We are saturated with exposure to the world’s problems on a daily basis. By now, there are sufficient volumes of critique on the social, cultural and moral belief systems that propel modern society onward towards the collapse of our host ecosystems, no matter how many voices raise the alarm call. While critique holds value, alone it is constrained in its ability to affect meaningful change. Instead, it should co-arise with vision and method. Post-modernism – in essence a critique of modernism – is an alright beginning, but without providing vision and direction, despair can set in as we recognize that, on an individual level, there is little we can do to alter the momentum of our energy and resource hungry socioeconomic juggernaut.
My intention here is neither to re-examine the grim outlook of more knowledgeable academics, nor is it a hubristic attempt to provide a vision of a worldview that would allow for greater human flourishing and the long term viability of complex life on earth. Rather, I am concerned with orientation. What are the fundamental questions that humans alive at this particular moment in time should ask of themselves? What conjectures should we spend time pondering in order to realize a framework by which we may live hopeful, meaningful lives in the Anthropocene? By finding the right questions, we can inoculate ourselves to despair and focus our energy on the more productive pastures of vision and method.
Vision, in simple terms ‘where we want to go’, will always be contested. The domain of our agency is inherently local and we should be encouraged by the fact that there will be a plurality of answers to these questions. However, the more pathfinding we do for cultural concepts that could form the foundation for a human civilization in stable balance with the carrying capacity of our ecosystems, the more tools and blueprints future generations will have to chart their course through the world we leave for them.
To give the biosphere, humanity included, the best possible chance of surviving and flourishing through deep time, we must acknowledge limits to growth and re-learn our being in this world through cultural concepts that (re)couple our future to that of all living things.
How then should we approach the task of pathfinding for cultural concepts that could form the scaffolding for a more balanced and meaningful way of life during and beyond the carbon pulse? Is this all just some high-minded meander down philosophy lane with little real world applicability? My hunch is that making sure we are asking the right questions is an important starting point. If we don’t do so, we get hosts of bright, well-intentioned young people dedicating their lives to the work of the energy transition, without questioning the fundamental premise. It is important work, but it is not the work. The work is cultural change founded upon a shift in the way in which we view ourselves in relation to other living things.
In no particular order, here are the questions I have come to.
- How can awe and wonder in experiencing the natural world be restored as a central aspect of being?
- Is it our duty to protect, maintain and serve life?
- How can we, acknowledging the limits of our abilities, work to protect some of the beauty in the world and bring it forward into the future?
- Can we re-write current cultural narratives that separate humans from other forms of life? Stories are expressions of culture, but also feed into culture. The stories we tell ourselves shape our capacity for empathy. As a writer friend of mine eloquently puts it:
“The stories inside us carry wisdom that can care for our tender, unformed questions and desires. And when we receive stories from others, they too can bring meaning and hope. Like telling a shy girl who liked to daydream but was afraid of the real world that there was a place for her too, and that she would one day find it.”
- To restate the central question of the Consilience Project’s recent article Development in Progress, what constitutes authentic progress? Progress for whom? Can something that is bad for nature still be considered progress? Can betterment that is not distributed equally still be considered betterment? Defining progress is significant to how we orient ourselves individually and collectively. Advancement should not be equated with betterment.
- Can restraint be restored as a core value in our current cultural precepts? Restraint is a key tenet of most traditional conceptions of wisdom.
- Is our current conception of technology as values neutral a key problem to address? To change culture at scale, technology and what it predisposes must be given serious consideration.
- Can the educational system be reimagined to clearly prioritize the public good across the entire educational curriculum? Current educational systems are a reflection of a competitive, growth-oriented geopolitics. Instead of telling young kids that the world is facing many crises which they maybe be able to help fix once they’re grown-ups, can the doing of real, meaningful work within community become a vector for positive cultural change?
By taking the time to formulate and examine questions that probe the nature of genuine human betterment, we can orient ourselves with greater clarity towards individual and collective action in service of authentic progress. Words carry meaning and I have found the words of author Ursula K. Le Guin (1929-2018) to capture a rare and inspiring lucidity:
“To use the world well, to stop wasting it and our time in it, we need to re-learn our being in it.”
We would do well to heed her advice to rely more courageously on the power of narratives that reveal to us a reason for hope and a path towards other designs for life.
References
Hagens, N. (Host). (2024, June 26). Jonathan Rowson: The Flip, the Formation, and the Fun: A Metamodern Framework for Human Futures. [Audio podcast episode]. The Great Simplification. https://www.thegreatsimplification.com/episode/129-jonathan-rowson
Reimer, I. (2024, October 22). Growing the Canon of Literary Heroines. Counterparts. https://ilanareimer.substack.com/p/growing-the-canon-of-literary-heroines?r=3e74s3
Anonymous (collective author attribution). (2024, July 16). Technology is not values neutral: Ending the reign of nihilistic design. The Consilience Project. https://consilienceproject.org/development-in-progress/
Anonymous (collective author attribution). (2023, July 3). Technology is not values neutral: Ending the reign of nihilistic design. The Consilience Project. https://consilienceproject.org/technology-is-not-values-neutral-ending-the-reign-of-nihilistic-design-2/
Final quote, regrettably I cannot recall the exact page number:
Le Guin, U. K. (2016). Late in the day: Poems, 2010-2014. PM Press.
