Akhil, Great essay! This is the first thing I've ever read from you. Lots of great info and perspective on the Metacrisis. I saved several statements from your writing that I thought were fantastic.
I was a bit perplexed by your comment "a breakthrough in nuclear energy or superconducting can completely change the planetary boundaries equation, providing us virtually limitless emissions-free energy." Do you really believe that? Even if we accomplished those breakthroughs, do you think that would change anything?
Thank you for sharing your wisdom! Keep up the great work!
Thank you for your kind words Kevin. Thanks too for sharing this ladder of awareness- I hadn't come across it before. I think I am probably somewhere between level 4 and 5. Some aspects of how I relate to others and the rest of the biosphere remain WIP. I am also not sure what Paul means by a solution being a waste of time. Could you shed some light on it?
You have picked a very important thread with the nuclear/superconducting question. It is one that I have to investigate far more deeply. I intend to do so under the larger umbrella question of "Are there just too many of us?". Not a question I am keen on asking, but will ask nonetheless to understand our constraints for designing any future system.
The reason I put nuclear/superconducting point out there is because theoretically, if we had near zero cost abundant energy- we could have infinite material recycling, vertical farming, lab grown meat, desalination and more. Things which would bring us back from the brink of the planetary boundaries we face at the moment. On a large enough time scale, this solution will also prove to be unsustainable if our population and energy needs keep on expanding. We will theoretically grow to consume all the energy and material the galaxy has to offer and then we will just run into this conundrum again at a far larger scale. At some point, we must learn moderation. But when we are thinking of such timescales, I begin to wonder how long do we really expect our civilization to go on? Till the heat death of the universe?
Coming back to immediate concerns, ideally we need to learn moderation now of course. However, I do think it is easier to develop higher levels of consciousness and a capacity for moderation when one's survival is not at stake and for that easing of planetary boundaries will help. Or it might just be the opposite- maybe we will only learn when everything goes to hell.
So- do we try to build a world of abundance where we have all we need and hopefully that means we don't compete/destroy the biosphere or do we learn to moderate within limited resources? Perhaps the former is an easier goal. I do find something spiritually corrosive about that- akin to gluttony, but I struggle to articulate any practical reason why that course should not be pursued. My vague suspicion against that course is that we might still find some reason to fight despite abundance- not sure what that would be, but mimetic desire is a wicked thing. For that reason, development of higher consciousness is probably indispensable. However, I must think on this question further before I am convinced either way.
"Solutions being a waste of time" requires acceptance of the human predicament before it will make sense. I'm fairly new to the acceptance stage, so I'm probably not the best guide. Getting to acceptance is tough, but once you do, it feels a lot better.
I certainly can hear in your writing that you're still fighting for solutions. I love that desire. As a mechanical engineer I love technology. I love it, even when I know it's bad. It's still fun to build and use technology. I lived in that space, looking for solutions, for a several years but I eventually realized all these 'solutions' just create more complex problems.
I can tell you already realize this based on your comment of even with near magical solutions, we will just grow until we're right back in the same situation. You may have already read this, or at least already understand it, but this article (and this writer) really spoke to me from a scientific and mathematical perspective, that helped me finally tamp out this quest for a magical solution.
The only real solution that provides a sustainable, long term future for humans is that we must get out of ecological overshoot. The challenge is we are about 8 billion people over earth's sustainable carrying capacity. So that's bad news for about 8 billion of us. And rather than one big suicide pact, I suspect we'll find other ways to reduce population and consumption. I always recommend Al Bartlett when discussing this topic. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sI1C9DyIi_8
Its just my opinion of course, but I don't think we should try to build a "world of abundance". In reality, some of us, like myself, already live in that world. But of course, I can see billions of people who don't, and I 100% understand why they are pursuing it. The problem is, if they achieve it, they will look around and see billions more who still pursue it. The pursuit will never end.
I feel I've been a little depressing with my response, so I'll end on this note. The greatest thing I've learned in my journey is acceptance. I don't blame anyone for our situation. I do my best to understand it, accept it, and live life doing what seems right to me.
You have given me much to think about Kevin. Thank you for sharing these resources. Of course, the next step for me is to work through the Math for myself and convince myself one way or other. You already know from your personal journey the answer I am hoping to find, though a part of me has been prepared for the opposite ever since I first became aware of the problem. I have been working on a -'You never know until you try' mantra so far. If the Math proves out otherwise, then I suspect I will very much go through a dark night of the soul just like you have. In which case I am especially glad that you reached out, because that realization will be difficult to bear alone. I am going to get down to the task of deepening my understanding now. Would you be open to a call in the near future so I can discuss what I find with you?
Sure! I'm always happy to discuss the most interesting of topics with thinkers like yourself. It seems we might both think/learn in similar ways. For me, to believe anything, I must understand it. I like to take topics all the way down to the basic physics, or as close as necessary. That way I know I'm not being fooled at any point along the argument. I found that Tom Murphy's Do the Math blog was very helpful for me. Its interesting to look at the evolution of his blog. It started out as 'Doing the Math' on climate change and all sorts of big problems. Now, his writing is more about acceptance. You'll probably find his earlier work much more interesting at this point. I loved his mathematical approach to investigating various alternative energy and such.
When I started my journey, it was from the simple curiosity of why is Albert Einstein so famous. Despite being an engineer, I never had any need to really learn about relativity or mass-energy equivalence. And since I claim/want to be a "math smart" person, I thought I should at least know why Einstein was considered a genius. After a year or so, I finally wrapped my mind around relativity and was then addicted to learning about the universe in a way I never was when I was in school. And I still love learning about it. Take Care!
Thanks for the pointer on Tom Murphy's earlier work. Paul Chefurka also seems to have some work on the Maths. I will begin with these two.
Btw I came across another essay just yesterday which claims that the planet can support 100 billion people. I see some gaps and signs of cherry picking/fragmented thinking in the argument which I will explore further when I do my research. But am curious to hear what you think of it- https://unchartedterritories.tomaspueyo.com/p/100-billion-humans.
So cool to hear how your curiosity about the universe got piqued. It is an ongoing and open question for me as to how to develop curiosity in people since I think it is one of the basic blocks of building a different world. Do you have any thoughts on that?
My own curiosity was unlocked while reading Cosmos by Carl Sagan in the Himalayas in 2016.
I read the article. He's a techno optimist. In my opinion he is wrong on just about everything. He spends a lot of time talking about human population density, saying there is plenty of physical space, but neglects to talk about all the resources that must come from low population density areas to high density areas. A city must import virtually everything. So for every high density Hong Kong type city, there is a corresponding much larger area of low population density to support it with resources.
The idea that solar power will completely replace fossil fuels is crazy. But he goes further to say, not only will it replace FF, it will grow exponentially larger than our current FF energetic world.
But these are just my opinions based on the evidence I see, trends in place, and underlying physics. Keep your mind open and explore it yourself. See what conclusion you reach.
I know exactly what you are saying about scientific curiosity. I know for myself, I was a nerdy kid, who loved school and learning. But I honestly didn't apply it to the real world. I learned because I liked it, but I wasn't trying to figure out how the world works. I was just doing what I was supposed to do which was get good grades, so I could get into college, and eventually get a good job, which was the whole point according to my parents.
I was 31 years old before I had that moment of wondering why Einstein was famous. If I hadn't had the financial freedom and time, I wouldn't have ever questioned it. Basically, I was bored and curious. Not everyone gets to have that luxury. I suppose it requires a little upfront knowledge. If I hadn't been exposed to years of math, maybe E=mc^2 would have been too daunting and I never would have understood what it really means.
I find myself extremely confused with people's lack of curiosity. I get blown away sometimes just thinking about the fact that NOW isn't NOW everywhere. Time isn't exactly the same everywhere. That blows my mind, I can and have spent hours upon hours thinking about that simple fact. But I try to explain it to other people and they say "hun, oh really? Anyways, what are we going to eat".
I also wonder if people understand there is objective truth about our universe that can be discovered. I think so much of the time we argue about politics or something, where there is no objective truth. One person has evidence for something, and another person has evidence for the exact opposite. It makes people think everything is an opinion. Where as I know that some things such as physics have objective truths. I enjoy learning and talking about things that I know are true, as opposed to arguing about which politician is better. I personally believe science is different in that aspect. But I don't think everyone knows that. And certainly lots of people would argue that science is also subjective. When I've explained the greenhouse effect to my father, he'll say, well that's just your theory. It makes me want to pull my hair out.
I think for most people they just live their daily lives. They never think they are a hairless ape, living on a ball of rock, spinning through space. Maybe not everyone can think like that, or maybe it just doesn't interest them. I'm not sure.
Brilliant essay, but it feels slightly conceited to say that as I’m writing a book and this is one of the main points I want to raise! I have nothing to critique, I just want to say that we need to get a bit more woo-woo I believe if we’re going to switch from a left-hemispheric perspective (short-term, calculating, competitive, zero-sum mindset) to a right-hemispheric (long-term, collaborative, non-zero-sum mindset.) I advocate for several things in my book, namely the realization that death is not the end through psychedelic usage, and a re-examination of several woo subjects such as reincarnation, UFOs, and near-death experiences. (They may seem completely unconnected but I guarantee they are deeply connected!)
Glad it resonated Andrew! When is the book coming out? Critical to amplify this message and imagine better pathways.
Colour me intrigued on the points you raised! The death not being the end and psychedelics part definitely doesn't seem disconnected to me. But I might of course be assuming something completely different than the connection you are hinting it. So here is my guess- drives for power and status would be highly mitigated, if not eliminated, if death is not the end. Though I think overcoming death would on its own be insufficient. We will also need to experientally realize the oneness of all things- which might be implied with death not being the end (but is a separate point in case one achieves biological immortality through life extension tech)
I don't know enough about reincarnation, UFOs, and near-death experiences to try to guess the connection, but I am very open to entertaining woo-woo possibilities :) I try my best to build a plausible bridge back to the 'rational', but I know there is much that science has not yet uncovered so I try to remain open to possibilities as much as I can! Most curious for you to elaborate on your thoughts
That’s exactly where I’m going with my points too: oneness (as a felt experience, rather than an intellectual exercise) is the key. The problem as you rightly state can be simplified as “left-hemisphere perception” (everything in your circle diagram is a manifestation of this) which is being abetted by the entire web of incentives within society, the heart of which is maintained by the debt-based monetary system. If enough people activate their “right-hemisphere”, then the moloch problem can be overcome in a tipping-point manner. (That’s the claim at least!) And I think a large part of the problem is understanding, what I’m calling, the ‘universal metapattern’ which makes sense of all processes in existence, which is the Whole-Part-Whole pattern, or the Right-Left-Right pattern. I mean there’s honestly not much more to explain. I’ve made the book full of pictures too because I’m a visual thinker, and it should be coming out by the end of next month.
Excited to read the book. Also keen to hear more about this Universal metapattern that you speak of and potentially alternatives to debt-based monetary systems. DMing you
Nice article. I agree that we need a fundamental paradigm shift in human consciousness. I'm afraid to have to opine that it obviously isn't happening and can't happen any time soon, and obviously not in time. I believe it's outside the realm of possibility to engineer a cascade shift socially, and we also aren't even trying. The most likely trigger will be a truly calamitous event (bigger than the scene that begins the story in The Ministry for the Future) that kills a billion people, and by then it's too late to avoid catastrophic collapse.
Regarding energy, let me copy/paste a snippet of my upcoming Part 4 of 5: Bargaining:
"Q: Energy: the cheaper the better, right?
A: Tech yielding free energy would be just about the worst invention imaginable, because it would pour infinite fuel on the fire that is destroying our world.
Jevon’s Paradox describes the law of human nature regarding how, when something is made more cost-effective, we just use more of it instead of appreciating our savings. Under capitalism, market efficiency corrupts technical efficiency in this way, a clear case of our aforementioned intelligence and desires overruling prudent restraint.
Cheap, abundant energy is literally what has enabled us to destroy the Earth.
Everything involved in improving the effectiveness of destructive human endeavours ultimately backfires as it causes unintended N-order effects that hasten our demise. This is what happens when one fails to think things through and has a few billion too many babies.
In Overshoot, our ultimate demise is hastened by things we tend to value highly, e.g.:
- Having children
- Keeping people alive
- Helping the unfortunate
- Making lotsa money
- Advancing our technology
- Thriving, growing, prospering, expanding
The remedy for Overshoot is the opposite of what everyone wants, but when they’re blind to the situation, have their own alternative facts, and won’t listen to reason, we have a big problem.
If we knew what was best for us, we shouldn’t want increased effectiveness, but we sure as hell think we do. So, in blind techno-optimism, we pin our hopes on perpetually distant nuclear fusion, geothermal energy, and other tech we haven’t even invented yet, not realising that these are all Hail Marys thrown into an Abyss filled with sleeping monsters.
If your deflector shield is resisting these brutal facts about overshoot, I don’t blame you. I feel sick even writing them. Nobody wants to quell people’s dreams of having families or increasing their lot in life. But the truth is that cheaper energy won’t get us out of this mess. Not as long as it’s fuel for our insatiable desires.
There’s nothing wrong with cheap energy if the energy is capped. It’s the abundance of it that’s a problem. If Earth had no fossil fuels in the first place, we wouldn’t have ended up in this mess. As it is, the cheaper our energy is, the worse it is for us all."
Apart from that, I would add that the issue goes way deeper than energy and tech and capitalism, right into our very minds. Cue EO Wilson's famous quote. I've thought about this stuff a lot, and feel I can shoot down every single snippet of optimism about our chances with logic and evidence. It sucks. I hope I'm wrong.
So many things will end us. Just the Keeling curve alone is game over for civilisation, and possibly humanity, depending on positive feedback loops re tipping points. Just yesterday I saw a report predicting +7C by 2200. Civilisation is long gone before that, but whether it's in 2075 or 2300 is kinda arbitrary, on principle. We neither can nor really want to slow it's rise: just ignore the sounds we make and look at what we're doing.
Anyhoo, it's great that you're trying to spread awareness, and I appreciate your perspectives. Best wishes.
Ah. You remind of Theoden’s quote from LOTR- “Dark have my dreams been of late”. I just rewatched the whole series this week. I find myself drawn to it whenever I feel hope fading. We are living through dark times and I share your worry that it will get far darker still before we begin to find our way again.
As to the question of how much temperature rise and by when and what tipping points we cross- I agree with you that it is mostly moot. Even by 2 degrees we will probably see enough crop failures and migration effects that the civil unrest itself will be overwhelming.
On the question of energy, I think we do need abundant clean energy and we should keep pushing towards it but with full cost accounting. Simultaneously we need a push towards lower energy and lower material footprint lifestyles. These two trends will have to meet somewhere in the middle to reach an equilibrium.
The theory of change I subscribe to is that we must build the alternative and demonstrate that it is better. That’s the only way to get folks to switch. So I am trying to plug away in that direction in the hope that when the willingness to switch exists- people have enough examples to see how to switch!
I agree all the problems are connected, but I don't agree that it will be hard to change.
If you look at technology and progress as simply increasing our ability to do more with less, then everyday it becomes easier than ever to make the world work for everyone, just the same as it becomes easier to destroy the world for everyone. Then it really just comes down to a marketing problem.
What got me thinking about this was stumbling on a contest rewarding $100k annually to the best proposal "to make the world work for 100% of humanity in the shortest time possible, through spontaneous cooperation, with no ecological offence or disadvantage to anyone." (https://www.bfi.org/challenge/origins-and-supporters/).
This was put on by the Buckminster Fuller Institute from '07-'17, and this was the challenge Bucky posed to people during his life, as he was also working on it. Around the 60's or 70's he calculated we had the technology to do this (via the level of material efficiency we demonstrated in aerospace).
Anyways, it seemed obvious to me that the problem before us is to solve why we're not using the tech we have, rather than make any new tech, since it had already been 40 years since he very publicly let the world know we already have all the tech we need.
But year after year the winners were new tech for specific problems. So I wrote up a proposal that I thought at least had a chance of resolving the question at hand, and considering no one else was even trying to solve more than one problem I was curious to see how they would respond. Not too surprisingly I got no response, even the people running the contest were focused on new solutions to specific problems.
So, first off I think we all need to reframe the question from one of, looking for something new, to a question of, why aren't we using what we've got? Then we can start to make progress.
I feel like I came up with a pretty good solution and I'm happy to share it with you, but first I'll give you some time to think about it in this way so we can compare what we came up with.
Thanks fot the insightful comment Alan. I wasn't aware of this contest and Buckminster Fuller's work remains on my to research list. Sharing my thoughts on what you said below.
The root cause in brief is– our tendencies to compete are dominating instead of our tendencies to cooperate while technology and population growth are making us hit planetary boundaries.
Why aren’t we cooperating:
1. Not thinking holistically enough
2. Cultural narratives focused on material accumulation
3. Systemic/evolutionary incentives for wealth accumulation
Coming to resource sufficiency- am not sure we have enough resources for 8 billion people to enjoy a good standard of life. Am not skeptical- am just saying I haven’t done the Math myself- so am thankful for your pointer to Buckminster Fuller’s research. I need to study that myself to come to the same conclusion. If you can share some links that will be helpful.
If the Math proves that we don’t have enough resources then it is relatively obvious why we aren’t cooperating. But let me try and answer from the perspective that we already have enough resources. Following thoughts come to mind:
1. Has the idea been spread widely enough? There might be a marketing problem as you said
2. Does the implementation of the ideas mean some people will have less power/resources than they currently do? Given that these individuals hold the most power today- how will they be convinced to give them up?
3. Is what Buckminster Fuller conceives as enough, enough for everyone? Some of us might want even higher standards of life. Human desire can be limitless.
4. Even if objectively the standard of living is enough- are all of us okay with having the same standard of living as everyone else? Human beings want to feel special and differentiated in some way. Some people also want to leave a legacy
5. Cooperating with everyone can involve surrendering some independence. What if my vision for the world doesn’t coincide with yours? This can make cooperation annoying at one end to almost suffocating in extreme cases.
If it is just about spreading the idea of there being enough for everyone- then the solution is straightforward as you say. But points 2 to 5, are not as straightforward. Some might be easier to tackle than others though.
The way to get some folks to be okay with having lesser material wealth is by giving them a better quality of life overall. Most of the meaning in life comes from relationships (with self, others, nature), the pursuit of purpose, self-actualization/transcendence etc. These things don’t need a high material footprint. If this is true, then it is again a marketing problem to make this the preferred lifestyle (the cultural/spiritual shifts that the essay mentions). This can also allow people to differentiate themselves from others (if they still desire it) on dimensions other than material wealth.
This still doesn’t answer why those who are currently materially far better off today should give up what they have. I can think of 3 arguments one can make to appeal to them:
Either they cooperate or the world ends and they lose everything anyway
Either they cooperate or people come after them with pitchforks and they lose everything
Appeal to their desire for legacy/self-transcendence etc- if they cooperate they will be hailed as heroes/be closer to self-actualization
I don’t think that will address all of the excess material consumption though. For instance, I would love to visit Antarctica. I imagine so would a lot of people- far more than would be good for Antarctica probably. I can also see it being a very meaningful experience for everyone who does and I am at a loss to make an argument as to why they shouldn’t do it if they could. If preserving the ecosystem is the argument- then should nobody go? A limited number every year? If so, how do you decide who goes? Maybe we can devise a system where it’s decided by lottery instead of who has the most power or wealth. Or maybe virtual reality becomes so good that you can experience things from the comfort of your own home and don’t really need to visit.
It is the loss of independence that I find hardest to address. Let’s say hypothetically we live in a world where I think humanity should become a space-faring civilization, but that is a minority opinion. Under today’s system, I could theoretically gain enough material resources and power myself to make it happen (like Elon). But in a world where resources and power are distributed relatively equally- how do I shape the world in a way I desire? Maybe there can be another mechanism to convince the world to take this direction. Not sure.
I recognize that a lot of what I am saying above are trappings of the ego and if we had sufficiently widespread development of higher consciousness through Vipassana, therapy, psychedelics, mindfulness or whatever else then some of these concerns would be greatly diminished. Will they go away 100% though? Am not sure. And I actually don’t think we want them to go away 100% either- striving for differentiation, independence etc seem important to human flourishing and the long-term survival of the species.
Anyway, this is not necessarily a cohesive/comprehensive answer- just some top of mind thoughts based on your comment. Would love to hear your take
I agree with all of those as being factors, but which is the root problem?
I think I lean towards, not thinking holistically.
I could write pages and pages on this, but in general, I think it’s a big misunderstanding.
I equate it to the saying “The road to hell is paved with good intentions”.
Shortly before stumbling onto Bucky, I’d watched the documentary “The Corporation”, and one line in it stood out as the linchpin to the whole problem. Corporations are legally obligated to maximize benefit for the shareholders, and benefit is defined as money.
So, it’s no surprise things are going to hell, it’s all working as designed. Not as intended, but as designed.
Corporations are legally obligated to convert everything on earth into money because we couldn’t come up with a better definition of benefit. Most of the time when people are complaining about corporations, it’s for something the corporation is legally obligated to do, such as pay as little tax as possible.
So unless we sort this out some way, the end game will be one remaining person sitting on a stack of money on an inhabitable planet.
I think we got here, to our culture and incentives of material and monetary accumulation, because it’s been working very effectively. And we are now at a point where our technology is so powerful that we need to revisit what we’re doing.
Many people think the solutions to our problems are breaking up big companies, redistributing the wealth, and all sorts of things that would involve conflict, and loss of autonomy. I think we just need to fix the obvious flaws in the market economy, to get it working the way we intended.
I think Adam Smith’s concept of the invisible hand was the answer to Bucky’s question, 200 years before he asked it, we’re just not thinking holistically. Yes, the invisible hand seems like a selfish way of living, but it’s not about stealing from each other. It’s about living within your community in a way that is best for you. The best way to live in a community is to cooperate, to treat others as you want to be treated, and to spend your money at stores that treat people fairly. Our world is just so complicated now that people are profiting from stealing from each other, and or stealing from our collective wealth of natural resources.
So, I think we need a service to help us make better decisions. Rather than the government trying it's hand at paternalism and taxing large soda's, we need a service we pay for to help us choose the drink that suits our desires, that helps us be the change we want to see in the world.
If you think about the requirements of the individual for the market economy to work, it’s clearly impossible but we are just rolling with it. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_economicus). So we need some help, and some trustworthy help. I think we can leverage the flawed corporate law by simply making every client buy a share to become a shareholder.
I don’t know if that service sounds hard, or impossible, but to me, it sounds significantly easier than anything people in Silicon Valley are working on.
People seem to want corporations to fix this, or rich people, or governments. There seems to be a backlash against individual actions. But corps and rich people and governments aren’t leaders. Corps chase dollars, governments chase votes, and even the richest person in the world couldn’t give very much to every person on the planet. Individual action is all there is. Yes, laws and regulations are good, but it takes individuals to vote for them, and individuals to follow them. We need to coordinate our efforts around common goals and come up with laws and regulations that will stay in place and be followed.
We got into this mess through everyday living, and we’ll get out of it through everyday living.
The carrying capacity of the planet is based on a lifestyle that creates astonishing amounts of waste. We don’t need to attack consumption, we need to tackle waste, and not just garbage. Wasted time, wasted money, and wasted resources.
I could go on and on about how and why I think this would work. But I think one of the main reasons we haven’t come up with a way to do this yet is because no one is really thinking about it. No one seems to be thinking holistically, they are thinking about subsets of problems, and they assume there isn't enough for everyone.
I also think the “system” we need to change is our language. Language is technology, it’s like the code of our operating system, and we have some flaws in the code, like defining benefit as money, and making money the ultimate goal.
Once we sort some of those things out, it won’t be hard to turn things around. It’ll be like turning on the lights. Things that seemed hard or impossible in the pitch black will all of a sudden become very easy.
Hopefully, you found some of this interesting. Below are some links I think you'll find interesting:
A highlight of Bucky’s math - This is the best I can find right now, he really spreads it out across his writing.
This is an example of why we make “bad decisions”. Watch clips 10172 & 10173 (2 min), Bucky talks about how his ultra-cheap and efficient homes were opposed by the construction industry (loss of jobs) and the financial industry (huge losses in mortgages, not to mention devaluing existing homes).
Here is a study on how similar people feel about wealth distribution and how far off they are from what they assume it is, compared to what it actually is.
Alan- my apologies for the super delayed response. Much of December and Jan went in dealing with multiple bouts of flu and then life got in the way in other ways. Thank you for such a thoughtful response. I would love to meet up in person and discuss some of these ideas with you. Will ping you on Linkedin to coordinate!
Eye opening read Akhil. Hope you spread awareness and encourage people to think about our survival on a bigger scale. Metacrisis is the root as you said and we need to think collectively how to solve it and solve it soon.
On what basis do you presume that "human nature" includes "our pursuit of power and status and our tendency to think short-term and non-holistically"? Related Q: how do you distinguish human nature from conditioned thinking? After all, it wasn't until Descartes and Bacon that we began thinking of ourselves as apart from nature. When you say "our" are you including Indigenous people in that? What about Buddhist culltures that presume human nature is benevolent? Are you excluding them, too? And how in the world are we ever supposed to come into proper relationship with the natural world if we begin from an assumption that it is human nature to desecrate it?????
Thank you for this thoughtful and important critique Tham Zhiwa. You're absolutely right to challenge the assumptions behind my use of the term human nature. When I wrote that our pursuit of power and status and our tendency to think short-term and non-holistically are “deep-rooted in human nature,” I didn’t mean to suggest these traits are universal or inevitable, or that they define what it means to be human.
Rather, I meant that these are latent tendencies that often emerge under certain conditions—particularly in environments shaped by fear, scarcity, and adversarial incentives. But they’re not the only or even the most fundamental parts of us.
You're right to point out that traditions like Buddhism and many Indigenous worldviews center cooperation, interdependence, and relational thinking. These are powerful counters to the extractive, individualistic logic that dominates much of modern life—and they offer real wisdom about how we might live differently. That said, I also want to be careful not to romanticize these cultures. Indigenous societies, like all human communities, are complex. They too have experienced conflict, competition, and hierarchy. The same goes for Buddhist societies—no culture is free from contradiction.
So the deeper point I was trying to make is this: what we often attribute to “human nature” is, in many cases, shaped or exaggerated by the systems we live in. The parts of us that are fearful, competitive, and short-termist get amplified by systems designed around zero-sum incentives. But the parts of us that are compassionate, wise, and cooperative—those exist too, and they can be cultivated through better stories, values, and structures. I raise these points in the section starting from "Not all doom and gloom". Perhaps those points didn't stand out or maybe you disengaged from the essay before then coz my analysis might have seemed one sided before that point.
I appreciate you pushing this conversation toward more nuance and I think we are mostly in agreement. Ultimately, I think the task ahead isn’t to decide whether humans are “good” or “bad,” but to ask: which parts of us do we want our systems to nurture?
Akhil, Great essay! This is the first thing I've ever read from you. Lots of great info and perspective on the Metacrisis. I saved several statements from your writing that I thought were fantastic.
So now a gentle critique. Where would you say you fall on the Ladder of Awareness as explained by Paul Chefurka? It can be found here: http://www.paulchefurka.ca/LadderOfAwareness.html
I was a bit perplexed by your comment "a breakthrough in nuclear energy or superconducting can completely change the planetary boundaries equation, providing us virtually limitless emissions-free energy." Do you really believe that? Even if we accomplished those breakthroughs, do you think that would change anything?
Thank you for sharing your wisdom! Keep up the great work!
Thank you for your kind words Kevin. Thanks too for sharing this ladder of awareness- I hadn't come across it before. I think I am probably somewhere between level 4 and 5. Some aspects of how I relate to others and the rest of the biosphere remain WIP. I am also not sure what Paul means by a solution being a waste of time. Could you shed some light on it?
You have picked a very important thread with the nuclear/superconducting question. It is one that I have to investigate far more deeply. I intend to do so under the larger umbrella question of "Are there just too many of us?". Not a question I am keen on asking, but will ask nonetheless to understand our constraints for designing any future system.
The reason I put nuclear/superconducting point out there is because theoretically, if we had near zero cost abundant energy- we could have infinite material recycling, vertical farming, lab grown meat, desalination and more. Things which would bring us back from the brink of the planetary boundaries we face at the moment. On a large enough time scale, this solution will also prove to be unsustainable if our population and energy needs keep on expanding. We will theoretically grow to consume all the energy and material the galaxy has to offer and then we will just run into this conundrum again at a far larger scale. At some point, we must learn moderation. But when we are thinking of such timescales, I begin to wonder how long do we really expect our civilization to go on? Till the heat death of the universe?
Coming back to immediate concerns, ideally we need to learn moderation now of course. However, I do think it is easier to develop higher levels of consciousness and a capacity for moderation when one's survival is not at stake and for that easing of planetary boundaries will help. Or it might just be the opposite- maybe we will only learn when everything goes to hell.
So- do we try to build a world of abundance where we have all we need and hopefully that means we don't compete/destroy the biosphere or do we learn to moderate within limited resources? Perhaps the former is an easier goal. I do find something spiritually corrosive about that- akin to gluttony, but I struggle to articulate any practical reason why that course should not be pursued. My vague suspicion against that course is that we might still find some reason to fight despite abundance- not sure what that would be, but mimetic desire is a wicked thing. For that reason, development of higher consciousness is probably indispensable. However, I must think on this question further before I am convinced either way.
Would love to hear your thoughts
"Solutions being a waste of time" requires acceptance of the human predicament before it will make sense. I'm fairly new to the acceptance stage, so I'm probably not the best guide. Getting to acceptance is tough, but once you do, it feels a lot better.
I certainly can hear in your writing that you're still fighting for solutions. I love that desire. As a mechanical engineer I love technology. I love it, even when I know it's bad. It's still fun to build and use technology. I lived in that space, looking for solutions, for a several years but I eventually realized all these 'solutions' just create more complex problems.
I can tell you already realize this based on your comment of even with near magical solutions, we will just grow until we're right back in the same situation. You may have already read this, or at least already understand it, but this article (and this writer) really spoke to me from a scientific and mathematical perspective, that helped me finally tamp out this quest for a magical solution.
https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/07/galactic-scale-energy/
The only real solution that provides a sustainable, long term future for humans is that we must get out of ecological overshoot. The challenge is we are about 8 billion people over earth's sustainable carrying capacity. So that's bad news for about 8 billion of us. And rather than one big suicide pact, I suspect we'll find other ways to reduce population and consumption. I always recommend Al Bartlett when discussing this topic. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sI1C9DyIi_8
Its just my opinion of course, but I don't think we should try to build a "world of abundance". In reality, some of us, like myself, already live in that world. But of course, I can see billions of people who don't, and I 100% understand why they are pursuing it. The problem is, if they achieve it, they will look around and see billions more who still pursue it. The pursuit will never end.
I feel I've been a little depressing with my response, so I'll end on this note. The greatest thing I've learned in my journey is acceptance. I don't blame anyone for our situation. I do my best to understand it, accept it, and live life doing what seems right to me.
You have given me much to think about Kevin. Thank you for sharing these resources. Of course, the next step for me is to work through the Math for myself and convince myself one way or other. You already know from your personal journey the answer I am hoping to find, though a part of me has been prepared for the opposite ever since I first became aware of the problem. I have been working on a -'You never know until you try' mantra so far. If the Math proves out otherwise, then I suspect I will very much go through a dark night of the soul just like you have. In which case I am especially glad that you reached out, because that realization will be difficult to bear alone. I am going to get down to the task of deepening my understanding now. Would you be open to a call in the near future so I can discuss what I find with you?
Sure! I'm always happy to discuss the most interesting of topics with thinkers like yourself. It seems we might both think/learn in similar ways. For me, to believe anything, I must understand it. I like to take topics all the way down to the basic physics, or as close as necessary. That way I know I'm not being fooled at any point along the argument. I found that Tom Murphy's Do the Math blog was very helpful for me. Its interesting to look at the evolution of his blog. It started out as 'Doing the Math' on climate change and all sorts of big problems. Now, his writing is more about acceptance. You'll probably find his earlier work much more interesting at this point. I loved his mathematical approach to investigating various alternative energy and such.
When I started my journey, it was from the simple curiosity of why is Albert Einstein so famous. Despite being an engineer, I never had any need to really learn about relativity or mass-energy equivalence. And since I claim/want to be a "math smart" person, I thought I should at least know why Einstein was considered a genius. After a year or so, I finally wrapped my mind around relativity and was then addicted to learning about the universe in a way I never was when I was in school. And I still love learning about it. Take Care!
Thanks for the pointer on Tom Murphy's earlier work. Paul Chefurka also seems to have some work on the Maths. I will begin with these two.
Btw I came across another essay just yesterday which claims that the planet can support 100 billion people. I see some gaps and signs of cherry picking/fragmented thinking in the argument which I will explore further when I do my research. But am curious to hear what you think of it- https://unchartedterritories.tomaspueyo.com/p/100-billion-humans.
So cool to hear how your curiosity about the universe got piqued. It is an ongoing and open question for me as to how to develop curiosity in people since I think it is one of the basic blocks of building a different world. Do you have any thoughts on that?
My own curiosity was unlocked while reading Cosmos by Carl Sagan in the Himalayas in 2016.
I read the article. He's a techno optimist. In my opinion he is wrong on just about everything. He spends a lot of time talking about human population density, saying there is plenty of physical space, but neglects to talk about all the resources that must come from low population density areas to high density areas. A city must import virtually everything. So for every high density Hong Kong type city, there is a corresponding much larger area of low population density to support it with resources.
The idea that solar power will completely replace fossil fuels is crazy. But he goes further to say, not only will it replace FF, it will grow exponentially larger than our current FF energetic world.
But these are just my opinions based on the evidence I see, trends in place, and underlying physics. Keep your mind open and explore it yourself. See what conclusion you reach.
I know exactly what you are saying about scientific curiosity. I know for myself, I was a nerdy kid, who loved school and learning. But I honestly didn't apply it to the real world. I learned because I liked it, but I wasn't trying to figure out how the world works. I was just doing what I was supposed to do which was get good grades, so I could get into college, and eventually get a good job, which was the whole point according to my parents.
I was 31 years old before I had that moment of wondering why Einstein was famous. If I hadn't had the financial freedom and time, I wouldn't have ever questioned it. Basically, I was bored and curious. Not everyone gets to have that luxury. I suppose it requires a little upfront knowledge. If I hadn't been exposed to years of math, maybe E=mc^2 would have been too daunting and I never would have understood what it really means.
I find myself extremely confused with people's lack of curiosity. I get blown away sometimes just thinking about the fact that NOW isn't NOW everywhere. Time isn't exactly the same everywhere. That blows my mind, I can and have spent hours upon hours thinking about that simple fact. But I try to explain it to other people and they say "hun, oh really? Anyways, what are we going to eat".
I also wonder if people understand there is objective truth about our universe that can be discovered. I think so much of the time we argue about politics or something, where there is no objective truth. One person has evidence for something, and another person has evidence for the exact opposite. It makes people think everything is an opinion. Where as I know that some things such as physics have objective truths. I enjoy learning and talking about things that I know are true, as opposed to arguing about which politician is better. I personally believe science is different in that aspect. But I don't think everyone knows that. And certainly lots of people would argue that science is also subjective. When I've explained the greenhouse effect to my father, he'll say, well that's just your theory. It makes me want to pull my hair out.
I think for most people they just live their daily lives. They never think they are a hairless ape, living on a ball of rock, spinning through space. Maybe not everyone can think like that, or maybe it just doesn't interest them. I'm not sure.
Very well put points. Very thought provoking. Definitely need more detailed thought process on the sub topics to spread awareness
Thanks Salonika. Definitely intend to go more in-depth about all the pieces in future essays
Intresting. Must say it js engaging even for such a grim topic which you want to escape reading.
Haha. Like a train wreck you can't help but watch unfold?
Very thought provoking essay, would love to read detailed analysis on individual parts
Thanks Tarun. Will be working on that in future essays!
Brilliant essay, but it feels slightly conceited to say that as I’m writing a book and this is one of the main points I want to raise! I have nothing to critique, I just want to say that we need to get a bit more woo-woo I believe if we’re going to switch from a left-hemispheric perspective (short-term, calculating, competitive, zero-sum mindset) to a right-hemispheric (long-term, collaborative, non-zero-sum mindset.) I advocate for several things in my book, namely the realization that death is not the end through psychedelic usage, and a re-examination of several woo subjects such as reincarnation, UFOs, and near-death experiences. (They may seem completely unconnected but I guarantee they are deeply connected!)
Glad it resonated Andrew! When is the book coming out? Critical to amplify this message and imagine better pathways.
Colour me intrigued on the points you raised! The death not being the end and psychedelics part definitely doesn't seem disconnected to me. But I might of course be assuming something completely different than the connection you are hinting it. So here is my guess- drives for power and status would be highly mitigated, if not eliminated, if death is not the end. Though I think overcoming death would on its own be insufficient. We will also need to experientally realize the oneness of all things- which might be implied with death not being the end (but is a separate point in case one achieves biological immortality through life extension tech)
I don't know enough about reincarnation, UFOs, and near-death experiences to try to guess the connection, but I am very open to entertaining woo-woo possibilities :) I try my best to build a plausible bridge back to the 'rational', but I know there is much that science has not yet uncovered so I try to remain open to possibilities as much as I can! Most curious for you to elaborate on your thoughts
That’s exactly where I’m going with my points too: oneness (as a felt experience, rather than an intellectual exercise) is the key. The problem as you rightly state can be simplified as “left-hemisphere perception” (everything in your circle diagram is a manifestation of this) which is being abetted by the entire web of incentives within society, the heart of which is maintained by the debt-based monetary system. If enough people activate their “right-hemisphere”, then the moloch problem can be overcome in a tipping-point manner. (That’s the claim at least!) And I think a large part of the problem is understanding, what I’m calling, the ‘universal metapattern’ which makes sense of all processes in existence, which is the Whole-Part-Whole pattern, or the Right-Left-Right pattern. I mean there’s honestly not much more to explain. I’ve made the book full of pictures too because I’m a visual thinker, and it should be coming out by the end of next month.
Excited to read the book. Also keen to hear more about this Universal metapattern that you speak of and potentially alternatives to debt-based monetary systems. DMing you
This was fantastic. You’ve earned a subscriber. Thank you for your work.
Thank you Slu. Glad you found it useful!
Nice article. I agree that we need a fundamental paradigm shift in human consciousness. I'm afraid to have to opine that it obviously isn't happening and can't happen any time soon, and obviously not in time. I believe it's outside the realm of possibility to engineer a cascade shift socially, and we also aren't even trying. The most likely trigger will be a truly calamitous event (bigger than the scene that begins the story in The Ministry for the Future) that kills a billion people, and by then it's too late to avoid catastrophic collapse.
Regarding energy, let me copy/paste a snippet of my upcoming Part 4 of 5: Bargaining:
"Q: Energy: the cheaper the better, right?
A: Tech yielding free energy would be just about the worst invention imaginable, because it would pour infinite fuel on the fire that is destroying our world.
Jevon’s Paradox describes the law of human nature regarding how, when something is made more cost-effective, we just use more of it instead of appreciating our savings. Under capitalism, market efficiency corrupts technical efficiency in this way, a clear case of our aforementioned intelligence and desires overruling prudent restraint.
Cheap, abundant energy is literally what has enabled us to destroy the Earth.
Everything involved in improving the effectiveness of destructive human endeavours ultimately backfires as it causes unintended N-order effects that hasten our demise. This is what happens when one fails to think things through and has a few billion too many babies.
In Overshoot, our ultimate demise is hastened by things we tend to value highly, e.g.:
- Having children
- Keeping people alive
- Helping the unfortunate
- Making lotsa money
- Advancing our technology
- Thriving, growing, prospering, expanding
The remedy for Overshoot is the opposite of what everyone wants, but when they’re blind to the situation, have their own alternative facts, and won’t listen to reason, we have a big problem.
If we knew what was best for us, we shouldn’t want increased effectiveness, but we sure as hell think we do. So, in blind techno-optimism, we pin our hopes on perpetually distant nuclear fusion, geothermal energy, and other tech we haven’t even invented yet, not realising that these are all Hail Marys thrown into an Abyss filled with sleeping monsters.
If your deflector shield is resisting these brutal facts about overshoot, I don’t blame you. I feel sick even writing them. Nobody wants to quell people’s dreams of having families or increasing their lot in life. But the truth is that cheaper energy won’t get us out of this mess. Not as long as it’s fuel for our insatiable desires.
There’s nothing wrong with cheap energy if the energy is capped. It’s the abundance of it that’s a problem. If Earth had no fossil fuels in the first place, we wouldn’t have ended up in this mess. As it is, the cheaper our energy is, the worse it is for us all."
Apart from that, I would add that the issue goes way deeper than energy and tech and capitalism, right into our very minds. Cue EO Wilson's famous quote. I've thought about this stuff a lot, and feel I can shoot down every single snippet of optimism about our chances with logic and evidence. It sucks. I hope I'm wrong.
So many things will end us. Just the Keeling curve alone is game over for civilisation, and possibly humanity, depending on positive feedback loops re tipping points. Just yesterday I saw a report predicting +7C by 2200. Civilisation is long gone before that, but whether it's in 2075 or 2300 is kinda arbitrary, on principle. We neither can nor really want to slow it's rise: just ignore the sounds we make and look at what we're doing.
Anyhoo, it's great that you're trying to spread awareness, and I appreciate your perspectives. Best wishes.
Ah. You remind of Theoden’s quote from LOTR- “Dark have my dreams been of late”. I just rewatched the whole series this week. I find myself drawn to it whenever I feel hope fading. We are living through dark times and I share your worry that it will get far darker still before we begin to find our way again.
As to the question of how much temperature rise and by when and what tipping points we cross- I agree with you that it is mostly moot. Even by 2 degrees we will probably see enough crop failures and migration effects that the civil unrest itself will be overwhelming.
On the question of energy, I think we do need abundant clean energy and we should keep pushing towards it but with full cost accounting. Simultaneously we need a push towards lower energy and lower material footprint lifestyles. These two trends will have to meet somewhere in the middle to reach an equilibrium.
The theory of change I subscribe to is that we must build the alternative and demonstrate that it is better. That’s the only way to get folks to switch. So I am trying to plug away in that direction in the hope that when the willingness to switch exists- people have enough examples to see how to switch!
So what do you think the root problem is?
I agree all the problems are connected, but I don't agree that it will be hard to change.
If you look at technology and progress as simply increasing our ability to do more with less, then everyday it becomes easier than ever to make the world work for everyone, just the same as it becomes easier to destroy the world for everyone. Then it really just comes down to a marketing problem.
What got me thinking about this was stumbling on a contest rewarding $100k annually to the best proposal "to make the world work for 100% of humanity in the shortest time possible, through spontaneous cooperation, with no ecological offence or disadvantage to anyone." (https://www.bfi.org/challenge/origins-and-supporters/).
This was put on by the Buckminster Fuller Institute from '07-'17, and this was the challenge Bucky posed to people during his life, as he was also working on it. Around the 60's or 70's he calculated we had the technology to do this (via the level of material efficiency we demonstrated in aerospace).
Anyways, it seemed obvious to me that the problem before us is to solve why we're not using the tech we have, rather than make any new tech, since it had already been 40 years since he very publicly let the world know we already have all the tech we need.
But year after year the winners were new tech for specific problems. So I wrote up a proposal that I thought at least had a chance of resolving the question at hand, and considering no one else was even trying to solve more than one problem I was curious to see how they would respond. Not too surprisingly I got no response, even the people running the contest were focused on new solutions to specific problems.
So, first off I think we all need to reframe the question from one of, looking for something new, to a question of, why aren't we using what we've got? Then we can start to make progress.
I feel like I came up with a pretty good solution and I'm happy to share it with you, but first I'll give you some time to think about it in this way so we can compare what we came up with.
Thanks fot the insightful comment Alan. I wasn't aware of this contest and Buckminster Fuller's work remains on my to research list. Sharing my thoughts on what you said below.
The root cause in brief is– our tendencies to compete are dominating instead of our tendencies to cooperate while technology and population growth are making us hit planetary boundaries.
Why aren’t we cooperating:
1. Not thinking holistically enough
2. Cultural narratives focused on material accumulation
3. Systemic/evolutionary incentives for wealth accumulation
Coming to resource sufficiency- am not sure we have enough resources for 8 billion people to enjoy a good standard of life. Am not skeptical- am just saying I haven’t done the Math myself- so am thankful for your pointer to Buckminster Fuller’s research. I need to study that myself to come to the same conclusion. If you can share some links that will be helpful.
If the Math proves that we don’t have enough resources then it is relatively obvious why we aren’t cooperating. But let me try and answer from the perspective that we already have enough resources. Following thoughts come to mind:
1. Has the idea been spread widely enough? There might be a marketing problem as you said
2. Does the implementation of the ideas mean some people will have less power/resources than they currently do? Given that these individuals hold the most power today- how will they be convinced to give them up?
3. Is what Buckminster Fuller conceives as enough, enough for everyone? Some of us might want even higher standards of life. Human desire can be limitless.
4. Even if objectively the standard of living is enough- are all of us okay with having the same standard of living as everyone else? Human beings want to feel special and differentiated in some way. Some people also want to leave a legacy
5. Cooperating with everyone can involve surrendering some independence. What if my vision for the world doesn’t coincide with yours? This can make cooperation annoying at one end to almost suffocating in extreme cases.
If it is just about spreading the idea of there being enough for everyone- then the solution is straightforward as you say. But points 2 to 5, are not as straightforward. Some might be easier to tackle than others though.
The way to get some folks to be okay with having lesser material wealth is by giving them a better quality of life overall. Most of the meaning in life comes from relationships (with self, others, nature), the pursuit of purpose, self-actualization/transcendence etc. These things don’t need a high material footprint. If this is true, then it is again a marketing problem to make this the preferred lifestyle (the cultural/spiritual shifts that the essay mentions). This can also allow people to differentiate themselves from others (if they still desire it) on dimensions other than material wealth.
This still doesn’t answer why those who are currently materially far better off today should give up what they have. I can think of 3 arguments one can make to appeal to them:
Either they cooperate or the world ends and they lose everything anyway
Either they cooperate or people come after them with pitchforks and they lose everything
Appeal to their desire for legacy/self-transcendence etc- if they cooperate they will be hailed as heroes/be closer to self-actualization
I don’t think that will address all of the excess material consumption though. For instance, I would love to visit Antarctica. I imagine so would a lot of people- far more than would be good for Antarctica probably. I can also see it being a very meaningful experience for everyone who does and I am at a loss to make an argument as to why they shouldn’t do it if they could. If preserving the ecosystem is the argument- then should nobody go? A limited number every year? If so, how do you decide who goes? Maybe we can devise a system where it’s decided by lottery instead of who has the most power or wealth. Or maybe virtual reality becomes so good that you can experience things from the comfort of your own home and don’t really need to visit.
It is the loss of independence that I find hardest to address. Let’s say hypothetically we live in a world where I think humanity should become a space-faring civilization, but that is a minority opinion. Under today’s system, I could theoretically gain enough material resources and power myself to make it happen (like Elon). But in a world where resources and power are distributed relatively equally- how do I shape the world in a way I desire? Maybe there can be another mechanism to convince the world to take this direction. Not sure.
I recognize that a lot of what I am saying above are trappings of the ego and if we had sufficiently widespread development of higher consciousness through Vipassana, therapy, psychedelics, mindfulness or whatever else then some of these concerns would be greatly diminished. Will they go away 100% though? Am not sure. And I actually don’t think we want them to go away 100% either- striving for differentiation, independence etc seem important to human flourishing and the long-term survival of the species.
Anyway, this is not necessarily a cohesive/comprehensive answer- just some top of mind thoughts based on your comment. Would love to hear your take
Ok, so
1 - Not thinking holistically
2 - Culture of material accumulation
3 - Incentives for wealth accumulation
I agree with all of those as being factors, but which is the root problem?
I think I lean towards, not thinking holistically.
I could write pages and pages on this, but in general, I think it’s a big misunderstanding.
I equate it to the saying “The road to hell is paved with good intentions”.
Shortly before stumbling onto Bucky, I’d watched the documentary “The Corporation”, and one line in it stood out as the linchpin to the whole problem. Corporations are legally obligated to maximize benefit for the shareholders, and benefit is defined as money.
So, it’s no surprise things are going to hell, it’s all working as designed. Not as intended, but as designed.
Corporations are legally obligated to convert everything on earth into money because we couldn’t come up with a better definition of benefit. Most of the time when people are complaining about corporations, it’s for something the corporation is legally obligated to do, such as pay as little tax as possible.
So unless we sort this out some way, the end game will be one remaining person sitting on a stack of money on an inhabitable planet.
I think we got here, to our culture and incentives of material and monetary accumulation, because it’s been working very effectively. And we are now at a point where our technology is so powerful that we need to revisit what we’re doing.
Many people think the solutions to our problems are breaking up big companies, redistributing the wealth, and all sorts of things that would involve conflict, and loss of autonomy. I think we just need to fix the obvious flaws in the market economy, to get it working the way we intended.
I think Adam Smith’s concept of the invisible hand was the answer to Bucky’s question, 200 years before he asked it, we’re just not thinking holistically. Yes, the invisible hand seems like a selfish way of living, but it’s not about stealing from each other. It’s about living within your community in a way that is best for you. The best way to live in a community is to cooperate, to treat others as you want to be treated, and to spend your money at stores that treat people fairly. Our world is just so complicated now that people are profiting from stealing from each other, and or stealing from our collective wealth of natural resources.
So, I think we need a service to help us make better decisions. Rather than the government trying it's hand at paternalism and taxing large soda's, we need a service we pay for to help us choose the drink that suits our desires, that helps us be the change we want to see in the world.
If you think about the requirements of the individual for the market economy to work, it’s clearly impossible but we are just rolling with it. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_economicus). So we need some help, and some trustworthy help. I think we can leverage the flawed corporate law by simply making every client buy a share to become a shareholder.
I don’t know if that service sounds hard, or impossible, but to me, it sounds significantly easier than anything people in Silicon Valley are working on.
People seem to want corporations to fix this, or rich people, or governments. There seems to be a backlash against individual actions. But corps and rich people and governments aren’t leaders. Corps chase dollars, governments chase votes, and even the richest person in the world couldn’t give very much to every person on the planet. Individual action is all there is. Yes, laws and regulations are good, but it takes individuals to vote for them, and individuals to follow them. We need to coordinate our efforts around common goals and come up with laws and regulations that will stay in place and be followed.
We got into this mess through everyday living, and we’ll get out of it through everyday living.
The carrying capacity of the planet is based on a lifestyle that creates astonishing amounts of waste. We don’t need to attack consumption, we need to tackle waste, and not just garbage. Wasted time, wasted money, and wasted resources.
I could go on and on about how and why I think this would work. But I think one of the main reasons we haven’t come up with a way to do this yet is because no one is really thinking about it. No one seems to be thinking holistically, they are thinking about subsets of problems, and they assume there isn't enough for everyone.
I also think the “system” we need to change is our language. Language is technology, it’s like the code of our operating system, and we have some flaws in the code, like defining benefit as money, and making money the ultimate goal.
Once we sort some of those things out, it won’t be hard to turn things around. It’ll be like turning on the lights. Things that seemed hard or impossible in the pitch black will all of a sudden become very easy.
Hopefully, you found some of this interesting. Below are some links I think you'll find interesting:
A highlight of Bucky’s math - This is the best I can find right now, he really spreads it out across his writing.
https://www.azquotes.com/quote/1128612
This is an example of why we make “bad decisions”. Watch clips 10172 & 10173 (2 min), Bucky talks about how his ultra-cheap and efficient homes were opposed by the construction industry (loss of jobs) and the financial industry (huge losses in mortgages, not to mention devaluing existing homes).
https://archive.org/details/buckminsterfullereverythingiknow10/10172.rm
Here is a study on how similar people feel about wealth distribution and how far off they are from what they assume it is, compared to what it actually is.
https://people.duke.edu/~dandan/webfiles/PapersOther/Building%20a%20Better%20America.pdf
Here is a site I put together somewhat based on my Fuller Challenge submission https://spontaneouscooperation.weebly.com/
Alan- my apologies for the super delayed response. Much of December and Jan went in dealing with multiple bouts of flu and then life got in the way in other ways. Thank you for such a thoughtful response. I would love to meet up in person and discuss some of these ideas with you. Will ping you on Linkedin to coordinate!
Eye opening read Akhil. Hope you spread awareness and encourage people to think about our survival on a bigger scale. Metacrisis is the root as you said and we need to think collectively how to solve it and solve it soon.
Thanks Sarath! Definitely need to get our act together super soon!
Tika thara idhe, yawn guru iwnu.
What part of it seems absurd Ajneesh? ChatGPT tells me that the translation of your comment is "It seems absurd"
On what basis do you presume that "human nature" includes "our pursuit of power and status and our tendency to think short-term and non-holistically"? Related Q: how do you distinguish human nature from conditioned thinking? After all, it wasn't until Descartes and Bacon that we began thinking of ourselves as apart from nature. When you say "our" are you including Indigenous people in that? What about Buddhist culltures that presume human nature is benevolent? Are you excluding them, too? And how in the world are we ever supposed to come into proper relationship with the natural world if we begin from an assumption that it is human nature to desecrate it?????
Thank you for this thoughtful and important critique Tham Zhiwa. You're absolutely right to challenge the assumptions behind my use of the term human nature. When I wrote that our pursuit of power and status and our tendency to think short-term and non-holistically are “deep-rooted in human nature,” I didn’t mean to suggest these traits are universal or inevitable, or that they define what it means to be human.
Rather, I meant that these are latent tendencies that often emerge under certain conditions—particularly in environments shaped by fear, scarcity, and adversarial incentives. But they’re not the only or even the most fundamental parts of us.
You're right to point out that traditions like Buddhism and many Indigenous worldviews center cooperation, interdependence, and relational thinking. These are powerful counters to the extractive, individualistic logic that dominates much of modern life—and they offer real wisdom about how we might live differently. That said, I also want to be careful not to romanticize these cultures. Indigenous societies, like all human communities, are complex. They too have experienced conflict, competition, and hierarchy. The same goes for Buddhist societies—no culture is free from contradiction.
So the deeper point I was trying to make is this: what we often attribute to “human nature” is, in many cases, shaped or exaggerated by the systems we live in. The parts of us that are fearful, competitive, and short-termist get amplified by systems designed around zero-sum incentives. But the parts of us that are compassionate, wise, and cooperative—those exist too, and they can be cultivated through better stories, values, and structures. I raise these points in the section starting from "Not all doom and gloom". Perhaps those points didn't stand out or maybe you disengaged from the essay before then coz my analysis might have seemed one sided before that point.
I appreciate you pushing this conversation toward more nuance and I think we are mostly in agreement. Ultimately, I think the task ahead isn’t to decide whether humans are “good” or “bad,” but to ask: which parts of us do we want our systems to nurture?
Great clarificiation. Appreciate you.