Explore thought experiments about Earth 2.0. Ask yourself the title question and join me in the comments for a deep dive. Let’s create a shared vision and discover alternatives worth fighting for.
I’ve always found nature’s ability to reclaim abandoned or obliterated places to be so beautiful — it brings me a sense of strange peace. I think we can learn so much from nature’s adaptability and resilience in the face of disaster.
And yes, of course, if we continue on the path we’re on, we’ll disappear and the Earth will not. But I hope we can learn to adapt like the earth to the disasters we’ve caused in order to become more resilient a
I’m glad the article resonated with you, and I’m excited to share that in my next piece, I’ll be exploring an alternative possibility, one where humans don’t vanish.
I believe there's another path we can take, and I’m curious to hear your thoughts on it. I look forward to your comments on that topic Eden, it’s a pleasure to meet you.
I subscribe to Lovelock's opinions of the forms of crises that the Gaian Earth may impose upon the 'virus' of excess and out-of-balance humanity, including the climate crises, energy crises, food crises and the stresses and wars that will, as usual, be caused by mass migration in search of safety, and the fight for basic resources.
As for humans becoming extinct, my own opinion is that humans will suffer a series of disasters that will make modern technologies, and modern cities, redundant. The primary underlying reasons for the collapse will be diminished access to all forms of energy; fossil fuels, food, and the stored energy of money and wealth. This would make most human civilisations unviable very quickly, and our current technologies would become merely icons of our 'cargo cult', both useless and unrepairable.
On that basis I expect to live my remaining days in this place, the safest I can imagine. It's not quite, 'The Restaurant at the End of the Universe', but close enough for a good view!
However humans are tenacious and small groups of people can be resilient in a fast-changing environment. I would expect, say, 5% or even 10% to find their own solutions and adaptations, and be living as the vast majority of humans have always lived until fossil fuels appeared in quantity - as subsistence farmers or hunter gatherers, with little impact or development until the Gaian Earth again achieves homeostasis.
First of all, I loved your comments on these topics, and it’s a pleasure to meet you.
I'm glad you brought up Lovelock's theories, as they provide a valuable framework for understanding Earth's complex systems and humanity's place within them. In fact, I plan to delve deeper into both the Gaia hypothesis and Lovelock's more recent Novacene theory in an upcoming post.
In my posts, I aim to explore a range of possibilities for Earth's future. My focus in this blog is not on imagining a future without us, but rather on understanding the potential for renewal and resilience in nature. I believe these concepts offer comprehensive perspectives on how Earth might respond to anthropogenic changes and what the future could hold for both humanity and the planet.
You're absolutely right that Lovelock's theories provide a crucial framework for understanding Earth as a self-regulating system. In fact, the Gaia hypothesis complements the evolutionary perspective I tried to present in the blog post. While I focused on individual species' adaptations and extinctions, Lovelock's work encourages us to consider the planet as a whole, adaptive entity.
Your scenario of humanity's gradual decline due to resource scarcity aligns with both Lovelock's predictions and the evolutionary patterns I’ll discuss. The idea of our technologies becoming "cargo cult" relics in a post-collapse world is particularly evocative. It echoes the theme of nature reclaiming human domains that I touched upon when mentioning Chernobyl.
The concept of Earth achieving a new homeostasis, as you mentioned, resonates with my mindset. It echoes Lovelock's ideas about Gaia's self-regulation and invites us to consider what that balance might look like in a world shaped by the Anthropocene.
Thank you for contributing to this thought experiment. I look forward to continuing this dialogue and delving deeper into these ideas in the next posts.
And yet also I worry I worry because I know I have a tendency towards being persuaded by not only rational arguments by also long-term thinking and the perspective and yet when I look at the rest of our species most of our species seems to struggle to see your head to tomorrow or next week let alone Can see or understand of our long-term future or what actions may or may not help with our own long-term future.
Indeed, it’s not an uncommon view amongst our species to think we are so superior that somehow the Earth cannot exist without us and they cannot comprehend the possibility that’s different to this .
Perhaps you’re also familiar with the term cognitive dissonance .? The psychological tendency to ignore evidence that conflict with our own beliefs?
So what I’m wondering is how sadly rational arguments can be difficult for many humans to understand not only because of our psychological and biological make up but also because of the cultures we have created that provide more compelling distractions .
I would even go as far as to say I wonder if the whole idea of the enlightenment is a bit of a fantasy and myth not to say that it didn’t happen and that there were not something is in Europe in the 17th century who wanted to chart a different course for humanity , different to one based on feelings or belief in a higher power but on reason and rational thinking. of course this was a movement in Europe and had influence that has led to many things including modern science which has obviously had a huge effect.
Questioning is the idea that humanity fundamentally changed as a whole at this point and somehow became rational as a whole or generally after the enlightenment if anything I can see plenty of evidence to the contrary not only among society as a whole but even amongst academia who so often claim to act rationally and yet we can find many examples of irrational behaviour amongst academics motive motivated by some of our more basic Instincts are completely opposite to the enlightenment of reason and logic.
So let’s just say for argument sake that the enlightenment is a bit of a myth and human beings not suddenly become rational after the 17th century but remain instinctive feeling based tribal and irrational biological beings. This just say for argument sake that has been true for thousands of years and is still true how might we Better promote enlightenment values if it’s the case that people almost people do not respond well or understand rational arguments or perspectives that are based on more rational perspectives for example considering the long-term impacts of behaviour which is something that requires higher order of rational thinking beyond instinctive immediate needs?
One idea I’ve been thinking of is also influenced by the work of Yuval Harri and sapiens I’m sure you’ve heard of . In particular in that book one of his main points is to define a characteristic of humans as being a storytelling species and that stories are absolutely central to the way that we understand the world.. you could almost say we have made one of our most rational success story science also fit into the storytelling mode because in a way you could see a scientific theory as a story about how the world operates is just that it’s a bit more rigourously tested objectively in a way that religions have not been and this has been actually incredibly successful and useful for us in terms of perhaps really understanding the world.
Anyway, so stories might be a better means of communicating ideas to humans rather than rational arguments which for me and it totally does seem likely then could we perhaps use stories as method of communicating information about long-term perspectives and decision-making for example the future of our species rather than Purely rational arguments which most people and humans seem to struggle to understand especially in relation to the long-term perspectives?
For example you use this a little bit in your writing imagining future scenarios a little bit. I think this is actually helpful but I guess what I’m thinking along the lines of and suggesting is leaning for more into actually writing fiction stories to help people better understand long-term perspectives about , potential consequences and that these may be more effective than actually explaining things in more rational and straightforward way which kind of seems quite tragic and sad but you know maybe we need to be realistic about who we are as a species rather than who we would like to be or Claim to be?
So yes I have been continually thinking about myself using fiction stories as maybe a better way of conveying ideas rather than the non-fiction style of writing which I’m used to problem with this apparently is unfortunately fiction writing is one of the hardest to monetise on Substack so give me and I would love to actually earn an income from my Substack writing that is a bit of a drawback . However, as in all things you don’t have to just do one thing so it’s possible that you could mix a little bit of fiction writing with non-fiction writing and that might be an interesting idea because maybe they might draw different audiences to the different writings, but then if they subscribe, they may be exposed to the type of writing.
A bit long but anyway the key point I’m trying to make is I wonder if the use of telling stories or even writing fiction stories might actually help people better understand some of these long-term thinking ideas than explaining it to them rationally or in a more logical straightforward way, even though that seems quite sad to me that lack of rational thinking that I observe it might potentially be more effective in helping people understand by almost hacking The brains tendency to understand stories better than rational long-term thinking.?
A world without humans can’t happen as our role isn’t insignificant. We are the highest form life on earth for a reason. Just because we collectively run away from our purpose doesn’t mean that we are insignificant.
Buckminster Fuller wrote a lot about this. Maybe pick up “Operating Manual for Spaceship Earth” or “Utopia or Oblivion”.
Thank you for sharing your perspective. I appreciate you bringing up Buckminster Fuller’s work. I’m curious to hear more about your thoughts. It's nice to hear different ways of thinking.
Could you please expand on them? Specifically, do you think it’s impossible for humans to go extinct, and if so, why?
(It’s a comforting idea to think that humanity might somehow avoid extinction.)
Here are a few points mentioned in the blog’s context that suggest human extinction is possible (at least, in my view):
The goal isn’t to diminish humanity but to broaden our perspective on understanding our place in the longer arc of evolutionary history. The content isn’t just about imagining a future without us but about understanding the potential for renewal and resilience in nature.
Ecological Interdependence: Humans are deeply interconnected with countless other species. Our actions have significant impacts on the environment, which, in turn, affects our survival. As we alter the Earth, we may create conditions that are less suitable for our continued existence.
Potential for Extinction: Like all species, humans are subject to the forces of evolution and extinction. The average lifespan of a species is about two million years, and while Homo sapiens have existed for approximately 200,000 years, our future is not guaranteed.
Historical Precedents: The extinction of Neanderthals, who shared many similarities with Homo sapiens, highlights how sudden climate changes and environmental shifts can threaten species’ survival. Like all species, humans are vulnerable to the forces of evolution and extinction.
Human Uniqueness and Responsibility: While humans have a unique capacity for learning and altering our environment, this also comes with the responsibility to make choices that support the health of our planet. Our ability to self-impose restrictions and live sustainably is crucial for maintaining the balance between nature and ourselves.
Let´s begin with a quote by one of my favourite authors Michael Ende:
"They have torn the world apart into a “subjective” and an “objective” one. And they didn't realize that they have fallen for a total fiction. They do not want to understand that a world without human consciousness does not exist at all, because in order to imagine such a world, at least one human consciousness is required, namely the consciousness of the person who imagines human consciousness away. So they are caught up in a hopeless circular argument that they don't notice because they always lose sight and memory of one half when they are thinking about the other."
I agree with you on 'ecological interdependence'. I just don´t see all of humans going extinct. There may come a time with way less humans, but the universe was made for humans to thrive. I don´t think this whole thing way created just for us to go extinct before we even manage to manifest 'humanity' - right now we only have humans bumping, rubbing on each other.
When the neanderthals went extinct we didn´t have the technological capacity of today. We are actually quite capable, we just don´t use it in the right way. But there will come a time when we will use everything in the right way. We could do so much to adjust to the change in our environment, if we would stop trying to control it.
The last part about our responsibility a 100%. Currently most of us live in the metaphor of us being here as tourists to have experiences. That´s just pure egoistic bullshit imo. We are here to be the gardeners of planet earth. Buckminster Fuller coined the term "Spaceship Earth" for exactly that. Yet he predicted we would be long extinct by now. Didn´t happen even though we are still globally fucked up.
I believe the shift will happen through spontaneous cooperation after we have tried every stupid alternative.
I do believe in a creator though. I´ve been in states where all the times become one and what I saw is a humanity that dances in unity. Everything seems to be made for us to thrive. From the soul being in exactly the right distance, to having enough fossil fuels to allow us to have energy until we develop renewable energy sources etc.
“The real problem of humanity is the following: We have Paleolithic emotions, medieval institutions and godlike technology." - Edward O. Wilson
We are at the point where we have to develop godlike emotional "control" and institutions. The ones we currently have are just keeping us stuck. Be it from our medical institutions and the focus on a wrong medicine to the education system that creates sheep.
Personally, I don’t believe our species will face extinction in the near future; in fact, I lean toward a more optimistic outlook where we find paths to adapt and endure. However, this survival is not indefinite. If we truly believe in the laws of nature, then we must acknowledge that every species eventually faces extinction—this is often referred to as the first law of paleontology. The average lifespan of animal species seems to hover around two million years. When we view Homo sapiens through this lens, we’re still quite young, which is both a blessing and a risk, as younger species tend to be more prone to early extinction due to errors and instability. It’s possible we might continue on as cyborgs, but then we’d no longer be considered Homo sapiens—there are countless possibilities. There are many scenarios, each with its own implications for what it means to be “human."
In navigating these possibilities, I embrace the Stockdale Paradox: we must confront the harsh realities of our situation while never losing faith that we can find a way forward. I believe that the Sustainability Revolution we’re experiencing now carries the scale of the Industrial Revolution but with the speed and reach of the Information Revolution. We’ve seen more change in the past 50 years than in the entirety of human history. This rapid pace brings both unprecedented challenges and opportunities.
You’re absolutely right that our systems need to be reimagined, especially if we’re to harmonize with the natural world rather than dominate or deplete it. Sustainability, in many ways, is a design problem one that requires a balance between our technological advancements and the natural laws that govern the ecosystems we depend on. Ignoring these laws would mean missing out on critical lessons from nature, which have enabled life to thrive for billions of years.
What I find fascinating is that this challenge of designing systems that align with nature rather than oppose it forces us to rethink not just our relationship with the environment, but also the deeper philosophical questions of who we are and what our purpose is. Are we mere tourists on this planet, here to have experiences and move on? Or are we, as you suggested, the caretakers, tasked with tending to and nurturing this “Spaceship Earth”? I lean toward the latter.
Yes, I’m also curious to understand why you believe the world without humans cannot exist?
Finding it very difficult to understand how you come to this conclusion especially given the fact that the Earth is quite happily existed for billions of years without us and humanity is just like a drop in the ocean of life .
Curious understand how you are so certain about the future and what evidence and natural law sciences could possibly lead you to know the future ?
Do you have a Time Machine, perhaps?
Or some special psychic abilities?
I would appreciate it if you could help me with next weeks lottery ticket numbers if you would be so kind thank you 🙂🙏🏾
It´s not about "evidence" in the sense you use the word. The only evidence I have is personal experience with higher states of consciousness where I felt me creating the whole universe from beginning to end. Time does not exist in those states in the way it exists right now for you and me.
Sadly I can not give the lottery numbers as the whole idea of lottery isn´t part of the real story of the evolution of consciousness. All I know is evolution and transformation.
I see, so if as you say all science does is repeat history, are you suggesting there is no point in doing science because it doesn’t discover anything new?
The way science operates today is stuck. The idea of science and research is not what “science” is doing today.
Just research for example the idea of a virus and how disease works. You will find, if you truthfully go down the rabbit hole with an open mind, that the whole idea has been debunked long ago by research.
But there’s so much money made with the current medical model that the system is trying hard to survive and safe it’s investment in researching ideas that don’t work.
This (pretty long) quote brings it to the point. Written over 50 years ago and we are still at the exact same place. Maybe even worse with all the money society pumps into ‘science’ because we still believe it leads somewhere.
“The free place of growth in the scientific world age lies in a new pair of tensions, namely between ‘research’ and ‘knowledge’. This struggle is still largely unclear. We scholars all disguise ourselves as researchers, just as the old clergy posed as saints in order to stave off the division into 'clergy' and ‘people'. This does not change the fact that today there is a huge danger of the sciences becoming rigid. Alexander von Humboldt said of the real history of free discoveries: "It passes through three stages." The first response to new research is: That is not true. Then it is said: Someone else has discovered this. In the end it is said: We knew that long ago. Scholars are just efficient and therefore completely incapable of loving the overthrow of their virtue. They are scientific officials, and they are always against the amateur. But since, of course, research officially belongs to science, just as the Holy Spirit belongs to the Church, there are masses of pseudo-research that compete with the progress of free research; and the former alone is conscientiously supported by the official bodies and foundations, because only the latter appears worthy of support to the professional officials of science. [...] As long as scholars and researchers both remained poor, genuine research had prospects. That was the case until 1900. Today, the prognosis for research is worsening because the grateful peoples fund 'science' extensively. So power is shifting to the side of the knowers, against the researchers. Our PhD factories and Rockefeller fellows are eloquent witnesses to this." - Eugen Rosenstock-Huessy
I suppose the difficulty I have with your belief system is that it just relies on trusting or excepting your perspective as true?
In this sense, your belief system seems more like a religion, a matter of faith or feelings?
While science definitely has its problems including often ignoring its own principles, i do find it a bit more objective at least in principle, for me at least in principle.
The World Without Us is an amazing book
This is a great article!
I’ve always found nature’s ability to reclaim abandoned or obliterated places to be so beautiful — it brings me a sense of strange peace. I think we can learn so much from nature’s adaptability and resilience in the face of disaster.
And yes, of course, if we continue on the path we’re on, we’ll disappear and the Earth will not. But I hope we can learn to adapt like the earth to the disasters we’ve caused in order to become more resilient a
Thanks for your awesome comment!
I’m glad the article resonated with you, and I’m excited to share that in my next piece, I’ll be exploring an alternative possibility, one where humans don’t vanish.
I believe there's another path we can take, and I’m curious to hear your thoughts on it. I look forward to your comments on that topic Eden, it’s a pleasure to meet you.
May I suggest you read the work of Dr James Lovelock, starting with The Gaia Theory published in 1972 and developed since.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_hypothesis
I subscribe to Lovelock's opinions of the forms of crises that the Gaian Earth may impose upon the 'virus' of excess and out-of-balance humanity, including the climate crises, energy crises, food crises and the stresses and wars that will, as usual, be caused by mass migration in search of safety, and the fight for basic resources.
As for humans becoming extinct, my own opinion is that humans will suffer a series of disasters that will make modern technologies, and modern cities, redundant. The primary underlying reasons for the collapse will be diminished access to all forms of energy; fossil fuels, food, and the stored energy of money and wealth. This would make most human civilisations unviable very quickly, and our current technologies would become merely icons of our 'cargo cult', both useless and unrepairable.
On that basis I expect to live my remaining days in this place, the safest I can imagine. It's not quite, 'The Restaurant at the End of the Universe', but close enough for a good view!
However humans are tenacious and small groups of people can be resilient in a fast-changing environment. I would expect, say, 5% or even 10% to find their own solutions and adaptations, and be living as the vast majority of humans have always lived until fossil fuels appeared in quantity - as subsistence farmers or hunter gatherers, with little impact or development until the Gaian Earth again achieves homeostasis.
First of all, I loved your comments on these topics, and it’s a pleasure to meet you.
I'm glad you brought up Lovelock's theories, as they provide a valuable framework for understanding Earth's complex systems and humanity's place within them. In fact, I plan to delve deeper into both the Gaia hypothesis and Lovelock's more recent Novacene theory in an upcoming post.
In my posts, I aim to explore a range of possibilities for Earth's future. My focus in this blog is not on imagining a future without us, but rather on understanding the potential for renewal and resilience in nature. I believe these concepts offer comprehensive perspectives on how Earth might respond to anthropogenic changes and what the future could hold for both humanity and the planet.
You're absolutely right that Lovelock's theories provide a crucial framework for understanding Earth as a self-regulating system. In fact, the Gaia hypothesis complements the evolutionary perspective I tried to present in the blog post. While I focused on individual species' adaptations and extinctions, Lovelock's work encourages us to consider the planet as a whole, adaptive entity.
Your scenario of humanity's gradual decline due to resource scarcity aligns with both Lovelock's predictions and the evolutionary patterns I’ll discuss. The idea of our technologies becoming "cargo cult" relics in a post-collapse world is particularly evocative. It echoes the theme of nature reclaiming human domains that I touched upon when mentioning Chernobyl.
The concept of Earth achieving a new homeostasis, as you mentioned, resonates with my mindset. It echoes Lovelock's ideas about Gaia's self-regulation and invites us to consider what that balance might look like in a world shaped by the Anthropocene.
Thank you for contributing to this thought experiment. I look forward to continuing this dialogue and delving deeper into these ideas in the next posts.
A great article as always, thanks so much Aysu.
And yet also I worry I worry because I know I have a tendency towards being persuaded by not only rational arguments by also long-term thinking and the perspective and yet when I look at the rest of our species most of our species seems to struggle to see your head to tomorrow or next week let alone Can see or understand of our long-term future or what actions may or may not help with our own long-term future.
Indeed, it’s not an uncommon view amongst our species to think we are so superior that somehow the Earth cannot exist without us and they cannot comprehend the possibility that’s different to this .
Perhaps you’re also familiar with the term cognitive dissonance .? The psychological tendency to ignore evidence that conflict with our own beliefs?
So what I’m wondering is how sadly rational arguments can be difficult for many humans to understand not only because of our psychological and biological make up but also because of the cultures we have created that provide more compelling distractions .
I would even go as far as to say I wonder if the whole idea of the enlightenment is a bit of a fantasy and myth not to say that it didn’t happen and that there were not something is in Europe in the 17th century who wanted to chart a different course for humanity , different to one based on feelings or belief in a higher power but on reason and rational thinking. of course this was a movement in Europe and had influence that has led to many things including modern science which has obviously had a huge effect.
Questioning is the idea that humanity fundamentally changed as a whole at this point and somehow became rational as a whole or generally after the enlightenment if anything I can see plenty of evidence to the contrary not only among society as a whole but even amongst academia who so often claim to act rationally and yet we can find many examples of irrational behaviour amongst academics motive motivated by some of our more basic Instincts are completely opposite to the enlightenment of reason and logic.
So let’s just say for argument sake that the enlightenment is a bit of a myth and human beings not suddenly become rational after the 17th century but remain instinctive feeling based tribal and irrational biological beings. This just say for argument sake that has been true for thousands of years and is still true how might we Better promote enlightenment values if it’s the case that people almost people do not respond well or understand rational arguments or perspectives that are based on more rational perspectives for example considering the long-term impacts of behaviour which is something that requires higher order of rational thinking beyond instinctive immediate needs?
One idea I’ve been thinking of is also influenced by the work of Yuval Harri and sapiens I’m sure you’ve heard of . In particular in that book one of his main points is to define a characteristic of humans as being a storytelling species and that stories are absolutely central to the way that we understand the world.. you could almost say we have made one of our most rational success story science also fit into the storytelling mode because in a way you could see a scientific theory as a story about how the world operates is just that it’s a bit more rigourously tested objectively in a way that religions have not been and this has been actually incredibly successful and useful for us in terms of perhaps really understanding the world.
Anyway, so stories might be a better means of communicating ideas to humans rather than rational arguments which for me and it totally does seem likely then could we perhaps use stories as method of communicating information about long-term perspectives and decision-making for example the future of our species rather than Purely rational arguments which most people and humans seem to struggle to understand especially in relation to the long-term perspectives?
For example you use this a little bit in your writing imagining future scenarios a little bit. I think this is actually helpful but I guess what I’m thinking along the lines of and suggesting is leaning for more into actually writing fiction stories to help people better understand long-term perspectives about , potential consequences and that these may be more effective than actually explaining things in more rational and straightforward way which kind of seems quite tragic and sad but you know maybe we need to be realistic about who we are as a species rather than who we would like to be or Claim to be?
So yes I have been continually thinking about myself using fiction stories as maybe a better way of conveying ideas rather than the non-fiction style of writing which I’m used to problem with this apparently is unfortunately fiction writing is one of the hardest to monetise on Substack so give me and I would love to actually earn an income from my Substack writing that is a bit of a drawback . However, as in all things you don’t have to just do one thing so it’s possible that you could mix a little bit of fiction writing with non-fiction writing and that might be an interesting idea because maybe they might draw different audiences to the different writings, but then if they subscribe, they may be exposed to the type of writing.
A bit long but anyway the key point I’m trying to make is I wonder if the use of telling stories or even writing fiction stories might actually help people better understand some of these long-term thinking ideas than explaining it to them rationally or in a more logical straightforward way, even though that seems quite sad to me that lack of rational thinking that I observe it might potentially be more effective in helping people understand by almost hacking The brains tendency to understand stories better than rational long-term thinking.?
A world without humans can’t happen as our role isn’t insignificant. We are the highest form life on earth for a reason. Just because we collectively run away from our purpose doesn’t mean that we are insignificant.
Buckminster Fuller wrote a lot about this. Maybe pick up “Operating Manual for Spaceship Earth” or “Utopia or Oblivion”.
Thank you for sharing your perspective. I appreciate you bringing up Buckminster Fuller’s work. I’m curious to hear more about your thoughts. It's nice to hear different ways of thinking.
Could you please expand on them? Specifically, do you think it’s impossible for humans to go extinct, and if so, why?
(It’s a comforting idea to think that humanity might somehow avoid extinction.)
Here are a few points mentioned in the blog’s context that suggest human extinction is possible (at least, in my view):
The goal isn’t to diminish humanity but to broaden our perspective on understanding our place in the longer arc of evolutionary history. The content isn’t just about imagining a future without us but about understanding the potential for renewal and resilience in nature.
Ecological Interdependence: Humans are deeply interconnected with countless other species. Our actions have significant impacts on the environment, which, in turn, affects our survival. As we alter the Earth, we may create conditions that are less suitable for our continued existence.
Potential for Extinction: Like all species, humans are subject to the forces of evolution and extinction. The average lifespan of a species is about two million years, and while Homo sapiens have existed for approximately 200,000 years, our future is not guaranteed.
Historical Precedents: The extinction of Neanderthals, who shared many similarities with Homo sapiens, highlights how sudden climate changes and environmental shifts can threaten species’ survival. Like all species, humans are vulnerable to the forces of evolution and extinction.
Human Uniqueness and Responsibility: While humans have a unique capacity for learning and altering our environment, this also comes with the responsibility to make choices that support the health of our planet. Our ability to self-impose restrictions and live sustainably is crucial for maintaining the balance between nature and ourselves.
Let´s begin with a quote by one of my favourite authors Michael Ende:
"They have torn the world apart into a “subjective” and an “objective” one. And they didn't realize that they have fallen for a total fiction. They do not want to understand that a world without human consciousness does not exist at all, because in order to imagine such a world, at least one human consciousness is required, namely the consciousness of the person who imagines human consciousness away. So they are caught up in a hopeless circular argument that they don't notice because they always lose sight and memory of one half when they are thinking about the other."
I agree with you on 'ecological interdependence'. I just don´t see all of humans going extinct. There may come a time with way less humans, but the universe was made for humans to thrive. I don´t think this whole thing way created just for us to go extinct before we even manage to manifest 'humanity' - right now we only have humans bumping, rubbing on each other.
When the neanderthals went extinct we didn´t have the technological capacity of today. We are actually quite capable, we just don´t use it in the right way. But there will come a time when we will use everything in the right way. We could do so much to adjust to the change in our environment, if we would stop trying to control it.
The last part about our responsibility a 100%. Currently most of us live in the metaphor of us being here as tourists to have experiences. That´s just pure egoistic bullshit imo. We are here to be the gardeners of planet earth. Buckminster Fuller coined the term "Spaceship Earth" for exactly that. Yet he predicted we would be long extinct by now. Didn´t happen even though we are still globally fucked up.
I believe the shift will happen through spontaneous cooperation after we have tried every stupid alternative.
I do believe in a creator though. I´ve been in states where all the times become one and what I saw is a humanity that dances in unity. Everything seems to be made for us to thrive. From the soul being in exactly the right distance, to having enough fossil fuels to allow us to have energy until we develop renewable energy sources etc.
“The real problem of humanity is the following: We have Paleolithic emotions, medieval institutions and godlike technology." - Edward O. Wilson
We are at the point where we have to develop godlike emotional "control" and institutions. The ones we currently have are just keeping us stuck. Be it from our medical institutions and the focus on a wrong medicine to the education system that creates sheep.
Personally, I don’t believe our species will face extinction in the near future; in fact, I lean toward a more optimistic outlook where we find paths to adapt and endure. However, this survival is not indefinite. If we truly believe in the laws of nature, then we must acknowledge that every species eventually faces extinction—this is often referred to as the first law of paleontology. The average lifespan of animal species seems to hover around two million years. When we view Homo sapiens through this lens, we’re still quite young, which is both a blessing and a risk, as younger species tend to be more prone to early extinction due to errors and instability. It’s possible we might continue on as cyborgs, but then we’d no longer be considered Homo sapiens—there are countless possibilities. There are many scenarios, each with its own implications for what it means to be “human."
In navigating these possibilities, I embrace the Stockdale Paradox: we must confront the harsh realities of our situation while never losing faith that we can find a way forward. I believe that the Sustainability Revolution we’re experiencing now carries the scale of the Industrial Revolution but with the speed and reach of the Information Revolution. We’ve seen more change in the past 50 years than in the entirety of human history. This rapid pace brings both unprecedented challenges and opportunities.
You’re absolutely right that our systems need to be reimagined, especially if we’re to harmonize with the natural world rather than dominate or deplete it. Sustainability, in many ways, is a design problem one that requires a balance between our technological advancements and the natural laws that govern the ecosystems we depend on. Ignoring these laws would mean missing out on critical lessons from nature, which have enabled life to thrive for billions of years.
What I find fascinating is that this challenge of designing systems that align with nature rather than oppose it forces us to rethink not just our relationship with the environment, but also the deeper philosophical questions of who we are and what our purpose is. Are we mere tourists on this planet, here to have experiences and move on? Or are we, as you suggested, the caretakers, tasked with tending to and nurturing this “Spaceship Earth”? I lean toward the latter.
Yes, I’m also curious to understand why you believe the world without humans cannot exist?
Finding it very difficult to understand how you come to this conclusion especially given the fact that the Earth is quite happily existed for billions of years without us and humanity is just like a drop in the ocean of life .
Curious understand how you are so certain about the future and what evidence and natural law sciences could possibly lead you to know the future ?
Do you have a Time Machine, perhaps?
Or some special psychic abilities?
I would appreciate it if you could help me with next weeks lottery ticket numbers if you would be so kind thank you 🙂🙏🏾
I´ve answered the other post if you are interested. :D
All science does is repeat history. Here´s a post I wrote about why science and philosophy is keeping us stuck. https://placzebo.substack.com/p/philosophy-is-keeping-you-trapped?r=14inwj
It´s not about "evidence" in the sense you use the word. The only evidence I have is personal experience with higher states of consciousness where I felt me creating the whole universe from beginning to end. Time does not exist in those states in the way it exists right now for you and me.
Sadly I can not give the lottery numbers as the whole idea of lottery isn´t part of the real story of the evolution of consciousness. All I know is evolution and transformation.
I see, so if as you say all science does is repeat history, are you suggesting there is no point in doing science because it doesn’t discover anything new?
Or do you mean something different?
The way science operates today is stuck. The idea of science and research is not what “science” is doing today.
Just research for example the idea of a virus and how disease works. You will find, if you truthfully go down the rabbit hole with an open mind, that the whole idea has been debunked long ago by research.
But there’s so much money made with the current medical model that the system is trying hard to survive and safe it’s investment in researching ideas that don’t work.
I would agree the way much of science is done today is often in contradiction to scientific principles, and corrupt in many cases due to many factors.
However, i still believe it’s the best method we have currently of gaining knowledge.
So for me I don’t want to give up on science, I’d rather promote good science and criticise bad scientists 🙂👌
This (pretty long) quote brings it to the point. Written over 50 years ago and we are still at the exact same place. Maybe even worse with all the money society pumps into ‘science’ because we still believe it leads somewhere.
“The free place of growth in the scientific world age lies in a new pair of tensions, namely between ‘research’ and ‘knowledge’. This struggle is still largely unclear. We scholars all disguise ourselves as researchers, just as the old clergy posed as saints in order to stave off the division into 'clergy' and ‘people'. This does not change the fact that today there is a huge danger of the sciences becoming rigid. Alexander von Humboldt said of the real history of free discoveries: "It passes through three stages." The first response to new research is: That is not true. Then it is said: Someone else has discovered this. In the end it is said: We knew that long ago. Scholars are just efficient and therefore completely incapable of loving the overthrow of their virtue. They are scientific officials, and they are always against the amateur. But since, of course, research officially belongs to science, just as the Holy Spirit belongs to the Church, there are masses of pseudo-research that compete with the progress of free research; and the former alone is conscientiously supported by the official bodies and foundations, because only the latter appears worthy of support to the professional officials of science. [...] As long as scholars and researchers both remained poor, genuine research had prospects. That was the case until 1900. Today, the prognosis for research is worsening because the grateful peoples fund 'science' extensively. So power is shifting to the side of the knowers, against the researchers. Our PhD factories and Rockefeller fellows are eloquent witnesses to this." - Eugen Rosenstock-Huessy
Yes I read your article thanks.
I suppose the difficulty I have with your belief system is that it just relies on trusting or excepting your perspective as true?
In this sense, your belief system seems more like a religion, a matter of faith or feelings?
While science definitely has its problems including often ignoring its own principles, i do find it a bit more objective at least in principle, for me at least in principle.