Could There Be Any Hope?

My thanks to Paul Chefurka for his comments that have prompted me to share some of my more recent thinking. As with Paul's thinking, mine has been evolving. So for what it might be worth...

The hope of which I speak is for the genus Homo, not our current civilization. The later is almost certainly going to collapse and likely come to completion within the next two to three decades. The collapse has already begun as evidenced by global events [some of my earlier musings here]. It is amazing to me how the mainstream media continue to consume the political/economic story about how the economy is doing so well even if growth is slow by historical standards. I take it as just a reflection of how so many people hold out a sense of hope for civilization as we have it today to continue, albeit as a green new deal or even business as usual.

Such hope is misplaced in my view. It will allow people to avoid planning for survival and how to reorganize some semblance of a future social system. Humans are necessarily social creatures and some kind of social system is essentially mandatory for human beings to maintain their humanity. Of course, also in my view, this lack of forethought by the majority of humans will solve the overpopulation problem, painfully. So those persons who do not harbor a false hope, can see that any civilization remotely resembling what we have today is doomed to collapse, will be considering what actions they should take to survive said collapse (or see to it that their offspring have a chance) and be ready to execute their plan [Collapse 3.0]. Realize that neither I nor anyone can tell you what that plan should be. Collapses are, almost by definition, chaos. And in any chaotic dynamic one cannot predict exactly what will happen, or when. The best advice I can give is that one should be vigilant, observe what is happening in the world and, particularly pay attention to the rates of change, and maintain an ability to proactively adapt to the consequences.

I strongly suspect there will be survivors. I also believe the best general approach to survival will involve a group effort; strength in numbers as it were. In all likelihood these groups will survive in pockets. And the most successful will have preserved a variety of hand tools with which they can construct some form of social center. I do not believe humans will return necessarily to pure hunter-gatherer groups. Some form of agriculture will be involved (as long-time readers will know I promote the concepts of permaculture).

Despite the inevitability of collapse of our technological civilization, there are a number of things that society should be doing right now to moderate the rate and severity of the collapse, thus giving some better chances for survival of some. Bear in mind, I do not believe these actions will actually be taken because the extent of true sapience, and the wisdom it entails, in the population, especially the ruling class, is at an absolute minimum. If it were otherwise, these actions would already be undertaken. Or, perhaps, the predicaments we face wouldn't even exist in the first place.

I divide these actions into near-term, intermediate-term, and long-term periods. Some things we need to be doing right now. Others need to be started now but will not show results for a decade or more. And some things, like reorganizing our social systems and our political-economy, represent a transition to a new kind of organization of life itself.

Near-term
These are pretty radical, but absolutely essential just to slow down the rates of change that will be principle drivers of collapse. They all need to be done in parallel. They are all priority one.

The first, and most radical in light of the predominant economic paradigm, we need to cease capitalism and profit-making. That also means ceasing consumption-based commerce. Yes it will destroy the economy. Jobs will be lost but see below for new jobs that would be created. The point is, the economy depends on energy and we get the vast majority of that from burning fossil fuels. This is a simple fact. If you grow the economy, or make profits, you will be producing more greenhouse gas. The economy has to slow way down [those of you familiar with the concept of 'power' will recognize that it is the rate of energy consumption per unit time that is the real culprit here: a slower economic process will consume less overall energy and lower the rate of carbon emissions.] Capitalists must relinquish their cherished notions of growing their wealth. Indeed...

What wealth has been concentrated in the hands of the 10% needs to be confiscated (or at minimum heavily taxed) and used to provide minimal incomes for the bottom 25% and used to help finance the other steps given below. All governments would need to coordinate their tax policies, but all citizens will need to pay up to their abilities. Its gonna cost.

Start building and deploying CO² scrubbers powered by nuclear reactors that produce mineral-absorbed solids, calcium carbonate, for example, that can be safely buried. I know all of the arguments against nuclear given by my green friends but I can't see anything else that can be done from a technological perspective that can begin to have an impact on reducing the carbon loading that already exists. We know that this is actually feasible since we have a whole fleet of nuclear-powered submarines that use such scrubbers to purge CO² from the air so that the subs can remain underwater for months at a time. Building a set of dedicated reactors, like those in the submarines, should be a straightforward job. Deploying these units will be a little more problematic but is not insurmountable. What would be needed for this as well as the other near-term projects (below) will be a super-WWII mobilization effort. It would require diverting much government spending away from current programs. And it would need to be an international cooperative effort. France, the US, and Japan can build the reactors, Germany, Russia, and China can build the scrubbers. And many other NATO and southern hemisphere countries can provide logistics support in getting them transported and installed, operations, and then burying the minerals. There are many additional aspects that would require attention, such as training nuclear engineers and operators.

And, most of all, it would require substantial sacrifices from the citizenry. But it is all technically, logistically, and operationally feasible. Tactically, it is another question. And since there is no strategic thinking going on anywhere in the governments of the world... You can see why I am so pessimistic.

Cease all timber operations, especially in the tropic zones. Begin a massive effort to replant forests in both tropic and temperate zones. Cease all beef production. Allow some dairy but only with grass-fed cows (to reduce their belching and farting!) Start a massive project to restore soils to natural fertility. The forest and soils restoration will involve significant manual labor and lots of jobs. These projects need to be started immediately since their beneficial impact will take time to realize.

There is no way in hell that the political system is going to make these things happen. In all likelihood it will require a takeover by the militaries, a suspension of some liberties, and the establishment of a council of wise elders to provide the strategic leadership that is needed. Anyone know where we could find such people? Hint: with a few notable exceptions don't look at the current class of politicos. They have all pretty much been corrupted by money and power.

Intermediate-term
One of the primary tasks for the next several decades, if not centuries, will be to ensure the continuation of the work started in the short-term. A key to this will be the revamping of the education system to focus on training for skills needed for survival and for continuing the operations of the CO² abatement and ecosystems restoration projects. Many of these jobs will involve a considerable amount of manual labor, to be sure. But some number of workers will need more advanced technical knowledge and this will help keep our scientific and engineering knowledge relevant and preserved.

Long-term
Over the next century mankind must undertake a project to completely restructure the form of the human social system. This means the structure of how we form communities, how we produce material goods and services, how we exchange these, and, most importantly, how we form a governance subsystem to apply social self-regulation to the whole system. This latter is absolutely necessary in order to maintain a proper relation with the whole of the Ecos. To do this we have many hurdles to overcome, not the least of which is our own innate nature. We are still substantially great apes. Our species did cross a threshold of consciousness in acquiring sapience to the degree we have. But that is not enough. For many centuries now we have been experimenting with forms of governance, cultural norms (mores), and institutions meant to apply social self-regulation in order to reduce our penchant for cut-throat competition and our natural tendencies to let our emotional states be bent by in-group/out-group psychologies [The Evolution of Governance]. We have had some partial successes, thankfully. But so much more needs to be done. The extent of our failings are enshrined in the rise to power of right-wing strongmen like Trump in the US and Bolsonaro in Brazil (to name just a few). These people are motivated by deep-seated hatreds for out-groups and some kind of sense of (delusional) superiority. They, and their followers, are prime examples of the relative weakness of sapience in a large number of our species, a large enough number to have a negative influence on our social discourse.

In the long-run humanity's only real hope is to work at increasing the level of sapience for the majority. This is in contrast to the typical notion of increasing intelligence in the population. Intelligence is not the whole story of good decision-making. Some creativity is needed as well (intelligence + creativity = cleverness). But it is cleverness that has gotten us into our current predicament. We can invent clever solutions to problems, like rapid transportation of people and bulk weight by burning fossil fuels, but never wisely ask what of the long-term consequences of doing so. It takes superior sapience to acquire superior wisdom. And it takes the latter to even ask the right questions about long-term consequences, let alone come up with veridical scenarios of the future.

How sapience might be increased in the course of time is a somewhat complex proposition. Some of it has to do with culture and acculturation. We humans are already past the threshold of sapience, but how far past that threshold is not known. My claims are based on observations of the current foolishness that I witness in the world. It may be possible that the average human is actually more sapient than I give credit but is hindered in development by the kind of culture in which we live. In that case, there is hope that more people would develop more wisdom in life, if they grew up in a culture that valued and lived wisdom (ancient cultures, for example, venerated elders for their wisdom). Instead of being fed on the promotion of material wealth, if children and young adults lived in a culture of wisdom, perhaps more people would gain wisdom themselves. The problem is the lure of materiality that draws cultures away from that ideal. Modern day Japan is an example. Not that long ago young Japanese children were taught to venerate the elders. But a quick look at the developments in modern Japanese culture suggests that the promotion of wisdom is a thin veneer in a society. Japanese young adults are being very quick to adopt Western cultural standards, which are about as far as one can get from wisdom.

So a cultural environment might help to some degree. Nurture might provide part of the answer. But I am strongly of the opinion (not, I should hasten to say, backed up by data but only observations!) that the genetic propensities for the biological aspects, the genetic basis for brain development of sapience, is at fault. You can read most of my arguments for this position here which is a short version of my forthcoming book on the subject that will be available soon - announcement shortly).

In the long-run, we humans will need to address the genetic basis of sapience and explore the potentials it has evolutionarily. I have become convinced that our brains can evolve further to produce a much superior form of sapience and, thus, a much greater capacity for acquiring wisdom - veridical knowledge of how the world works. This does not necessarily translate into an increase in overall size (childbirth is already a painful act). If my conjectures regarding the part of the prefrontal cortex responsible for the management of sapience is correct, then it will be the relative sizes of that area (called Brodmann area 10) compared with other cortical areas that will produce the increase. This can be managed not by necessarily evolving new cell types, but by the developmental program governing that area either starting its development sooner in fetal life, or keeping it going longer, or both. That means that a minor change in the governing network of genes would be all that is necessary.

In the future, humanity needs to become involved in its own evolution such that it supports the further development of the qualities of sapience. The benefits should be quite profound. We do not need a planet full of clever geniuses or athletic Adonis-like people. We need, desperately, a planet full of people able to see reality as it is and lay plans for behaviors that lead to sustainable life for ourselves and for the rest of the Ecos. We need true wisdom. We need a new species of humans that is eusapient, truly wise.

How this is to be accomplished is subject to much conjecture. I am not in a position to prescribe a pathway. It may entail genetic engineering (now that we have the CRISPR technology!) or selective breeding (assortative mating). Who knows? It may involve all of the above and more. But one thing is very clear to me. Humanity must actively seek to further its own evolution beyond mere sapience. Its great that we have language and can talk to one another. But the content of our speech must be valuable and lead to better outcomes with respect to our service to the planet and consequent sustainability as a genus.

These days my interests have turned to thoughts about what an ideal social system for humanity might look like and how it might evolve. This comes out of an exercise to systemically analyze our current condition and apply some of my findings from a systems analysis of things like naturally occurring "economies" (e.g., metabolism in cells) and "governance" (brains) systems. Nature is replete with examples of evolved organization that we should consider when thinking about the human condition and future.

Let me recommend an excellent book by Tyler Volk at NYU called "Quarks to Cultures: How We Came to Be", Columbia University Press, New York. Tyler paints a very clear picture of the universal evolution of higher and higher complexity in stages of organization that is very similar to what I have termed "ontogenesis", he calls it "combogenesis". He and I have started a conversation about what we think the next stage (after nation-states) might entail, what kind of humans will be involved, what sort of social system they will have, and how the collective of humanity might actually provide something like a planet-scale consciousness (become the brain of Gaia!).

I'll be exploring this more in blogs to come, I think.

Comments

[BOVC]

Knowing that we came to the point that we can not only think about, but also understand how we could intentionally develop our wisdom while at the same time being stuck in a deadlock and heading quickly into what looks like, at best, a deeper dark ages or, at worst, extinction is a joke of the worst kind.
One would hope that some sort of parapsychological event could come to happen but it seems like holding on to any hope at this point is just foolishness.

Thank you for sharing another reflection.

[Honestly asking]

Why is the majority necessary?

By your own analysis, energy/resource use is the driving problem, and you acknowledge most people are simply not particularly intelligent/sapient. Add the very real technologies of genetic engineering, and we've got eugenics on steroids. Why keep an all-consuming, imperfect, and largely useless majority around?

[Gary H. Stroy]

Hi George

Can you point me to comments made by Paul Chefurka. He work is amazing but I don’t see him in the blogsphere much snymore

[Flippiefanus]

Interesting read. Perhaps not very realistic in view of basic human nature, but I'm glad to see somebody is trying to alert people to the inevitability of the fall of civilization.

The big question is what to do about it. Perhaps one must sit down and think about more workable solutions.

[Emily Tock]

Thank you for your philosophical/technilogical/psychological offerings on this blog. However, I would suggest that restructuring human society should be moved to the near-term category. I have doubts that any of your agenda is possible without that restructuring.

[George Mobus]

All,

Apologies for my lateness of response. Retirement finds me involved in more projects than is reasonable!

What I am suggesting is that there is a universal evolution as the process that produces increasingly complex organization and that humans in their current form may be seed components for the next round of complexification. But only if there is further evolution (selection) of sapience. Evolution is always a kind of crap shoot! The only thing we can say definitely about it is that it WILL happen as long as there are energy gradients in the universe.

@Gary,
Paul has a Facebook group. You might try searching for him there.