Thank you for your writing and for recommending the documentary, Jonathan. After yesterday's Zoom session, I found myself reflecting on the significance of the word "we". Despite its frequent use in my work for a non-profit organization, I never fully feel it. Even when I write it, there are moments when it seems to carry a sense of isolation.
The concept of "we" is something I rarely grasp entirely. Perhaps it's due to the current tumultuous state of the world and my country. However, during yesterday's session and again in my “contemporary” dance class, I experienced a profound connection to this collective individuation you mentioned. Maybe.
Although I'm not particularly fond of sports, treks, or yoga, attending these classes with strangers since the pandemic has allowed me to experience the essence of "we" in a beautiful and strange way. I haven’t become friends with any of the people I have been in the class, neither I found the need to become one because it is strange way, I felt connected to them and I was just enjoying the moment so beautifully (I guess, like a similar feeling when I’m part of a Dharma sharing in a Sangha).
Yesterday's session, coupled with the insights from Perspectiva, provided me with a renewed perspective on this collective consciousness, perhaps what you referred to as "collective individuation" (I think this is how you called it? Sorry if I’m confusing the words).
To truly understand this concept, I believe I must first feel a sense of freedom, followed by vulnerability, and eventually a sense of belonging. This process may have been what allowed me to perceive the "we" more consciously.
As I pen these thoughts, I'm aware that they might come across as somewhat idealistic. However, I'm convinced that just as my thoughts evolve, so too does my physical being. Perhaps we often overanalyze the concept of "we", and perhaps we only seek to acknowledge it when it becomes necessary.
I'm writing these words without overthinking, embracing the opportunity for open expression.
Today, I took a break to watch the documentary, and it exceeded my expectations, particularly towards the end with Dylan's active involvement. Hermoso.
I wonder if incorporating activities like singing, dancing, and painting into future sessions could provide a holistic approach to exploring the concept of "we".
Combining these forms of expression with dialogue and introspection might offer a deeper understanding of our collective identity.
Thank you once again for your insightful writing, Jonathan. Your contributions greatly enrich my work.
Thanks for this thought-provoking piece and equally stimulating discussion today. It only struck me afterwards that there is a very McGilchristian way of framing this. The abstract "we" that either doesn't say what it means or resorts to generalities like "we the people/workers/faithful etc" is a left hemisphere artefact. It's either deliberately instrumentalising and manipulating its audience, or it's just deluded (a lone scribe on the internet proclaiming what needs to happen for the world to change, without the agency to make it happen). Real agency requires understanding who, specifically, is going to do whatever it is. Seeing people specifically rather than in categories is what the right hemisphere does because it has access to embodied experience and relationality, which is always between real flesh and blood people rather than abstractions. Your piece has prompted me to take more care to avoid the trap of talking loosely about what "we" should do, and be as clear as I can about whom exactly I'm thinking of.
In terms of what the world can do we are all together. Just think if we could metanoia into thinking we rather than me me me? In this respect, we are the metacrises. How do we change to this fundamental way of thinking? What if we could understand that we should only be here to be truly useful? In fires we sometimes see people in a chain passing buckets of water to quench the fire. To achieve anything on the scale of action needed we need the right logistics thinking based on we participation. The elephant in the cupboard is mans misunderstanding of complexity. I heard an interview with Amazons Basos explaining how he employs 1 mill heads to TRY BEST AS THEY CAN to balance supply and demand on a continuous time basis. My laptop with P=NP-complete software could do that in seconds. What about this kind of waist? For a Supercomputer this would take billions of years. This is the true metacrises. Are we living in an insane world or not? With love Brother Nelson
I went into computing 53 years ago in order Not to be alienated. I regret it didn't work. No one want to listen to me they think I am a hubristic fraud. Like my Jazz drumming was an art form so was my creation of process algorithms debunking complexity. What is it about human denial?
Years ago I learned a phrase from historian David Hollinger that has stayed with me since: "the circle of the we".
Hollinger has more to say about that than I could repeat in this space. But I did just track down the source and the full quote (and citation) is:
No sooner do we ask, "How wide the circle of the we?" than we ought to ask, "What identifies the we?" and "How deep the structure of power within it?" and "How is the authority to set its boundaries distributed?"
How Wide the Circle of the "We"? American Intellectuals and the Problem of the Ethnos since World War II, David A. Hollinger, American Historical Review , Apr., 1993, Vol. 98, No. 2 (Apr., 1993), pp. 317-337
Might be an eccentric reply, but I used to be a librarian. I think in citations ....
Thanks Ric, that's a great quote and a good reference to know about. It made me wonder if our inclination to think in circles might even be part of the issue and I think that's implicit in the questions posed by Hollinger; they are so smooth and uniform and egalitarian. I wonder if there are other geometries of collaboration and belonging. What might they look and feel like...
"We are the children: Yes, we projectively identify with those most tender and helpless, and try to inhabit their suffering and feel it as our own in a way that motivates us to allay it."
For some it is certainly an act of projective identification. But not for me, and not for a very long time. Geographical distance, for me, provides no protection against the profound ache and sorrow of human suffering (or animals suffering). Ethnic differences, nationality... physical distance... none of this matters all that much to my tendency to feel all suffering as my own, and all joy as my own. That's why recent events in Ukraine/Russia and Palestine/Israel have been so brutally traumatic for me. It's because I have no hard border or boundary to erect. Because none exist... except purely imaginary ones.
I don't have to "try" to feel it as my own. I simply try to keep breathing and living and caring, despite the fact that it's all so very overwhelming to my heart.
"1. The intractability of collective action problems, especially climate collapse."
I'm still reading this essay, and am pausing to make a comment anyway. It looks to be a great essay.
I've been particularly focussed, for some time now, on a problem which apparently very few of "us" (a version of "we") are aware of the fact (to me it is a fact) that the mainstream, conventional discourse on "climate action," its narrative, isn't based on an accurate interpretation and understanding of the real world situation of anthropogenic climate disruption. The result is a sort of mass form of misdirection. We're being misdirected by mainstream media, mainstream politics, mainstream education, etc.
So what is this misdirection? We're being told, and we like telling ourselves (there's that messy "we" word again), that what we need to do to mitigate a worsening climate crisis is to replace fossil energy with "renewable" energy -- and very quickly. And this is what one might call a "half truth", in that it is fundamentally false, and yet it contains a kernel of truth as well. We do need to make more and better use of solar, wind, etc.
But we can only do so much of that, and not anywhere near a full replacement of our current energy use in the world, which is presently powered by 84% fossil energy. What really needs to happen, and what constitutes a much more accurate narrative on "energy transition," is a dramatic lowering of world energy consumption, because we cannot replace fossil energy with "renewables" at the scale and pace necessary to address the climate crisis. This is for many reasons, among which would be that in the near term (over the next decade) such an agenda will result in an actual increase (Richard Heinberg has called it a "pulse") in fossil energy use to mine for, smelt for, manufacture, transport and install "renewable" technology. Any careful look into what "renewable" actually means in practice reveals that only practices can be renewable, not "resources".
In short, "energy transition" isn't REALLY mostly about replacing fossil energy tech with "renewable" tech. It's actually about dramatically reducing our use of both energy and materials.
The we problem we're having is that "we" share a mainstream narrative about a great many things. And often that narrative is not accurate. It's false.
James, There are expert-crafted studies which calculate that we can indeed shift to clean energy sources within a couple of decades, even if limited to existing technologies -- which, given the intense current focus on in this area, we won't be. As Jonathan points out here, where poor peoples are next to abundant coal, they will burn it -- unless the world presents equivalent or better access to energy for their local development. As in climbing a difficult mountain, there are situations where the only survivable choice is continued ascent. Technology got us in this, and even more technology is required if we're to scramble beyond this treacherous passage.
I wish the old back-to-the-land hippie vision were viable for the larger society, where we could gather around the fire playing our acoustic instruments after a day tilling the organic fields. Hell, I live where there are back-to-the-land hippies still doing that. Some are our friends. Organic farming is itself a valuable, often necessary technology.
And, of course, we have to get beyond the technologies of algorithmic disinformation, and the post-modern devaluation of reason and standards of evidence, which went from a fringe area of elite academia to the central practice of neofascists backed by the fossil fuel old guard. One bit of their disinformation is the claim that we must either burn more oil, gas and coal, or else become those old hippies, on a global scale of cultural shift that will never happen. It didn't even happen in America, back in the 70s when it was the future so many of us who were youth then dreamed of.
“ As in climbing a difficult mountain, there are situations where the only survivable choice is continued ascent. Technology got us in this, and even more technology is required if we're to scramble beyond this treacherous passage.”
I don’t know a great deal about climbing, so I don’t know if this is true. I do know quite a lot about bushwalking, and in that case the opposite is generally true. There many situations where only survivable choice is to turn around. For example, this is because the walk is about to turn into a climb, and walkers aren’t equipped or trained as climbers. However, we do know that if we came up one way we can also walk it back.
Those expert-crafted studies are deeply flawed if they don't take several crucial matters into account. My research reveals they don't take these into account, generally. Here are some of those crucial matters.
1. We cannot afford (in a carbon budget sense) to take multiple decades to dramatically reduce CO2 emissions. So studies which talk about making the shift over a period of multiple decades (e.g., "a couple of decades") might be accurate enough, but also misdirecting and misleading, since we're presently living in the ten year period in which emissions need to be reduced, not increased.
2. The fact that we've already crossed important climate tipping points, and are rapidly closing on yet more such tipping points, suggests to me (and I think any informed and reasonable person) that we essentially don't have any more carbon budget to spend or burn.
3. It's impossible to have a rapid energy transition of the energy replacement sort (emphasizing energy replacement over energy descent, meaning using less energy) without burning a gargantuan quantity of fossil fuels for mining, smelting, manufacturing, distributing and installing so-called "renewable" energy tech. I regard Richard Heinberg as one of the world's top experts on "the three e field" -- which is a transdisciplinary study for energy, economy and ecology taken as a whole system. Heinberg, in a relatively recent article, has said this:
“Renewable energy sources require energy investment up front for construction; they pay for themselves energetically over a period of years. Therefore, a fast transition requires increased energy usage over the short term. And, in the early stages at least, most of that energy will have to come from fossil fuels, because those are the energy sources we currently have.”
"There’s one other hurdle to addressing climate change that goes almost entirely unnoticed. Most cost estimates for the transition are in terms of money. What about the energy costs? It will take a tremendous amount of energy to mine materials; transport and transform them through industrial processes like smelting; turn them into solar panels, wind turbines, batteries, vehicles, infrastructure, and industrial machinery; install all of the above, and do this at a sufficient scale to replace our current fossil-fuel-based industrial system. In the early stages of the process, this energy will have to come mostly from fossil fuels, since they supply about 83 percent of current global energy. The result will surely be a pulse of emissions; however, as far as I know, nobody has tried to calculate its magnitude."
(2) His counsel is of the "Abandon hope, all ye who enter here" variety, since there's no way to convince the good people of India, Africa and China -- not to mention the Americas and Europe -- to just stop using energy. As such, that narrative serves the carbon interests.
(1) He's more than merely a journalist, though he is also that. He's an expert on the complex transdisciplinary field of study which analyzes (and synthesizes) energy in relation to economy and ecology. Anyway, this attempt at deflection is obviously just that. You didn't engage with Heinberg's quoted claims. That's what you'd be doing if you were not deflecting.
(2) This contribution to the conversation is weak, at best. It begins with a straw man argument and a misrepresentation of Heinberg. It ends roughly as it begins. There is a huge chasm between energy use reduction and "just stop using energy". That's all straw.
(3) Hansen is not counselling against the use of the phrase "tipping points" in relation to climate science. He's saying the phrase is often misused and misunderstood.
From your linked article in Salon:
"The tipping point concept is greatly overused and misused," Hansen wrote to Salon. "The phrase is mighty popular among scientists and the public, used for many different climate processes. In fact, most of those processes are better described as amplifying, reversible, feedbacks." Although climate change is going to have very significant consequences for humanity, "it is not a runaway process."
I'm using the phrase "tipping points", not "tipping point". There is no THE tipping point in climate science. There are, however, multiple tipping points. And they are tipping points in the sense that amplification (positive feedbacks) can kick in to the extent that thermal forcing amplifies even without additional GHG emissions in the atmosphere. There is nothing scientifically controversial in this statement from me. The scientific literature is replete with concern for tipping points.
James, You're dividing us into camps. Sure, using less energy is good. I've pursued a less-energy lifestyle for a half-century of adult life. But your whole case is premised on convincing everyone in the world, in less than a decade, of this philosophy. Then, assuming all societies make a swift, radical turn, without leading to mass famine as agricultural output is required to radically shift, as well as have its distribution limited ... well, how can you posit that's remotely possible? Remember the Yellow Vests in France, alarmed at the price of gasoline rising? How about Geert Wilders' rise in the Netherlands, supported by farm interests which don't want their nitrogen runoff limited? Politically, no political leadership can champion degrowth on the scale you require without being deposed. What's your counter-example? China in the days of the Cultural Revolution and the one-child policy? You're asking for a world-wide cultural revolution ... led by whom? And with what enforcement of the agenda? How did that work out for China, by the way?
Or are you saying, "If we're going to keep using energy at current levels, it's just as well to get it from carbon, because the Heinberg 'pulse' causes all alternatives to be no better?" Until you explain how you're going to transform human consciousness and sensibility, world-wide, within a few short years so that we all might voluntarily "de-grow" (or until you demonstrate the viability of an enlightened one-world dictatorship so that we might be forced to "de-grow") the only way I can see your message making sense is as an excuse to keep burning carbon instead of more rapidly shifting to cleaner energy.
"Or are you saying, 'If we're going to keep using energy at current levels, it's just as well to get it from carbon, because the Heinberg 'pulse' causes all alternatives to be no better?'"
I'm suggesting nothing related to any of that. I'm saying we use vastly -- VASTLY -- more energy than is required to meet our legitimate human needs, and that we can live better, happier and healthier lives without the extremely excessive use of materials and energy which is commonly used in the rich countries / Global North.
I know this is the case because of a lifetime of study. I can't make all of my knowledge available to you in an instant. It takes time and effort to acquire. Especially in a context in which we're all being lied to about these matters 24/7.
"Then, assuming all societies make a swift, radical turn, without leading to mass famine as agricultural output is required to radically shift, as well as have its distribution limited ... well, how can you posit that's remotely possible?"
The guy to ask this question is Chris Smaje. He's done more solid work on this question than any other living being, I suspect.https://chrissmaje.com/
I've spent my entire adult life studying an area of inquiry which integrates ecological design, philosophy and the sciences. And a hundred other areas of related inquiry, most having to do with how energy, economy and ecology are aspects of one whole thing, not separate areas of knowledge at all.
What I'm committed to first and foremost is what is true, what is real. I'm interested in facts and knowledge. Then we let the cards fall where they may, with regard to politics and sociality. Politics and sociality, in my view, should be grounded in reality, facts, truth and reason. Not make believe. Not wishful thinking. But what's real.
Yes, degrowth isn't likely to be widely embraced in a handful of years, as it must be if we are not to render Earth essentially uninhabitable. I get that. But that's no reason for me to retreat from reality, truth and reason! I'm taking a stand for reality, truth and reason. And for compassion, care and love.
Yes, I am indeed a revolutionary. But the revolution isn't happening, yet. Or it both is and is not.
James, Many good scientists say we can and must transition to cleaner energy. This is the only politically viable choice, as no population is going to voluntarily give up energy on the scale you insist we must. Rather, people will be demanding more energy to cope with the crises ahead. For example, as temperatures continue to rise, there are populations which will not survive in their current locations without air conditioning. Nor are populations in more temperate areas welcoming of climate refugees. You're standing against reality if you expect hundreds of millions of people to simply accept their doom while we in more temperate regions deconstruct our energy-dependent economies.
So at minimum, the world needs improved air conditioning technology, and enough clean power for it. If you look at the numbers on that, there's no room for decreasing the overall power consumption of human kind in the near future, short of bombing the factories where they build their air conditioners. The only viable way forward is to rapidly improve and build out our technologies, especially in energy. Efficiency of use is an important part of the recipe; but not sufficient it itself.
Did you know that airport expansion is happening all over the "developed world"? Did you know that global mass tourism is on the rise? Did you know that house sizes are growing larger, still, in the rich world? Did you know that cars are rapidly being replaced by SUVs and similar oversized vehicles? Did you know that in the USA, people are literally heating the outdoors in winter? Literally. Look into it, bro. You've been drinking the cool aid bro. You think this is about caring for human needs. No. It's not. It's about pretending that we need all of this rather extreme excess. And I can't blame you for it. You'll not hear messages like mine in the mainstream media, nor spoken by mainstream politicians... or leaders of mainstream "environmental" organizations. Only the most courageous risk takers will tell the truth these days. And they are few.
'The only viable way forward is to rapidly improve and build out our technologies, especially in energy. Efficiency of use is an important part of the recipe; but not sufficient it itself."
If we assess the facts, rather than letting wishful thinking take the lead, we'll know that in the near future there will be a lot less energy in the economic system. We can either begin to behave and plan accordingly or pretend that some magical miracle will fall from the Heavens upon us. This belief in a miraculous salvation from the gods of technology is a serious risk. It's not a risk I will wager upon.
You can see there that Rory takes a view that is closer in spirit to Whit's.
In essence it looks like the irresistible ecological logic of "we have to drastically reduce aggregate energy demand" meets the immovable political object that says: "that's not going to happen" or "that simply can't happen without violence on a massive scale".
This is why I now believe there is no viable future without a miraculous technological breakthrough or a significant shift in how we know and value life at scale, also known as collective spiritual transformation or "a shift in consciousness".
It seems mostly like a choice between apparent impossibilities, and how far fetched you think it is to make one of them possible.
I believe we might well be in a new axial age, which is why I place a certain amount of faith in an evolution of consciousness rendering what seems politically possible now into something possible. I wrote about this in the inner life of the future:
Well yes, there’s the question whether either of the mountain climbing or the bushwalking analogies are apt. Both of them need more context to make their case. Which is probably not ideal because one can simply choose a context that leads to the conclusion that one needs in order to make one’s argument.
Nonetheless, I am a happy to present bushwalking as an activity that mirrors my preferred solutions, ie, the low-tech, low residual, low embodied energy, demotic (despite the way usually carry on) , metabolic, etc.
Richard, Please don't exclude the many of us who will never be baptized, nor the polytheists, nor the Buddhists who say a human incarnation is more precious than incarnation as a god -- and whose compassion has always been for all living beings, a "we" even larger than humanity.
Whit, thanks for this. It was not my intention to write as a Christian, though I can see how it reads that way. I simply meant that Jesus a Jew did not care whether you were Jewish, what your religion if any was, etc. You could say he was not a religious person. He pointed to God. God by definition is undefinable but can be experienced in myriad ways. One way, available to all I believe, is compassionate inclusion. It helps to be a sidewalk mystic to make that real. The religious and cultural hardening that makes us and them is common, violent and happens to all religions and philosophies, Buddhist included, unless consciously guarded against.
Much has indeed happened to the 'We' - in the legacy of modernity, evolution of capitalism, and the shaping of modern forms of democracy. These formative societal (socio-cultural / economic) forces can also be considered in a generative sense, from the standpoint of design - as either enabling or stifling the capacity for 'diverging' or 'converging', within a continuously changing, dynamic scope.
This 'scope' is like an aperture to which the extent of 'We'-ness, however we define it, can expand - while maintaining some requisite sense of coherence.
And due to the various emergent (yet by now, semi-stable) phenomena in the modern world, one might observe a degree of 'fragmentation' that effectively limits the scope to which the proverbial 'We' might actually be able to converge to.
Zygmunt Bauman (2000) would have likely attributed this to the conditions of 'liquid modernity' - although, we might find other compelling explanatory frameworks.
In response to the generative questions, indeed -
How might the conceptualizations around 'We' be constructed in ways that are capable of transgressing the structural, imaginal, and paradigmatic boundaries that we currently encounter - that are effectively preventing us from converging on anything that might create other viable 'basins of attraction', capable of supporting a thriving world?
Post leading from confusion, can one even define the intended extension of the widest inclusive We that I guess is often naively in play, such that it would be recognised by Us all? It feels like one might have to go to something reflexive: like, 'people, people who need people' (who need people)...
Another example: trying to explain my interest in 'this little of the internet' to my other half, to whom it seemed culty, i found myself talking about wanting to talk to people who waht to talk to people who want to talk to people... about (?)... just that.
James, The message you started with is a (false) claim that moving to clean energy doesn't work at all, because dirty energy is involved at first in building clean energy infrastructure. That message is directly aligned with oil company propaganda. It's prima facie false: building more dirty-energy infrastructure also uses massive amounts of dirty energy. Then the new infrastructure either makes things worse (if dirty) or does not (if clean).
Then you propose that, having given up on clean energy, we can solve the problem by using less, while ignoring that "we" is the whole world, not just your "developed world"; the nations rapidly developing (e.g. India) are not going to cease expanding their energy infrastructure. So, will that be clean infrastructure, or dirty? If the "developed world" continues to put resources into improving cleaner energy capture and storage, then it will be the more cost-effective solution in the developing regions.
There is no conflict between this and conservation and efficiency goals, such as you promote. In my average-size century-old USA home, the first thing I did on purchasing it 20 years ago was maximize the insulation and replace the windows. Great Britain's housing stock, by accounts, is drastically under-insulated; there's great potential in improving that. Having moved from the city, where I didn't need a car, to a small village where we do, our primary vehicle is now a smaller EV, and we chose a village on a train line which we use regularly for trips to the cities.
That said, international tourism is also important. America is especially dangerous to the world because three-quarters of us here never get passports, so have no first-hand experience of other nations and cultures. It is the places and peoples we don't know that reactionary politicians can arouse fear of by demonizing. That demonization is the core of Trump's campaign (see also right-wing European politics). If it works, Trump will turn the US totally against clean energy, to "Drill, baby, drill." So yes, we need cleaner aviation too, for travel where trains won't do, because tourism is vital to humanity seeing itself whole.
My own focus is on a shift in consciousness. I'm working on a hypothesis on that every day, with a half-century of focus on this quest behind me. There's a low probability I'll achieve what I'm after, but it takes many people trying for a few to make true breakthroughs, as in any area. Meanwhile our son is in college as a physics major, intent on moving on to a graduate degree in engineering, with a goal of working in new aircraft technologies, most likely electric.
As for your "gods of technology" -- sheesh! Technology is progressing rapidly, without gods noticeably intervening. My late father believed climate change couldn't be human made because God controls the weather. And he had an engineering degree from a top university. You apparently believe the Gods of the citizens of India will convince them to give up on economic development, and stop building energy infrastructure in the very near future? No doubt you're smart. My dad was. But, really?
This is not a "Do we build clean energy, or do we go radically 'small is beautiful'?" fork in the road. We need as much of both as we can get, as quickly as possible. Neither road by itself can save this world and our civilization(s). I'm not arguing against downsizing, only arguing against the claim that it can be enough in itself, world-wide, given the social and economic realities and the urgency of the crisis.
I recently read Right Story, Wrong Story by Tyson Yunkaporta. Yunkaporta uses coinages such as 'us-two' or 'we-all' to indicate the distinguishing kinds of 'we-word' in Aboriginal language. I thought that was a pretty elegant solution to the we-ambiguity problem.
I’ve noticed that, yes, and it’s in his previous book called Sand Talk too. I’m not sure it adequately deals with the problem of we-ness as it applies to large scale collective action challenges though.
"In the relational ontology to which I subscribe, everyone and everything which influences my choices, actions, perceptions, etc., is simply part of who and what I am— and is thus not in the least external to me in any absolute sort of way."
This isn't a choice I made. It happened to me. I did not choose it. I experienced it and found that I could no longer disagree with it's perspective. It's perspective and "myself" merged to form a whole from which there is no escape.
Assuming what you say is true James, and I have seen it in others and have no reason to doubt it, does it feel to you like this kind of sensation of identifying with the whole world and feeling the pain of events underway as you do is broadly a good thing or not? Is it something you would wish on others, or is it more like an affliction you would prefer to be free of? Perhaps these questions are too crude, but it occurs to me that from an evolutionary perspective we are mostly not 'built' to identify with pain and suffering at a global scale...
It's certainly not an affliction, though it does have its "down side". It isn't all smiles and flowers. But it certainly does include plenty of smiles and flowers.
Since you mention the words "evolutionary perspective," I'll assume you're sort of asking whether or not I imagine being this way is "adaptive". Yes, I do. And yet you're right to say what you do about the pain and suffering at the global scale. We're designed by nature to belong in this sort of way with our local ecology and our local tribe. In ancient times anything happening far away would never be heard of, much less seen vividly on screens... and heard as if nearby.
In modernity, as it appears to me, the popular idea and image of self is that of something enclosed within itself, contained, and definitely a thing apart from all which is regarded as external to itself. This is the same idea and image we have for psyche in modernity. But it has been my experience that this way of modelling self and psyche is deeply flawed and ultimately not accurate. It blinds us to ever so much which is real and true. The experience of "interbeing" is more consistent with how the world really is than the experience of an internally enclosed self.
Thank you for your writing and for recommending the documentary, Jonathan. After yesterday's Zoom session, I found myself reflecting on the significance of the word "we". Despite its frequent use in my work for a non-profit organization, I never fully feel it. Even when I write it, there are moments when it seems to carry a sense of isolation.
The concept of "we" is something I rarely grasp entirely. Perhaps it's due to the current tumultuous state of the world and my country. However, during yesterday's session and again in my “contemporary” dance class, I experienced a profound connection to this collective individuation you mentioned. Maybe.
Although I'm not particularly fond of sports, treks, or yoga, attending these classes with strangers since the pandemic has allowed me to experience the essence of "we" in a beautiful and strange way. I haven’t become friends with any of the people I have been in the class, neither I found the need to become one because it is strange way, I felt connected to them and I was just enjoying the moment so beautifully (I guess, like a similar feeling when I’m part of a Dharma sharing in a Sangha).
Yesterday's session, coupled with the insights from Perspectiva, provided me with a renewed perspective on this collective consciousness, perhaps what you referred to as "collective individuation" (I think this is how you called it? Sorry if I’m confusing the words).
To truly understand this concept, I believe I must first feel a sense of freedom, followed by vulnerability, and eventually a sense of belonging. This process may have been what allowed me to perceive the "we" more consciously.
As I pen these thoughts, I'm aware that they might come across as somewhat idealistic. However, I'm convinced that just as my thoughts evolve, so too does my physical being. Perhaps we often overanalyze the concept of "we", and perhaps we only seek to acknowledge it when it becomes necessary.
I'm writing these words without overthinking, embracing the opportunity for open expression.
Today, I took a break to watch the documentary, and it exceeded my expectations, particularly towards the end with Dylan's active involvement. Hermoso.
I wonder if incorporating activities like singing, dancing, and painting into future sessions could provide a holistic approach to exploring the concept of "we".
Combining these forms of expression with dialogue and introspection might offer a deeper understanding of our collective identity.
Thank you once again for your insightful writing, Jonathan. Your contributions greatly enrich my work.
Thanks for this thought-provoking piece and equally stimulating discussion today. It only struck me afterwards that there is a very McGilchristian way of framing this. The abstract "we" that either doesn't say what it means or resorts to generalities like "we the people/workers/faithful etc" is a left hemisphere artefact. It's either deliberately instrumentalising and manipulating its audience, or it's just deluded (a lone scribe on the internet proclaiming what needs to happen for the world to change, without the agency to make it happen). Real agency requires understanding who, specifically, is going to do whatever it is. Seeing people specifically rather than in categories is what the right hemisphere does because it has access to embodied experience and relationality, which is always between real flesh and blood people rather than abstractions. Your piece has prompted me to take more care to avoid the trap of talking loosely about what "we" should do, and be as clear as I can about whom exactly I'm thinking of.
Thanks. Yes, that’s an interesting angle. It’s curious though because Iain does quite often use the unintelligible we in his speeches!
In terms of what the world can do we are all together. Just think if we could metanoia into thinking we rather than me me me? In this respect, we are the metacrises. How do we change to this fundamental way of thinking? What if we could understand that we should only be here to be truly useful? In fires we sometimes see people in a chain passing buckets of water to quench the fire. To achieve anything on the scale of action needed we need the right logistics thinking based on we participation. The elephant in the cupboard is mans misunderstanding of complexity. I heard an interview with Amazons Basos explaining how he employs 1 mill heads to TRY BEST AS THEY CAN to balance supply and demand on a continuous time basis. My laptop with P=NP-complete software could do that in seconds. What about this kind of waist? For a Supercomputer this would take billions of years. This is the true metacrises. Are we living in an insane world or not? With love Brother Nelson
I apologise for the spelling. I need to find out how to turn off Copilot from my MS laptop!!
I went into computing 53 years ago in order Not to be alienated. I regret it didn't work. No one want to listen to me they think I am a hubristic fraud. Like my Jazz drumming was an art form so was my creation of process algorithms debunking complexity. What is it about human denial?
Years ago I learned a phrase from historian David Hollinger that has stayed with me since: "the circle of the we".
Hollinger has more to say about that than I could repeat in this space. But I did just track down the source and the full quote (and citation) is:
No sooner do we ask, "How wide the circle of the we?" than we ought to ask, "What identifies the we?" and "How deep the structure of power within it?" and "How is the authority to set its boundaries distributed?"
How Wide the Circle of the "We"? American Intellectuals and the Problem of the Ethnos since World War II, David A. Hollinger, American Historical Review , Apr., 1993, Vol. 98, No. 2 (Apr., 1993), pp. 317-337
Might be an eccentric reply, but I used to be a librarian. I think in citations ....
Thanks Ric, that's a great quote and a good reference to know about. It made me wonder if our inclination to think in circles might even be part of the issue and I think that's implicit in the questions posed by Hollinger; they are so smooth and uniform and egalitarian. I wonder if there are other geometries of collaboration and belonging. What might they look and feel like...
"We are the children: Yes, we projectively identify with those most tender and helpless, and try to inhabit their suffering and feel it as our own in a way that motivates us to allay it."
For some it is certainly an act of projective identification. But not for me, and not for a very long time. Geographical distance, for me, provides no protection against the profound ache and sorrow of human suffering (or animals suffering). Ethnic differences, nationality... physical distance... none of this matters all that much to my tendency to feel all suffering as my own, and all joy as my own. That's why recent events in Ukraine/Russia and Palestine/Israel have been so brutally traumatic for me. It's because I have no hard border or boundary to erect. Because none exist... except purely imaginary ones.
I don't have to "try" to feel it as my own. I simply try to keep breathing and living and caring, despite the fact that it's all so very overwhelming to my heart.
🙏🙏🙏🔥❤️
"1. The intractability of collective action problems, especially climate collapse."
I'm still reading this essay, and am pausing to make a comment anyway. It looks to be a great essay.
I've been particularly focussed, for some time now, on a problem which apparently very few of "us" (a version of "we") are aware of the fact (to me it is a fact) that the mainstream, conventional discourse on "climate action," its narrative, isn't based on an accurate interpretation and understanding of the real world situation of anthropogenic climate disruption. The result is a sort of mass form of misdirection. We're being misdirected by mainstream media, mainstream politics, mainstream education, etc.
So what is this misdirection? We're being told, and we like telling ourselves (there's that messy "we" word again), that what we need to do to mitigate a worsening climate crisis is to replace fossil energy with "renewable" energy -- and very quickly. And this is what one might call a "half truth", in that it is fundamentally false, and yet it contains a kernel of truth as well. We do need to make more and better use of solar, wind, etc.
But we can only do so much of that, and not anywhere near a full replacement of our current energy use in the world, which is presently powered by 84% fossil energy. What really needs to happen, and what constitutes a much more accurate narrative on "energy transition," is a dramatic lowering of world energy consumption, because we cannot replace fossil energy with "renewables" at the scale and pace necessary to address the climate crisis. This is for many reasons, among which would be that in the near term (over the next decade) such an agenda will result in an actual increase (Richard Heinberg has called it a "pulse") in fossil energy use to mine for, smelt for, manufacture, transport and install "renewable" technology. Any careful look into what "renewable" actually means in practice reveals that only practices can be renewable, not "resources".
In short, "energy transition" isn't REALLY mostly about replacing fossil energy tech with "renewable" tech. It's actually about dramatically reducing our use of both energy and materials.
The we problem we're having is that "we" share a mainstream narrative about a great many things. And often that narrative is not accurate. It's false.
James, There are expert-crafted studies which calculate that we can indeed shift to clean energy sources within a couple of decades, even if limited to existing technologies -- which, given the intense current focus on in this area, we won't be. As Jonathan points out here, where poor peoples are next to abundant coal, they will burn it -- unless the world presents equivalent or better access to energy for their local development. As in climbing a difficult mountain, there are situations where the only survivable choice is continued ascent. Technology got us in this, and even more technology is required if we're to scramble beyond this treacherous passage.
I wish the old back-to-the-land hippie vision were viable for the larger society, where we could gather around the fire playing our acoustic instruments after a day tilling the organic fields. Hell, I live where there are back-to-the-land hippies still doing that. Some are our friends. Organic farming is itself a valuable, often necessary technology.
And, of course, we have to get beyond the technologies of algorithmic disinformation, and the post-modern devaluation of reason and standards of evidence, which went from a fringe area of elite academia to the central practice of neofascists backed by the fossil fuel old guard. One bit of their disinformation is the claim that we must either burn more oil, gas and coal, or else become those old hippies, on a global scale of cultural shift that will never happen. It didn't even happen in America, back in the 70s when it was the future so many of us who were youth then dreamed of.
“ As in climbing a difficult mountain, there are situations where the only survivable choice is continued ascent. Technology got us in this, and even more technology is required if we're to scramble beyond this treacherous passage.”
I don’t know a great deal about climbing, so I don’t know if this is true. I do know quite a lot about bushwalking, and in that case the opposite is generally true. There many situations where only survivable choice is to turn around. For example, this is because the walk is about to turn into a climb, and walkers aren’t equipped or trained as climbers. However, we do know that if we came up one way we can also walk it back.
Those expert-crafted studies are deeply flawed if they don't take several crucial matters into account. My research reveals they don't take these into account, generally. Here are some of those crucial matters.
1. We cannot afford (in a carbon budget sense) to take multiple decades to dramatically reduce CO2 emissions. So studies which talk about making the shift over a period of multiple decades (e.g., "a couple of decades") might be accurate enough, but also misdirecting and misleading, since we're presently living in the ten year period in which emissions need to be reduced, not increased.
2. The fact that we've already crossed important climate tipping points, and are rapidly closing on yet more such tipping points, suggests to me (and I think any informed and reasonable person) that we essentially don't have any more carbon budget to spend or burn.
3. It's impossible to have a rapid energy transition of the energy replacement sort (emphasizing energy replacement over energy descent, meaning using less energy) without burning a gargantuan quantity of fossil fuels for mining, smelting, manufacturing, distributing and installing so-called "renewable" energy tech. I regard Richard Heinberg as one of the world's top experts on "the three e field" -- which is a transdisciplinary study for energy, economy and ecology taken as a whole system. Heinberg, in a relatively recent article, has said this:
“Renewable energy sources require energy investment up front for construction; they pay for themselves energetically over a period of years. Therefore, a fast transition requires increased energy usage over the short term. And, in the early stages at least, most of that energy will have to come from fossil fuels, because those are the energy sources we currently have.”
from – Why We Can’t Just Do It: The Truth about Our Failure to Curb Carbon Emissions – resilience - https://www.resilience.org/stories/2023-03-23/why-we-cant-just-do-it-the-truth-about-our-failure-to-curb-carbon-emissions/
In yet another article, Heinberg said this:
"There’s one other hurdle to addressing climate change that goes almost entirely unnoticed. Most cost estimates for the transition are in terms of money. What about the energy costs? It will take a tremendous amount of energy to mine materials; transport and transform them through industrial processes like smelting; turn them into solar panels, wind turbines, batteries, vehicles, infrastructure, and industrial machinery; install all of the above, and do this at a sufficient scale to replace our current fossil-fuel-based industrial system. In the early stages of the process, this energy will have to come mostly from fossil fuels, since they supply about 83 percent of current global energy. The result will surely be a pulse of emissions; however, as far as I know, nobody has tried to calculate its magnitude."
-- from - Is the Energy Transition Taking Off—or Hitting a Wall? - https://www.resilience.org/stories/2022-10-07/is-the-energy-transition-taking-off-or-hitting-a-wall/
There are many other items I could add to this enumerated list. Do you want more, or is this enough for now?
(1) Heinberg is a journalist, not a scientist.
(2) His counsel is of the "Abandon hope, all ye who enter here" variety, since there's no way to convince the good people of India, Africa and China -- not to mention the Americas and Europe -- to just stop using energy. As such, that narrative serves the carbon interests.
(3) James Hansen, a highly-reputed scientist in this area, disputes the value of the "tipping point" narratives: https://www.salon.com/2024/03/18/will-earth-hit-a-climate-tipping-point-heres-why-experts-say-this-framework-is-problematic/.
(1) He's more than merely a journalist, though he is also that. He's an expert on the complex transdisciplinary field of study which analyzes (and synthesizes) energy in relation to economy and ecology. Anyway, this attempt at deflection is obviously just that. You didn't engage with Heinberg's quoted claims. That's what you'd be doing if you were not deflecting.
(2) This contribution to the conversation is weak, at best. It begins with a straw man argument and a misrepresentation of Heinberg. It ends roughly as it begins. There is a huge chasm between energy use reduction and "just stop using energy". That's all straw.
(3) Hansen is not counselling against the use of the phrase "tipping points" in relation to climate science. He's saying the phrase is often misused and misunderstood.
From your linked article in Salon:
"The tipping point concept is greatly overused and misused," Hansen wrote to Salon. "The phrase is mighty popular among scientists and the public, used for many different climate processes. In fact, most of those processes are better described as amplifying, reversible, feedbacks." Although climate change is going to have very significant consequences for humanity, "it is not a runaway process."
I'm using the phrase "tipping points", not "tipping point". There is no THE tipping point in climate science. There are, however, multiple tipping points. And they are tipping points in the sense that amplification (positive feedbacks) can kick in to the extent that thermal forcing amplifies even without additional GHG emissions in the atmosphere. There is nothing scientifically controversial in this statement from me. The scientific literature is replete with concern for tipping points.
James, You're dividing us into camps. Sure, using less energy is good. I've pursued a less-energy lifestyle for a half-century of adult life. But your whole case is premised on convincing everyone in the world, in less than a decade, of this philosophy. Then, assuming all societies make a swift, radical turn, without leading to mass famine as agricultural output is required to radically shift, as well as have its distribution limited ... well, how can you posit that's remotely possible? Remember the Yellow Vests in France, alarmed at the price of gasoline rising? How about Geert Wilders' rise in the Netherlands, supported by farm interests which don't want their nitrogen runoff limited? Politically, no political leadership can champion degrowth on the scale you require without being deposed. What's your counter-example? China in the days of the Cultural Revolution and the one-child policy? You're asking for a world-wide cultural revolution ... led by whom? And with what enforcement of the agenda? How did that work out for China, by the way?
Or are you saying, "If we're going to keep using energy at current levels, it's just as well to get it from carbon, because the Heinberg 'pulse' causes all alternatives to be no better?" Until you explain how you're going to transform human consciousness and sensibility, world-wide, within a few short years so that we all might voluntarily "de-grow" (or until you demonstrate the viability of an enlightened one-world dictatorship so that we might be forced to "de-grow") the only way I can see your message making sense is as an excuse to keep burning carbon instead of more rapidly shifting to cleaner energy.
"Or are you saying, 'If we're going to keep using energy at current levels, it's just as well to get it from carbon, because the Heinberg 'pulse' causes all alternatives to be no better?'"
I'm suggesting nothing related to any of that. I'm saying we use vastly -- VASTLY -- more energy than is required to meet our legitimate human needs, and that we can live better, happier and healthier lives without the extremely excessive use of materials and energy which is commonly used in the rich countries / Global North.
I know this is the case because of a lifetime of study. I can't make all of my knowledge available to you in an instant. It takes time and effort to acquire. Especially in a context in which we're all being lied to about these matters 24/7.
"Then, assuming all societies make a swift, radical turn, without leading to mass famine as agricultural output is required to radically shift, as well as have its distribution limited ... well, how can you posit that's remotely possible?"
The guy to ask this question is Chris Smaje. He's done more solid work on this question than any other living being, I suspect.https://chrissmaje.com/
Whit -
I've spent my entire adult life studying an area of inquiry which integrates ecological design, philosophy and the sciences. And a hundred other areas of related inquiry, most having to do with how energy, economy and ecology are aspects of one whole thing, not separate areas of knowledge at all.
What I'm committed to first and foremost is what is true, what is real. I'm interested in facts and knowledge. Then we let the cards fall where they may, with regard to politics and sociality. Politics and sociality, in my view, should be grounded in reality, facts, truth and reason. Not make believe. Not wishful thinking. But what's real.
Yes, degrowth isn't likely to be widely embraced in a handful of years, as it must be if we are not to render Earth essentially uninhabitable. I get that. But that's no reason for me to retreat from reality, truth and reason! I'm taking a stand for reality, truth and reason. And for compassion, care and love.
Yes, I am indeed a revolutionary. But the revolution isn't happening, yet. Or it both is and is not.
Welcome to the revolution! https://rword.substack.com/p/revolution-20
James, Many good scientists say we can and must transition to cleaner energy. This is the only politically viable choice, as no population is going to voluntarily give up energy on the scale you insist we must. Rather, people will be demanding more energy to cope with the crises ahead. For example, as temperatures continue to rise, there are populations which will not survive in their current locations without air conditioning. Nor are populations in more temperate areas welcoming of climate refugees. You're standing against reality if you expect hundreds of millions of people to simply accept their doom while we in more temperate regions deconstruct our energy-dependent economies.
So at minimum, the world needs improved air conditioning technology, and enough clean power for it. If you look at the numbers on that, there's no room for decreasing the overall power consumption of human kind in the near future, short of bombing the factories where they build their air conditioners. The only viable way forward is to rapidly improve and build out our technologies, especially in energy. Efficiency of use is an important part of the recipe; but not sufficient it itself.
Whit -
Did you know that airport expansion is happening all over the "developed world"? Did you know that global mass tourism is on the rise? Did you know that house sizes are growing larger, still, in the rich world? Did you know that cars are rapidly being replaced by SUVs and similar oversized vehicles? Did you know that in the USA, people are literally heating the outdoors in winter? Literally. Look into it, bro. You've been drinking the cool aid bro. You think this is about caring for human needs. No. It's not. It's about pretending that we need all of this rather extreme excess. And I can't blame you for it. You'll not hear messages like mine in the mainstream media, nor spoken by mainstream politicians... or leaders of mainstream "environmental" organizations. Only the most courageous risk takers will tell the truth these days. And they are few.
'The only viable way forward is to rapidly improve and build out our technologies, especially in energy. Efficiency of use is an important part of the recipe; but not sufficient it itself."
If we assess the facts, rather than letting wishful thinking take the lead, we'll know that in the near future there will be a lot less energy in the economic system. We can either begin to behave and plan accordingly or pretend that some magical miracle will fall from the Heavens upon us. This belief in a miraculous salvation from the gods of technology is a serious risk. It's not a risk I will wager upon.
For Jame and Whit. I agree with both of you to some extent but these days I am closer to James's view. I wrote "The understandable madness of economic growth" almost 15 years ago now: https://www.thersa.org/blog/2012/03/the-understandable-madness-of-economic-growth
More recently, this issue came up in my conversation with Rorty Stewart where I asked him to reflect on Kate Raworth's work:
https://jonathanrowson.substack.com/p/discomforting-political-admiration
You can see there that Rory takes a view that is closer in spirit to Whit's.
In essence it looks like the irresistible ecological logic of "we have to drastically reduce aggregate energy demand" meets the immovable political object that says: "that's not going to happen" or "that simply can't happen without violence on a massive scale".
This is why I now believe there is no viable future without a miraculous technological breakthrough or a significant shift in how we know and value life at scale, also known as collective spiritual transformation or "a shift in consciousness".
My overall view of what needs to happen is outlined in The Flip, The Formation and the Fun: https://jonathanrowson.substack.com/p/the-flip-the-formation-and-the-fun
It seems mostly like a choice between apparent impossibilities, and how far fetched you think it is to make one of them possible.
I believe we might well be in a new axial age, which is why I place a certain amount of faith in an evolution of consciousness rendering what seems politically possible now into something possible. I wrote about this in the inner life of the future:
https://jonathanrowson.substack.com/p/the-inner-life-of-the-future
I am not saying I am right on any of this, but just to affirm that I believe your discussion is in many ways 'where it's at'.
The analogy that I would use is that It’s like working with people who need to restrict their fluid intake due to requiring kidney dialysis.
Medically and scientifically speaking, they must keep fluid intake below say, 1l per day, but many people simply cannot do this.
They can be intelligent and well educated, but they still can’t meet the requirement.
Nonetheless, there’s no point in pretending that someone can blow through their fluid intake limit everyday and have a “good outcome”.
I'm not entirely sure how this analogy works in the context of this discussion, tjarlz.
Well yes, there’s the question whether either of the mountain climbing or the bushwalking analogies are apt. Both of them need more context to make their case. Which is probably not ideal because one can simply choose a context that leads to the conclusion that one needs in order to make one’s argument.
Nonetheless, I am a happy to present bushwalking as an activity that mirrors my preferred solutions, ie, the low-tech, low residual, low embodied energy, demotic (despite the way usually carry on) , metabolic, etc.
A non-exclusive we is only possible with God, as witness Jesus of Nazareth. It was lost with the institutionalization of Christianity.
Richard, Please don't exclude the many of us who will never be baptized, nor the polytheists, nor the Buddhists who say a human incarnation is more precious than incarnation as a god -- and whose compassion has always been for all living beings, a "we" even larger than humanity.
Whit, thanks for this. It was not my intention to write as a Christian, though I can see how it reads that way. I simply meant that Jesus a Jew did not care whether you were Jewish, what your religion if any was, etc. You could say he was not a religious person. He pointed to God. God by definition is undefinable but can be experienced in myriad ways. One way, available to all I believe, is compassionate inclusion. It helps to be a sidewalk mystic to make that real. The religious and cultural hardening that makes us and them is common, violent and happens to all religions and philosophies, Buddhist included, unless consciously guarded against.
Much has indeed happened to the 'We' - in the legacy of modernity, evolution of capitalism, and the shaping of modern forms of democracy. These formative societal (socio-cultural / economic) forces can also be considered in a generative sense, from the standpoint of design - as either enabling or stifling the capacity for 'diverging' or 'converging', within a continuously changing, dynamic scope.
This 'scope' is like an aperture to which the extent of 'We'-ness, however we define it, can expand - while maintaining some requisite sense of coherence.
And due to the various emergent (yet by now, semi-stable) phenomena in the modern world, one might observe a degree of 'fragmentation' that effectively limits the scope to which the proverbial 'We' might actually be able to converge to.
Zygmunt Bauman (2000) would have likely attributed this to the conditions of 'liquid modernity' - although, we might find other compelling explanatory frameworks.
In response to the generative questions, indeed -
How might the conceptualizations around 'We' be constructed in ways that are capable of transgressing the structural, imaginal, and paradigmatic boundaries that we currently encounter - that are effectively preventing us from converging on anything that might create other viable 'basins of attraction', capable of supporting a thriving world?
I am being prevented from having any views by the police. When all I want is Harmony..
Post leading from confusion, can one even define the intended extension of the widest inclusive We that I guess is often naively in play, such that it would be recognised by Us all? It feels like one might have to go to something reflexive: like, 'people, people who need people' (who need people)...
Another example: trying to explain my interest in 'this little of the internet' to my other half, to whom it seemed culty, i found myself talking about wanting to talk to people who waht to talk to people who want to talk to people... about (?)... just that.
James, The message you started with is a (false) claim that moving to clean energy doesn't work at all, because dirty energy is involved at first in building clean energy infrastructure. That message is directly aligned with oil company propaganda. It's prima facie false: building more dirty-energy infrastructure also uses massive amounts of dirty energy. Then the new infrastructure either makes things worse (if dirty) or does not (if clean).
Then you propose that, having given up on clean energy, we can solve the problem by using less, while ignoring that "we" is the whole world, not just your "developed world"; the nations rapidly developing (e.g. India) are not going to cease expanding their energy infrastructure. So, will that be clean infrastructure, or dirty? If the "developed world" continues to put resources into improving cleaner energy capture and storage, then it will be the more cost-effective solution in the developing regions.
There is no conflict between this and conservation and efficiency goals, such as you promote. In my average-size century-old USA home, the first thing I did on purchasing it 20 years ago was maximize the insulation and replace the windows. Great Britain's housing stock, by accounts, is drastically under-insulated; there's great potential in improving that. Having moved from the city, where I didn't need a car, to a small village where we do, our primary vehicle is now a smaller EV, and we chose a village on a train line which we use regularly for trips to the cities.
That said, international tourism is also important. America is especially dangerous to the world because three-quarters of us here never get passports, so have no first-hand experience of other nations and cultures. It is the places and peoples we don't know that reactionary politicians can arouse fear of by demonizing. That demonization is the core of Trump's campaign (see also right-wing European politics). If it works, Trump will turn the US totally against clean energy, to "Drill, baby, drill." So yes, we need cleaner aviation too, for travel where trains won't do, because tourism is vital to humanity seeing itself whole.
My own focus is on a shift in consciousness. I'm working on a hypothesis on that every day, with a half-century of focus on this quest behind me. There's a low probability I'll achieve what I'm after, but it takes many people trying for a few to make true breakthroughs, as in any area. Meanwhile our son is in college as a physics major, intent on moving on to a graduate degree in engineering, with a goal of working in new aircraft technologies, most likely electric.
As for your "gods of technology" -- sheesh! Technology is progressing rapidly, without gods noticeably intervening. My late father believed climate change couldn't be human made because God controls the weather. And he had an engineering degree from a top university. You apparently believe the Gods of the citizens of India will convince them to give up on economic development, and stop building energy infrastructure in the very near future? No doubt you're smart. My dad was. But, really?
This is not a "Do we build clean energy, or do we go radically 'small is beautiful'?" fork in the road. We need as much of both as we can get, as quickly as possible. Neither road by itself can save this world and our civilization(s). I'm not arguing against downsizing, only arguing against the claim that it can be enough in itself, world-wide, given the social and economic realities and the urgency of the crisis.
I recently read Right Story, Wrong Story by Tyson Yunkaporta. Yunkaporta uses coinages such as 'us-two' or 'we-all' to indicate the distinguishing kinds of 'we-word' in Aboriginal language. I thought that was a pretty elegant solution to the we-ambiguity problem.
I’ve noticed that, yes, and it’s in his previous book called Sand Talk too. I’m not sure it adequately deals with the problem of we-ness as it applies to large scale collective action challenges though.
For Jonathan Rowson:
"In the relational ontology to which I subscribe, everyone and everything which influences my choices, actions, perceptions, etc., is simply part of who and what I am— and is thus not in the least external to me in any absolute sort of way."
-- excerpted from https://rword.substack.com/p/metanoia-and-sympoiesis
This isn't a choice I made. It happened to me. I did not choose it. I experienced it and found that I could no longer disagree with it's perspective. It's perspective and "myself" merged to form a whole from which there is no escape.
Assuming what you say is true James, and I have seen it in others and have no reason to doubt it, does it feel to you like this kind of sensation of identifying with the whole world and feeling the pain of events underway as you do is broadly a good thing or not? Is it something you would wish on others, or is it more like an affliction you would prefer to be free of? Perhaps these questions are too crude, but it occurs to me that from an evolutionary perspective we are mostly not 'built' to identify with pain and suffering at a global scale...
It's certainly not an affliction, though it does have its "down side". It isn't all smiles and flowers. But it certainly does include plenty of smiles and flowers.
Since you mention the words "evolutionary perspective," I'll assume you're sort of asking whether or not I imagine being this way is "adaptive". Yes, I do. And yet you're right to say what you do about the pain and suffering at the global scale. We're designed by nature to belong in this sort of way with our local ecology and our local tribe. In ancient times anything happening far away would never be heard of, much less seen vividly on screens... and heard as if nearby.
In modernity, as it appears to me, the popular idea and image of self is that of something enclosed within itself, contained, and definitely a thing apart from all which is regarded as external to itself. This is the same idea and image we have for psyche in modernity. But it has been my experience that this way of modelling self and psyche is deeply flawed and ultimately not accurate. It blinds us to ever so much which is real and true. The experience of "interbeing" is more consistent with how the world really is than the experience of an internally enclosed self.
Could you draw a clearer link with humanity?
Something like: “we are humanity, a part of our world”
I see what you are saying philosophically, but good luck with that as a popular song lyric!