it encouraged negligence and waste—a warning ignored mainly by modern neoliberalism.
There are so many other political philosophers I could have mentioned, all the way back to Plato and Aristotle. How about Marcus Aurelius, an uber-rich and famous Roman Emperor and Stoic philosopher, who wrote Meditations.
Marcus Aurelius believed that a person’s worth is determined by their moral character and way of thinking, rather than by external factors such as wealth or social status. He suggested that true wealth lies in what is given away and that material prosperity should be received without arrogance and readily relinquished. He also considered life’s external circumstances, including wealth and poverty, as neutral. Easy to do when you are uber-wealthy.
Aurelius was born into extreme wealth as part of a patrician family, inheriting vast fortunes, including lucrative brickworks and grand villas, from his mother’s side, making him exceptionally rich even before becoming emperor; he was raised in luxury on Rome’s prestigious Caelian Hill and remained wealthy throughout his life, and, as emperor, managed the state’s immense resources.
It’s fascinating to study how the ancients got rich—nothing too unfamiliar.
***Friedrich Hayek—I highly recommend looking into his work.
The Code of Capital: How Law Creates Wealth
Standard economic histories often present capitalism as the natural result of market forces. However, legal scholar Katharina Pistor argues in The Code of Capital that markets are neither natural nor self-regulating; they are legally constructed. Capital is not a physical object; it is a quality encoded into assets by law.
The Legal Modules of Capital (developed in England, refined and codified in New York)
Pistor identifies specific legal modules that lawyers—the masters of the code—use to transform simple assets (like land, promises, or ideas) into wealth-generating capital. These modules are the DNA of capitalism, granting assets specific attributes that ensure their value endures and expands. (Wait until AGI gets involved—Qui bono).
Legal Module
Function in Coding Capital
Contract Law
Allows for the creation of enforceable private agreements that can mimic property rights and prioritize claims. It is the bedrock of exchange, but Pistor notes that it also creates private law between parties that the state enforces.
Property Rights
Transforms possession into a legal title enforceable against the world (universality), not just other contracting parties, is the oldest module, turning land from a shared resource into a tradable asset.
Collateral Law
Allows assets to be pledged to secure debt, giving priority to certain creditors over others in the event of default. This module essentially allows wealth to be leveraged to create more wealth, multiplying capital.
Trust Law
Protects assets by placing them in a separate legal silo, shielding them from the personal creditors of the beneficiaries (durability). The trust, originating in Roman law (fideicommissum), allows capital to survive generations, immune to the failures of its individual owners.
Corporate Law
Creates a legal entity that shields the owners (shareholders) from liability and protects thefirm’ss assets from theowners’’ personal creditors (entity shielding). This dual shielding is the engine of modern accumulation. (Who’s your garbage Corporate Person of last year?)
Bankruptcy Law
The ultimate backstop, enforcing the priority of claims coded through collateral and contract during insolvency. It determines who gets paid when the music stops, usually privileging secured creditors (capital) over unsecured ones (labor).
The Attributes of Capital
Through these modules, assets are endowed with four critical attributes:
Priority: The legal ranking of claims. Capital holders act to ensure their claims are satisfied before others (e.g., secured creditors vs. workers).
Durability: The ability of capital to extend over time and shield itself from claims, ensuring intergenerational wealth preservation (e.g., through trusts and corporate distinctness).
Universality: The extension of rights against the world (erga omnes). A contract is between two people; the state enforces a property right against everyone.
Convertibility: The ability to convert private credit or assets into state money on demand, ensuring liquidity even in crises (often through state bailouts).
The State as Enforcer
A crucial insight from Pistor is that capital relies entirely on state coercion. Capital is a social relation mediated by the state’s coercive powers. Private lawyers code the capital, but they rely on the public enforcing apparatus (courts, police) to back these private codes, creating a paradox: global capital is mobile and often escapes national regulation, yet it is utterly dependent on specific domestic legal systems (primarily English Common Law and New York State Law) to validate its existence. This hegemony of Anglo-American law allows capital to bypass local democratic controls, effectively opting out of national legal systems while relying on its coercive power.
Pistor notes that global capital has coded its own legal infrastructure, effectively choosing the laws that most favor it, or global capitalists. This is the best of all possible worlds, because it allows them to select the rules that favour them most without having to invest in politics to turn laws to their advantage. Legal arbitrage allows corporations to domicile in tax havens while enforcing their rights in London or New York courts, stripping the demos of its ability to regulate the economy.
The Engine of Belief: Psychology and Ideology
Why do people—even those disadvantaged by the system—remain committed to capitalism? The persistence of capitalism cannot be explained by economics alone; it requires a psychological and ideological analysis.
System Justification Theory
Psychologists John Jost and Mahzarin Banaji developed System Justification Theory to explain why individuals defend the status quo. The theory posits that people have an underlying psychological need to view the system they live in as fair, legitimate, and inevitable, to reduce anxiety and uncertainty. This palliative function leads the disadvantaged to rationalize their own subordination, often adopting stereotypes that justify inequality (e.g., “the rich work harder” or “inequality drives innovation”). This internalized oppression creates a significant barrier to revolutionary change, as challenging the system acts as a threat to theindividual’s sense of psychological stability and order.
This theory aligns with Gramsci’s concept of hegemony, where the ruling values become the common sense of society. In modern capitalism, this manifests as the belief that market outcomes are inherently meritocratic, despite overwhelming evidence of structural inequality.
Capitalist Realism
Building on this, the late cultural theorist Mark Fisher introduced the concept of Capitalist Realism, encapsulated by the phrase (attributed to Jameson/Žižek):““It is easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalis”” Capitalist Realism is the widespread acceptance that capitalism is the only viable political and economic system, acting as an invisible barrier constraining thought and action.
Fisher argues that this realism creates “reflexive impotence,” a state where people know the system is flawed but feel powerless to change it. It co-opts all dissent; anti-capitalism itself becomes a commodity (e.g., the rebellious imagery in advertising, or films like Wall-E that critique consumerism while being products of a massive corporation). The “business ontology” permeates all aspects of life, with education and healthcare judged solely by business metrics, eroding the public sphere.
The 2008 financial crisis serves as a prime example. Despite the banking system’s manifest failure, the solution was not a systemic overhaul but a massive bailout to restore the status quo. The “too big to fail” logic reinforced the idea that there is no alternative (TINA), further deepening the grip of capitalist realism on the collective psyche.
Neoliberalism and the Economization of Life
Wendy Brown expands on this in Undoing the Demos. She argues that neoliberalism is not just a set of economic policies (privatization, deregulation) but a “governing rationality” that economizes all spheres of existence.
Homo Oeconomicus: Under neoliberalism, the human is reconfigured from a political citizen (homo politicus) into homo oeconomicus—human capital. Every action, from dating to education, is viewed as an investment in future value. (Even our children.) The citizen is no longer a bearer of rights but a self-entrepreneur responsible for their own employability.
The Undoing of Democracy: By subjecting democratic institutions to market metrics (efficiency, credit ratings, return on investment), neoliberalism hollows out the political substance of democracy. Justice and equality are replaced by market citizenship in which value is determined by contributions to the economy rather than by inherent human worth. The state’s shift from providing social welfare to fostering a “good investment climate” for capital.
Animal Spirits
John Maynard Keynes offered a different psychological insight with his concept of Animal Spirits. He recognized that economic stability is a myth because human decisions are driven by spontaneous optimism rather than mathematical expectation. This inherent instability contradicts the rational actor model of classical economics and highlights the volatile, emotional core of capitalist accumulation. As Keynes noted, “capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest good of everyone.”
This volatility drives boom-and-bust cycles. The panic phase of the cycle sees irrational exuberance and over-investment (often driven by the herd behavior Keynes identified), while the depressive phase sees panic and hoarding. This psychological oscillation makes capitalism inherently unstable, requiring state intervention (which neoliberals decry yet rely upon) to stabilize the ship.
The Neoliberal Turn: Theory and Practice
The shift to neoliberalism in the late 20th century marked a fundamental transformation in global capitalism.
Defining Neoliberalism
While often conflated with classical liberalism, neoliberalism is distinct. Classical liberalism (Locke, Smith) viewed the market as a natural phenomenon to be left alone (laissez-faire). Neoliberalism, however, views the market as a construct that must be actively created and protected by a strong state. As Michel Foucault noted, neoliberals do not believe in natural markets; they believe in thestate’ss duty to impose market mechanisms on society.
David Harvey defines neoliberalism as a political project to restore class power to the economic elite, while constraining the post-war Keynesian compromise. Through privatization, financialization, and the manipulation of crises, wealth was redistributed upward, a process Harvey terms accumulation by dispossession.
The Architects: Hayek and Friedman
The intellectual foundations were laid by Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman, who equated economic freedom with political freedom.
Friedrich Hayek, in The Road to Serfdom, argued that central planning inevitably leads to tyranny: “The power which a multiple millionaire... has over me is very much less than that which the smallest fonctionnaire possesses who wields the coercive power of the state.” For Hayek, inequality was not a bug but a feature necessary for progress: “Equality before the law and material equality are therefore not only different but conflict with each other; and we can achieve either one or the other, but not both at the same time.” Hayek argued that the price system is a mechanism for communicating information that no central planner could ever possess (the “calculation problem”).
Milton Friedman reinforced this in Capitalism and Freedom, arguing that “History suggests only that capitalism is a necessary condition for political freedom.” He famously posited that “The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits,” a doctrine that justified the externalization of all social and environmental costs. Friedman argued that if businesses focused on profit within the “rules of the game,” society would benefit. However, as Pistor shows, businesses actively rewrite the “rules of the game” (the legal code) to their advantage, undermining Friedman’s premise.
The Divergence: Brown vs. Harvey
Scholars diverge in nuanced ways in their understanding of this era. While Harvey views neoliberalism primarily through a Marxist lens as a “class project” intended to enrich the elite, Wendy Brown views it through a Foucauldian lens as a “stealth revolution of reason.” For Harvey, the state is a tool captured by the bourgeoisie; for Brown, neoliberal rationality reconfigures the state itself, along with the human subject. Both agree, however, that the result is the erosion of democratic sovereignty and the dominance of market logic over all other forms of value.
Are there or have there ever been Democracies that weren’t captured by big business?
Incentives and the Ecological Rift: Why We Destroy the World
There is no real way out of the climate crisis without a rupture with the capitalist model, and there is no possible rupture without popular organisation, without collective struggle, and without confronting the structures that profit from devastation. — Bárbara Loureiro
The destructive capacity of capitalism is not merely a result of “bad actors” that are structurally incentivized. The very machinery of the system—from the legal code to the psychological imperative of growth—makes ecological degradation rational and inevitable within its internal logic.
The Metabolic Rift
Karl Marx provided the earliest and perhaps most profound critique of capitalist ecology with his theory of the Metabolic Rift. He observed that capitalist agriculture broke the cycle of returning soil nutrients to the land, instead transporting them as crops to polluted cities, where they became waste. This robbing of the soil is the precursor to modern ecological crises. Capitalism, Marx argued, “develops the techniques... of production by simultaneously undermining the original sources of all wealth—the soil and the worker.”
This concept extends beyond soil. It describes a rupture in the fundamental interaction between humanity and the rest of nature. Under capitalism, nature is viewed not as a living system but as a gift to be extracted, processed, and discarded. The linear throughput (extract-make-waste) is fundamentally at odds with thebiosphere’ss cyclical processes.
Externalities and Short-Termism
In neoclassical economics, environmental destruction is treated as an externality, so its cost is not reflected in market prices. Because the atmosphere and oceans are treated as free dumping grounds—the “tragedy of the commons” enacted by corporations— it is rational for a profit-maximizing entity to pollute. If a firm voluntarily pays to reduce pollution while its competitor does not, the responsible firm will be outcompeted and likely go bankrupt. Thus, the system punishesecological responsibility and rewards destruction.
Compounded by short-termism, stock market pressures force corporations to prioritize quarterly earnings over long-term survival. Research indicates that managers willing to sacrifice long-term value to meet short-term targets are rewarded with higher stock prices and bonuses. In contrast, those who invest in long-term resilience (such as R&D or sustainability) are punished by the market. Mark Roe argues, however, that the problem is not just time horizons but the capacity to externalize costs; a long-term thinking corporation will still pollute if the price of pollution is zero.
Goliath’s Curse: Inequality and Collapse
Dr. Luke Kemp’s Goliath’s Curse provides a historical macro-analysis of why such systems fail. Kemp argues that civilization is a propaganda term for Goliaths—societies built on domination. These societies require“Goliath fuel”: surplus grain, monopolizable weapons, and caged land (trapped populations). Kemp’s central thesis is that inequality is the primary predictor of collapse. As elites extract more wealth, they hollow out social resilience. The elite, often displaying dark tetrad traits (narcissism, psychopathy, Machiavellianism, and Sadism), engage in status competition that drives resource over-extraction. They are insulated from the early effects of the crisis, leading to elite overproduction and infighting, while the masses suffer.
The modern Global Goliath is a single, interconnected capitalist system, making the subsequent collapse potentially global and irreversible due to nuclear weapons and ecological tipping points. Thesystem’ss incentives drive this race to the bottom, creating a fragile structure susceptible to agents of doom—extractive industries and tech giants that prioritize profit over survival.
Why Alternatives Stalled in the West
If war is central tocapitalism’ss business model, is unstable, ecologically destructive, and prone to inequality, why have alternative systems not taken root in the West? The answer lies in a combination of violent repression, structural barriers, and cultural hegemony.
The Red Scare and the Purge of the Left
In the United States, the failure of socialism is inextricably linked to state repression. The “Red Scare” periods (post-WWI and post-WWII) effectively decimated the American left. The Second Red Scare (McCarthyism) did not just target Soviet spies; it purged radical civil servants who sought to turn the New Deal into a comprehensive social democratic project. Thousands of economists, planners, and activists were investigated, fired, or silenced.
Figures like Mary Dublin Keyserling were targeted for their association with socialist ideas, forcing them to hide their politics or leave public service. This brain drain from the left narrowed the spectrum of acceptable political discourse to a centrist consensus that accepted capitalist fundamentals. The legacy of this purge is a political landscape where even mild social democratic reforms are branded as dangerous communism.
Structural and Cultural Barriers
Beyond repression, structural factors played a role. The U.S. electoral system (first-past-the-post, presidential rather than parliamentary) makes third parties structurally unviable. In a parliamentary system, a socialist party getting 10% of the vote gets 10% of the seats; in the U.S., it gets zero. This forces all political energy into the two capitalist parties (the neocon, neoliberal Uniparty).
Culturally, the American Dream—grounded in individualism and anti-statism—has been a powerful inoculant against collectivist ideologies. The belief in social mobility (however mythical) leads many working-class Americans to identify with the rich rather than their fellow workers. As John Steinbeck (often misquoted) observed regarding the lack of socialism, people with low incomes see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as “temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
***John is quoted on my website’s homepage because I can relate.
Furthermore, racial divisions in the U.S. working class prevented the formation of the unified class consciousness seen in Europe. Capitalists successfully used race to divide the labor movement, hiring Black workers as strikebreakers or convincing White workers that their interests lay in maintaining racial hierarchy rather than class solidarity. As W.E.B. Du Bois noted, the white worker received a “psychological wage” of racial superiority that compensated for their low economic wage.
The Failure of Central Planning
Intellectually, the failure of Soviet-style central planning cast a long shadow. Hayek’s critique—that no central planner can possess the dispersed knowledge of millions of individuals contained in market prices—became the dominant economic narrative. The inefficiency, soft budget constraints, and lack of incentives in the Soviet bloc served as a potent warning, reinforcing the “There Is No Alternative” narrative. The collapse of the USSR was framed not as the failure of a specific authoritarian model, but as the final proof ofcapitalism’ss alignment with human nature.
OMG, will the end of history have to be postponed?
Alternatives: Visions of a Post-Capitalist Future
Despite the hegemony of capitalist realism, alternative models exist that offer blueprints for a world beyond the dictates of capital.
***This is not to say that I believe we have a way out of our predicament, but rather that industrious people have to do something or other, so they might engage in revolution in some form or another.
Market Socialism
Market Socialism attempts to combine the efficiency of markets with the social ownership of the means of production. In theory, firms would be owned by workers or the state, but would compete in a market economy.
The Chinese Model: “Socialism with Chinese Characteristics” is a hybrid in which the state retains control over the “commanding heights” (strategic industries such as banking, energy, and telecom) while allowing a vibrant market sector. While highly successful in generating growth and lifting millions out of poverty, critics argue that it has replicated capitalist inequality, labor exploitation, and ecological destruction. And let’s not forget that China is now the United States’ primary adversary of choice, keeping its business model (the MIC) firmly ensconced in the hearts and minds of U.S. Americans. The planned and gleefully anticipated (by U.S. American leaders) war with Chinawon’tt be good for the world. And it’s capitalist Uncle Sam’ss fault for doing the global capitalist thing by moving its manufacturing to China, financing China’s growth, and taking advantage of China’s labor arbitrage.
How does China’s economic model work? Political economist Ben Norton explains the ideas behind Socialism with Chinese Characteristics, discussing China’s socialist market economy, historical development, reform process, poverty reduction, industrial policy, and more.
***I lived in China on and off, starting in 1997. Ben knows what he is talking about.
“Were there not a China, America would have to invent a China.” —Joe Wishesaid
Yugoslavia: The historical example of Yugoslavia utilized worker self-management within a market framework. Workers’ councils made decisions, but firms competed. While it had periods of success, it eventually succumbed to debt, inflation, and ethnic dissolution, partly due to external pressure and internal inefficiencies.
Participatory Economics (Parecon)
Proposed by Michael Albert and Robin Hahnel, Parecon rejects both markets and central planning. Instead, it relies on decentralized participatory planning.
Mechanics: Worker and consumer councils negotiate production and consumption plans directly through a series of “iteration boards” until supply matches demand.
Incentives: Remuneration is based on effort and sacrifice (how long, how hard, and how onerous the work is), not property, power, or output.
Balanced Job Complexes: To prevent the rise of a “coordinator class” (managers/intellectuals) who dominate decision-making, all workers perform a mix of empowering and menial tasks. For example, a surgeon might spend some time cleaning the operating theater.
Critique: Critics argue that the meetings required for such planning would be onerous (socialism is too many evenings) and that it lacks the real-time responsiveness of price signals. However, proponents argue that modern technology could streamline this negotiation.
Oscar Wilde’s hostile criticism of socialism, “It would take too many evenings,” meant that it is uncivilized to allow politics to become a dominating preoccupation.
The Cooperative Model: Mondragon
The Mondragon Corporation in the Basque region of Spain is the world’s premier example of large-scale worker cooperativism. Founded in 1956 by a Catholic priest, it has grown into a massive federation.
Structure: It is a federation of worker cooperatives where the workers own the firm and vote on leadership and strategy (one worker, one vote).
Wage Solidarity: Pay ratios are capped. Initially 1:3, they are now closer to 1:6 or 1:9, which is still well below the 1:300+ ratios in U.S. corporations.
Resilience: During crises, Mondragon protects jobs by reallocating workers across the federation rather than firing them. Capital is subservient to labor; it is a tool, not the master.
Critique: As it expanded globally to compete with capitalist multinationals, Mondragon has been criticized for relying on non-member wage labor in its international subsidiaries (e.g., in China or Poland), effectively behaving like a capitalist firm abroad while remaining a cooperative at home.
Democratic Confederalism: The Rojava Experiment
In the Kurdish region of Northern Syria (Rojava), a radical experiment in stateless democracy is underway, based on the ideas of Abdullah Öcalan and Murray Bookchin.
Ideology: It rejects the nation-state in favor of Democratic Confederalism—a bottom-up system of communes and councils.
Economy: The social economy encourages cooperatives and communal land ownership. Agriculture and industry are reoriented to meet local needs rather than export markets. Monocultures planted by the Assad regime (e.g., wheat) are being diversified to ensure food sovereignty.
Feminism: It placeswomen’ss liberation at the center, with co-chair systems (one man, one woman) at every level of governance. This challenges the patriarchal foundations of both capitalism and traditional society.
Challenges: Existing under war conditions and embargoes, it struggles with resource scarcity, yet it demonstrates that a non-capitalist, non-statist social order is possible even in the most dire circumstances.
Kerala Has Abolished Extreme Poverty: The Fiftieth Newsletter (2025)
The Indian state of Kerala has eradicated extreme poverty through clear public policy, decentralised planning, and the leadership of its cooperative movement.
On 1 November 2025, the south-western Indian state of Kerala – home to 34 million people – was declared free from extreme poverty by Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan. Kerala is one of the few places in the world to have eradicated extreme poverty, following China, which announced in 2022 that it had eradicated extreme poverty nationwide.
Degrowth
Degrowth is not a system but a movement challenging the core capitalist imperative of infinite expansion. It argues that infinite growth on a finite planet is physically impossible.
Argument: We must voluntarily downscale production and consumption in the Global North to bring the economy back within planetary boundaries. This involves abandoning GDP as a metric and focusing on human well-being.
Mechanism: Shifting from private consumption to public luxury (universal basic services), reducing working hours to share labor, and redistributing wealth to eliminate poverty without aggregate growth.
Critique: Critics argue it is politically impossible (austerity for the working class) and that growth is needed for green technology innovation. Proponents counter that green growth is a myth because of the Jevons Paradox(efficiency leads to more consumption) and that capitalism’s drive to accumulate is the root cause of the polycrisis/predicament.
The Fork in the Road
Capitalism is a totalizing system, coded by law, fueled by inequality, and rationalized by a pervasive psychology of realism. It has severed the metabolic link between humanity and nature, creating a trajectory that, as Kemp warns, leads toward collapse. The legal code that grants capital its priority and durability insulates it from democratic control, while the “animal spirits” of the market drive volatility.
The failure of alternatives to take hold in the West is not merely a failure of economic viability but a result of violent suppression (Red Scares), structural lock-in (electoral systems), and the successful colonization of the human mind by neoliberal rationality (Undoing the Demos).
However, the cracks in the edifice are widening. The ecological crisis is the ultimate check on capitalist expansion that lawyers cannot code away. Experiments like Rojava and Mondragon, though imperfect and besieged, offer proof of concept that human societies can organize around needs, solidarity, and democracy rather than profit. The choice, as formulated by Rosa Luxemburg and echoed by modern critics, remains: Socialism or Barbarism. Or, in the language of the 21st century: Design a new code, or accept the curse of Goliath.
Key Quotes
Marx: “Capitalist production... develops the techniques... by simultaneously undermining the original sources of all wealth—the soil and the worker.”
Keynes: “Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest good of everyone.”
Hayek: “Equality before the law and material equality are... in conflict with each other.”
Friedman: “The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits.”
Fisher: “It’s easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism.”
Pastor: “Capital is... a social relation, but it is mediated by the state’s coercive powers.”
Kemp: “History is best told as a story of organised crime.”
Locke: “He who appropriates land to himself by his labour, does not lessen, but increases the common stock of mankind.”
Smith: “People of the same trade seldom meet together... but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public.”
Capitalism offers one hell of an incentive structure. In the modern world, money buys an amazingly comfortable, safe, healthy, and exciting life. I hope you were born under a lucky star and did something profitable with your fated circumstances.
This post is far from comprehensive. I could have approached this from many different angles: Energy, Biophysics, Overshoot, The Polycrisis, Anthropology, pre-history—drawing on sources from the sciences and the humanities to highlight multiple layers of interconnected evidence.
Actually, I did—it’s all interrelated in my way of thinking. (Check out my ecosocialist bookshelf at www.cospolon.eu.)
This post isn’t an argument or an attempt to persuade anyone to adopt a specific ideology. It is a self-study exercise. I hope that it helps someone—a reader, a fence-sitter, or an apathetic sports fan—feel more open to seeing things from a different angle.
Some of the people I communicate with about these subjects know much more than I do, so I relax, focus, listen, and ask questions. I love my OCLTG community; it’s full of kind, conscientious, caring, and earnest people. Why wouldn’t they display those traits? They devote their time to understanding how Great Nature works, our terrible treatment of it, and our tragic lack of relationship with it. Their interest is motivated by a love of life.
This thing of ours motivates us to kill living systems for plastic bits. We seek ego-stroking ‘conversations’ with chatbots, dream of Playboy features, and pride ourselves on having the money to send to our favorite ‘partner’ on OnlyFans.
I also talk with people who aren’t familiar with or interested in OCLTG (Overshoot Collapse Limits to Growth). Rather than bore them with a tedious or confusing lecture, I usually let my conversation partner change the subject to keep things friendly. I can hear them thinking: What the fuck are you on about?
I love reading people’s expressions when I start in on this stuff. I’m a ruminator, so the conversation continues in my mind long after it’s physically done. Sometimes, I go home and write about what I was thinking during the interaction to help me communicate more effectively next time. Who knows? Anyway, I can’t help it.
I believe these subjects are vital. They help us develop the intelligence, intuition, and wisdom required to exercise agency as we navigate these challenges. Face-to-face conversations about complex and controversial topics are essential for any vibrant community that wants to create a way of life that’s good for posterity. Eric Lee quips, “bad news for 10-year-olds.” I want to see some good action for 10-year-olds.
But you know what? Our present way of doing things will not last. Capitalism is engineered obsolescence at scale. This thing of ours will self-destruct.
The conclusion of the process of modern techno-industrial Capitalism is death: the end of living (biological) systems, and the birth of a fantastic machine that will somehow know how to reproduce and evolve, eating the physical and metaphysical Universe as it goes. Of this beast, we are to be proud. It is the singularity of becoming God.
Nope, I think not. We won’t follow TESCREAL to a kind of mechanical ‘immortality.’ Instead, if we don’t mend our ways, our madly hubristic, self-centered species will, with a long whimper, cease to exist.
We live; we are intertwined living systems in living systems. It’s madness to create a death machine.
Global fossil-fueled, modern, techno-industrial, financialized capitalism is an omnicidal heat engine.
Anti-capitalist capitalists can’t understand...
Modern, global, fossil-fueled techno-industrial civilization is one huge Market where the dark tetrad Players play. Non-market social arrangements at scale are impossible. The damage inflicted over thousands of years on living systems, our minds, and our souls operates like a metastatic disease—both social and physical—that ideas alone cannot cure.
Market economies are omnicidal heat engines. Trade and small-scale local markets connected to natural processes have existed since before large-scale civilization emerged—look at David Graeber’s work and others.
Our actions have already ensured that our world will continue to heat up for thousands of years, yet that is merely one symptom of the superorganism’s disease.
Consciousness-raising about non-market possibilities—or even identifying our situation as a ‘predicament’—won’t register with billions of modernity addicts. They have zero interest in boarding an unfamiliar train of thought. Powerful, entrenched belief systems will crush any mass movement toward radical change, regardless of their origin. We are addicts, unable to admit we have a problem that demands a completely different way of living. Soon, global civilization may need hospice care.
If you have ideas or concerns, discuss them face-to-face within your community. Intimate connection is the only path to shifting perspectives.
Integral is just another technocratic attempt to manage large-scale civilization. I suspect we must entertain the idea that large-scale civilization is actually a failed evolutionary experiment coming to an end. Yet, people do all kinds of things. Some might find the Integral Collective attractive and worth the effort. Go for it!
Perhaps the best thing those of us who understand the predicament can do is tell it like it is. Speak to anyone who will listen—especially the willfully ignorant vandals bent on destroying living systems for their insane fantasies. They will likely ignore us, but many of us can’t help ourselves.
Make some noise.
READ THIS BOOK
How everything from the price of food to energy and housing costs is fixed by remote, unregulated financial markets, and what can be done about it
The global market in money – housed in the offshore ‘shadow’ banking system – holds $217 trillion in financial assets and operates beyond the reach of any nation’s taxman. Asset managers, private equity firms, and pension and sovereign wealth funds scoop up the world’s savings for investment and manage them as they choose, unaccountable to politicians or the citizens who elect them.
In this brilliant, accessible and incisive introduction to the murky world of globalized finance, Ann Pettifor links the activities of remote mobile financial markets to both the cost-of-living and climate crises. In an insane global casino, bankers are gambling with our future. When we foot the bill, no one but a few economists understands what has happened. The result is volatile, unpredictable and uncontrollable speculation in global commodities, pension, energy, and housing.
Pettifor argues that societies and governments can take back control of the global financial system. We have done it before and can do it again. Indeed, it is imperative that we do so if we are to manage the twin threats of climate breakdown and biosphere collapse.
***Trading, banking, investments, I didn’t go there; there are so many investment gurus, and lots of good books. I do feel it’s crucial to understand how these processes and institutions work, though.
One Scary Symptom of This Thing of Ours
“It’s lovely we’re having weather.” I used to say that when I lived in Seattle in 1980.
Study shows that the hotter climate regime will last centuries, not decades.
“Heatwaves are systematically hotter, longer, and more frequent the longer net zero is delayed, and reach their highest values when net zero is delayed until 2060. Moreover, most regional trends show no decline over the 1000 years of each simulation, indicating that heatwaves do not revert to preindustrial conditions. Some regions even exhibit significantly increasing millennial-scale trends when net zero is achieved by 2050 or later. Furthermore, the longer net zero is delayed, the more occurrences of historically rare and extreme heatwave events.”
Understanding the modern climate crisis requires synthesizing evidence from an immense, interconnected web of scientific disciplines, where no single line of inquiry stands alone. In the domain of atmospheric physics and chemistry, researchers measure the isotopic “fingerprints” of carbon dioxide, confirming that the sharp rise in greenhouse gases—now at levels unseen for millions of years—is driven by fossil fuel combustion rather than natural volcanic or solar cycles. Accumulation of these gases in the atmosphere traps heat with quantifiable precision (radiative forcing), a phenomenon corroborated by oceanography, which documents that the oceans have absorbed over 90% of this excess energy. The result is not just warmer water, but a fundamental shift in ocean chemistry (acidification) and physics (thermal expansion contributing to sea-level rise), which destabilizes the planet’s primary heat-regulation system. Simultaneously, meteorologists and climatologists use attribution science to mathematically distinguish between natural weather variability and human-induced anomalies, revealing that heatwaves, droughts, and supercharged storms are becoming statistically impossible to explain without the added thermal energy in the atmosphere.
The modern era of climate change research began at Scripps Institution of Oceanography and today Scripps is a global leader in observing how our planet is changing, understanding impacts, finding solutions, and training the next generation of scientific and environmental leaders.
U.S. National Academy of Sciences
“Scientists have known for some time, from multiple lines of evidence, that humans are changing Earth’s climate, primarily through greenhouse gas emissions.”
NASA—EVIDENCE
There is unequivocal evidence that Earth is warming at an unprecedented rate. Human activity is the principal cause.
Takeaways
While Earth’s climate has changed throughout its history, the current warming is happening at a rate not seen in the past 10,000 years.
According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), "Since systematic scientific assessments began in the 1970s, the influence of human activity on the warming of the climate system has evolved from theory to established fact."1
Scientific information taken from natural sources (such as ice cores, rocks, and tree rings) and from modern equipment (like satellites and instruments) all show the signs of a changing climate.
From global temperature rise to melting ice sheets, the evidence of a warming planet abounds.
Complementing these real-time observations, paleoclimatology provides the crucial deep time context necessary to gauge the severity of current rates of change. By analyzing ancient air bubbles trapped in ice cores, tree-ring width (dendrochronology), and sediment layers, scientists have reconstructed Earth’s climate history, revealing that the current rate of warming is roughly 10 times faster than the average recovery from an ice age. Geological evidence aligns with distress signals tracked by evolutionary biologists and ecologists, who observe phenological shifts—seasons “breaking” as plants bloom earlier, spec