Introduction to Rethinking Everything
Why Rethink Anything?

How We Will Approach Rethinking Everything

The Approach

The intent of this blog is to consider all of the beliefs that we humans hold about how the world works that are now becoming evident we got wrong or at least need updating. Today, for example, there is widespread belief that capitalism is a good (if sometimes cruel) economic model. Now, little by little, the evidence is gathering that capitalism, at least as practiced in the major economies of the world where the availability of fossil fuel power is massive, is causative in so many of the destructive forces that threaten humanity's very existence. We will follow the evidence and let that motivate us to find different approaches and new beliefs about how we think the world should work. We will rethink capitalism and, indeed, many of our "cherished" economic beliefs and practices. Hopefully we will find new thoughts about how humanity can live in the world peacefully and sustainably and in accord with the rest of nature.

The general approach is to start with a commonly held belief about how we should live or act now in this modern culture and analyze it systemically taking particular note as to how it results in various interlinked problems. Then consider what alternatives there might be and analyze those systemically to see if they are reasonable and feasible. Only by thinking about alternatives in context of other systems and dynamics can we more properly assess the quality of those alternatives. A good example is something like: "We live in a consumer-based economy, so we all need to keep shopping in order to keep the economy healthy." Clearly we see that continually buying more "stuff" is what contributes to burning more fossil fuels and the subsequent effects on the climate and oceans. So an alternative might be to just stop doing so. That has a moral justification in that by reducing our consumerist ways we are helping the environment, yes. But that alternative also has negative consequences in terms of the jobs that might be lost as a result. In the kind of system we are embedded in, many jobs depend on consumerism. Take those jobs away and you get mass unemployment and subsequent decline in living standards. The COVID pandemic causing many businesses to close has given us a glimpse of this right now. We rethought the belief in consumerism but also realized that the proposed alternative could lead to undesirable consequences.

Clearly we have some hard thinking to do. [Be sure to read the final section below on Reader Participation.]

Establishing the Context

Every human being is born into an existing culture. During our early development that culture is all we know. And we are genetically and mentally programed to accept it as "normal." Whatever the culture says about what we do, how we do it, and why we do it is embodied in all of the artifacts that constitute the culture. Those artifacts include not just the material artifacts like machines and clothing styles, but also the institutions, religions, and the set of beliefs and ideologies that were the result of social evolution. Beliefs are constructed by the human brain, shaped over generations by real-world experiences, but also by imagination and desires. We may believe the world works in a particular way because, to some degree, that is the way we want it to work.

The cultures each of us have been born into has come down to us through a process of social evolution. There are historical contingencies to be accounted for but also biology (and neuropsychology).

Each of us believes essentially what those around us already believe. These are shared concepts and values. Having them is what makes us hypersocial beings. We generally don't question them until evidence builds that they might not be as certain as our culture would suggest. Most people, I suspect, never really question the beliefs and practices of the culture into which they were born. Some, a few, however begin to see some discrepancies between what they were taught to believe is true and what they observe to be real. Some get exposed to other cultures and through logic figure out that different people hold different beliefs - they can't all be right, can they? Still others may be intuitively repulsed by commonly accepted notions like war being the way people establish power relations between nations. Unfortunately, those who question represent a small portion of the general population. Its hard to say whether a larger portion will begin to realize the necessity of eschewing their cherished beliefs when nature whacks them up-side the head with reality. Can you imagine many of the Republicans and especially the libertarians rethinking the "American way of life" just because the number and intensity of storms and fires have been clearly increasing and property damage and lives lost as well? I suspect they will rationalize in any way they can to preserve their precious concept of expanding personal wealth.

Today there is mounting evidence that many, maybe most, of the beliefs that most people hold, are erroneous. The practices we base on those beliefs, like maximizing profits, are starting to show their detrimental effects. Beliefs that may have once resulted in constructive practice are no longer relevant or have turned negative. Take the belief in societal growth. Once, a long time ago, when people observed that life seemed to get easier when there were more hands to share the workload, growing a community to a sustainable (reproductively speaking) size could be called a good thing. Today, population and economic growth are destroying the habitat of humanity.

In that light I propose to pursue, in this blog, not condemning our beliefs and practices out of hand as being evil and wrong. Rather I want to examine how they are not serving us in the current context of global civilization. And then I want to explore new thoughts, new ideas, and new beliefs all based on our modern scientific understanding of the world and ourselves. And I want the process of rethinking to be guided and informed by systems science as a means to understand the world in a transdisciplinary way.

And, incidentally, this rethinking applies to myself. Over the years, in my QE blog, I have developed beliefs about the fate of humanity, let's just say it leaned toward gloom-and-doom. So perhaps I should put my own beliefs, assumptions, and biases under the microscope as well.

Here is an example of engagement in rethinking a strongly held belief.

The Fact and Myth of Progress

For all of human history social evolution has been progressive, that is, our societies have evolved to become more complex with more material wealth. Throughout history this has been accomplished in geographical pockets. And, throughout history many, societies have collapsed from whatever advanced state they had achieved while other pockets popped up to take up the process. On a global scale, societies have demonstrated a steady (but lately accelerating) growth in size and complexity. The phenomenon of progress, overall, and the reasons for collapse can actually be boiled down to one central factor - energy available to do useful work. In historical civilizations the people tended to drain resources in their immediate vicinity. They had to travel further, thus expending more energy, to find new sources. At some point the energy cost of recovering new resources exceeded the benefits of doing so and the society could not maintain its material state. Collapse.

Even so, humanity as a whole has maintained a belief in progress. We humans are superior to animals and it is our destiny to rule the world and have more material comfort. Recalling the historical developments, just in the West alone, of social development, the progress toward the first civilizations in the Hilly Flanks after the invention of agriculture, toward the sophisticated civilizations of ancient Greece and Egypt, toward the grandeur of the Roman Empire, toward the Enlightenment, toward the Industrial Revolution... I'm sure you get the picture.

Progress in the form of more material wealth (never fairly distributed necessarily) and greater complexity, greater convenience, and so on, is a fact of life. It happened because of two intermingling factors. The first was human inventiveness (bolstered by human inquisitiveness) for finding ways to make life easier and for finding better sources of energy. The second was that energy itself. Better sources means more useful energy available for the energy used up in getting it. That has been the case from the end of the last Ice Age to the present. First burning wood to compensate for cooler weather, to improved clothing and shelters, to agriculture to improve the yield of plant calories, to employing draft animals, to using wind in mills and sailing ships, to coal, then oil and gas, to nuclear... Once again you get the picture. Progress has always been a result of finding more and better energy sources that provided a surplus and thus an ability to turn attention to more invention.

But there is also the myth of progress. That myth is that progress can go on forever. It is the most common belief held by most of the people in this world. "We are richer today than we were before, therefore, we will be richer tomorrow than we are today." Progress has always been the case in the past so that means it must always be the case! Here we encounter a very subtle issue. It may be that the Universe will continue to make "progress" in the sense of continuing the larger process of evolution. But if we examine carefully the history of universal evolution we find that overall progress comes in stages, literally phase transitions in which a higher level of organization (and complexity) emerges from the lower preceding level. Atoms emerged from subatomic particles once the Universe cooled sufficiently. Molecules emerged from atoms once the atoms could be concentrated by gravity on rocky bodies. Life emerged from chemical reactions driven by energetic disequilibria (now thought to have been centered in undersea thermal vents). New species of life emerged once biological evolution kicked in. And social organizations emerged, in various forms, once life produced information processing capacities to actuate cooperation.

But here is the catch. Once a transition to a higher level of organization is achieved the developmental progress that led to that transition slows down or stops. There is no more increase in complexity at that level of organization. Further progress shifts to the new level. Which basically means that for humanity and societies, further progress, say getting richer per capita, is not at all necessarily in the cards. In fact, quite opposite, I have reason to assert that humanity has reached the critical point where a phase transition is about to take place. Observe the obvious facts. We are rapidly running out of cheap fossil fuel energy to power our civilizations. And as I have argued in QE, the so-called alternative (and so-called renewables) have no chance to take fossil fuel's place in terms of producing the same level of free energy needed to maintain, let alone support progress our technological culture. Something has to give. I suspect it will involve some radical shifts in lifestyles and population sizes, both demanding significant changes in beliefs.

Thus, it seems that progress for humanity, both for individual people and for society will come to a natural halt. That doesn't mean the Earth as a whole won't continue to evolve. It just means that cultural evolution will experience supervenience from some higher order organization that emerges. I hope to explore this possibility further in future bolgs.

Reader Participation

My QE blog was a somewhat personal exploration of the things that bothered or interested me; I wrote more for myself than for any particular audience. Fortunately, there apparently was an audience that was receptive to my thoughts. But with RE I propose a different approach. I would like to open the forum up to reader participation by way of soliciting suggestions for topics to rethink. Certainly, I have a backlog of topics that I am ready to offer my own rethinking on. But my priorities and, yes, biases, cannot be necessarily the right way to look at things. So I invite readers to make suggestions, along with providing some preliminary arguments as to why their particular topic should be taken up. Readers may use the comments section to raise their candidate topics. We'll see what sort of responses come from the readership and make a sort of collective decision about taking up the topics. Think of this as a sort of crowd-sourcing rethinking.

I will publish the first several topics along with my ideas so that you can see the kind of thing I have in mind. Then we can start collecting reader suggestions and go from there.

From time to time I will provide space for other thinkers to provide content as guest bloggers. Over the last several years I've had the privilege of meeting and working with some truly amazing thinkers in the domain of systems science and practice. I do hold a strong conviction that if we are to intentionally design a new world to replace the one we have now, the one that is deteriorating before our eyes, it will be based on systems approaches. I will be inviting some of my colleagues to rethink the world too.


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Rob Mielcarski

I think you should focus on democratically supported rapid population reduction policies. Nothing else will help our overshoot predicament.

George Mobus


Thanks for the suggestion. Population overshoot has been one of my main concerns for years. Could you elaborate a bit on what you mean by "democratically supported?" Perhaps give an example of what you have in mind?


murray grimwood

That's where people are encouraged to vote for their own demise :)

Seriously, thanks for the initiative George. I have checked in on your blog since the old OilDrum days, and my thinking has evolved much in parallel. My last jigsaw-piece was to examine finance, post 2007/8, and to realise it is a crock. Keystroke-issued debt, which is nothing more than forward bets on more energy and more resources in the future, without stock-taking.

Now, I'm part of a (NZ) think-tank which purports to be front-running the discourse. What it really is, is a compendium of academics who are reluctant to give up their student-debt-paid consumption, Climate-only commentators (who I regard as virtue-signallers and little more), conservationists whose default setting is conserving, and some who recoil every time the discussion gets scary. A minority are brave enough to be dispassionate and wide-thinking. A cohesive, truth-presenting edifice it is not - one has to go to Gail Tveberg or Nate Hagens or Graham Turner to get into that territory; individuals all; and not really enough to warrant being called 'all'.

Logically, the time for morphing the present assemblage of culture, consumption and infrastructure, must be nearly at an end. I think we're playing in injury-time. So I'm more keen to peer ahead to a post-collapse, triaging, locally-led format, and trying to ascertain the skills, sites and styles we might be using. There are things we cannot do much about - global war over what's left, nuclear failure post collapse - but there are things we can do, and there's always a best card to play first. You are correct, and Richard Heinberg put it correctly too back in 2017; without addressing all issues simultaneously, we end up making incorrect one-topic calls - as per addressing Climate-only by advocating EV's.

Happy to be part of that discussion, happy to contribute, indeed I can't see a more useful use of one's time from here on in. What I do note, in NZ anyway, is that Covid shifted everyone sort of 5% along from wherever they were, thinking-wise. It seems easier to raise the Limits to Growth now, without being laughed at quite so often.

Don Stewart

*"During our early development that culture is all we know. And we are genetically and mentally programed to accept it as "normal.”
Caveat: I think it is more informative to say that we are born with genes which allow us to develop brains which are literal neural networks. These neural networks are trained mostly by our culture and our experience. Experiences which are inconsistent with the culture can lead us to diverge from the culture we were born into by reconfiguring the neural network. That is how cultures evolve. My reference is the recent work of Lisa Feldman Barrett, who has been prolific on the web recently and has published 2 books along with numerous journal articles.
*It’s not easy to change a culture one component at a time. This tweet from Nora Bateson:
"The thing about culture is it is more like wine than it is like an engine. The parts can't be taken apart & replaced. The grapes cannot be taken out of the wine. This mess has been steeping for a long, long time. It is deep in the economy, edu system, tech, politics etc”

I hazard the opinion that change is hard, and will only happen as people copy other people who have succeeded in making some changes which also can be made by themselves. In order for deliberate change to happen, there are several preconditions if we are to avoid a catastrophic collapse. One, of course, is to avoid nuclear war. Another big one is to increase the efficiency with which we use the remaining fossil fuels. Efficiency not in the sense of more efficient internal combustion engines or electric vehicles, but instead in the sense of doing more walking and less riding. Or, if riding, on very different vehicles such as bicycles or electric scooters, or the like. Water transportation for bulk commodities will have to be revived, and transporting water (e.g., grapes from Chile for winter consumption in the North) will have to become very scarce. I see this intermediate stage as being the only reasonable way to get from here to there. I will note that governments need to facilitate the needed changes, not delay and eventually destroy everything by printing yet more money. A relatively prosperous model may be suggested by looking at Enough by Azby Brown which gives a vivid picture of fossil fuel free Edo Japan.

I wish you success in this new endeavor...Don Stewart

Don Stewart

Expansion on previous comment.
See this article on epigenetic and obesity (you have to click on the transcript bar):
Who do you think most determines the birth weight of a test-tube baby—the donor mom who provided all the DNA, or the surrogate mom who provided the intrauterine environment? When it was put to the test, the womb won. Incredibly, a baby born to an obese surrogate mother with a skinny biological mom may harbor a greater risk of becoming obese than a baby from a big biological mom born to a slim surrogate. The researchers conclude “the environment provided by the human mother is more important than her genetic contribution to birth weight.”

So to solve the problem of obesity we don't need to genetically re-engineer DNA, we actually need to control what is going on in the womb, which at the least involves a complex arrangement of cultural patterns, individual dietary choices, the action of inherited microbes, and so forth. If we assume that things are the way they are for a reason, then our challenge is to get back to fundamental reasons and look at the conditions and see if we can change the conditions to change the cascade of unwelcome events. If it were easy, the global obesity epidemic would have been solved long ago.
Don Stewart

The comments to this entry are closed.