There will be a long stretch of our lives during which our minds will be pre-occupied with a low hum, a dull, nonetheless intense, feeling of tension. Each of us will feel the viscerally appealing pull backwards to an idealised, romantiscised past, and an opposite pull forwards toward an enticing, utopian ideal. Below, I lay out some reasons why it’s impossible to go back, and warn against the allure of a utopian future. Neither of these extremes are the correct way to avoid civilizational collapse. Rather, we’re going to have to learn how to thrive in the discomfort of the tension-filled state we have coming our way.
Let’s get down to why going back is impossible, then explore what we might be able to do about this predicament to avoid the predictable failure modes of either extreme position. (The one failure mode being in-group/out-group dynamics resulting in modern warfare, the other failure mode being some sort of oppressive authoritarianism.)
For one thing, the romantiscised past some might think it appropriate to return to no longer exists (if it ever did!) Not only is our understanding of that past hazy and vague, leading us to underestimate certain aspects, and overestimate others. But on top of this indistinct understanding, the world has moved swiftly on since then. There is no denying that human history has continued to unfold since the time of our idealised past, and with that unfolding came fundamental changes to the way we humans live. In the context of those changes, it is simply impossible to return to a time before them. If this regression to some idealised past state were to happen, collective humanity would have to delude itself on at least two fronts: 1) We would have to delude ourselves into believing that our hazy understanding of the past was how it was, in its entirety. And 2) we’d have to delude ourselves into believing that our (certainly erroneous) understanding of the past is re-creatable, despite the world having moved on a fair bit since then (in terms of technological advancement, and the likes.) This necessary delusionality should be enough to dissuade any honest broker, but we’ll continue to elaborate on the reasons why it’s a horribly bad idea to regress to a past state in response to the turmoil of the modern world.
A cursory glance at the significant thread of violence that weaves itself thickly through the fabric of human history will show you that all significant historical periods of human violence are inspired by “Us Vs. Them” thinking. But if such a glance is too much to ask for, simply think on your own temper, and how you can be quick to anger under certain circumstances. Think on how your propensity for physical violence sky-rockets under certain circumstances. Now, consider how such a violent impulse has found its way into your biology. In an ancestral environment, this propensity for physical violence was adaptive. It saved lives (by taking others.) In an ancestral environment, if one tribes’ encroachment upon another tribe’s resources was not reacted to in a violent manner, the encroaching tribe simply took those resources for themselves, causing the victim tribe to die off. We humans have evolved a tremendous capacity for violence under certain circumstances because of that trait’s adaptive significance. If we insist upon regressing to some idealised past in response to the turmoil of modernity, we make a deal with the devil. It may bring us short-term social cohesion, but it simultaneously guarantees future in-group/out-group-type conflict. With this deal, we inadvertently usher in the very same conditions that made violence and conflict such a prominent part of human history. It is absolutely imperative that we do everything in our power to prevent a modern-day re-establishment of those conditions. The ensuing bloodshed, violence, and tragedy would be soul-destroying. To drive this imperative point home, allow me to indulge my own violent side, so that we understand how imminent a threat this is to our human existence.
Although I will do everything in my power to prevent our ushering in the pre-conditions for conflict and violence, there is a perverse part of me that wants to engage such violence. This is a deeply biological part of me, a program, ready to come to life as soon as the conditions for such a program are sensed.
When I was a teenager, I would always be the most resistant to violence whenever it began to loom large as one of the more likely potentialities of all things that might happen in the near future. Whenever I sensed a fight coming up, while playing a team sport for example, I would always first seek to de-escalate the situation. I would be genuinely fearful of the terrible consequences of physical confrontation. But there would always come a moment in time when that fight became inevitable. A threshold moment. And it was at this very moment that my body would flip a switch from trembling in fear, to excited activation. The ancient wisdom of my biology would begin sending a different cocktail of biochemical signals around my body. Instead of fear, and hesitation, I would suddenly feel supremely confident, and undefeatable. To the point where I would laugh on the inside at the misfortune and misery my opponent was about to experience. It was exhilarating! There would be a genuine desire to inflict pain on others whenever the conditions for such a situation arose. And that feeling is one of inexplicable enjoyment. From an outsider’s perspective, that sort of pleasure might seem perverse, but during the experience of it, it’s one of the most enlivening feelings we humans can access.
I’d imagine all of the men reading this can relate to that wonderful feeling.
The reason I drew on personal experience was to show (if you’re not willing to cursorily glance at the thread of violence woven through human history!) how within each individual human being, there rests a tremendous capacity for violence that is triggered under certain circumstances. In my case, the threat of in-group/out-group violence (opposing teams on a sports pitch.) If we insist upon regressing to some idealised past, we inadvertently usher in the very conditions necessary to trigger this tremendous capacity for violence. We do so at our own peril.
What can the future New Naturalist do about this?
Firstly, understanding that it’s delusional to think we can return to some idealised past. Delusional on at least two accounts. 1) Our understanding of that past is, undoubtedly, rudimentary and incomplete. And 2) The world has moved on a fair bit since then. That it’s impossible to return to some pre-modern state from within the context of modernity, and the innumerable advancements and developments having been made in the intervening period. On top of this, beginning from a delusional premise ensures inevitable catastrophe further down the road.
But here’s the nuance: this sense of a pull backwards to an ostensibly appealing past must remain to maintain the tension between the forward and backward pulls. Lessons from the past can be integrated into our roadmap towards a better future. It’s not about insisting upon a regression to some past state, or progression towards some well-defined future state. But rather, it’s about defining some of the conditions, values, and principles we’d like to live by. This way, we will organically move towards a state more suited to our modern circumstances.
The New Naturalist is comfortable with the discomfort of the tension between these two appealing options. This is the very discomfort that causes people to leap to comforting (erroneous) conclusions. But the desire to regress to some idealised past, and the desire to progress to some utopian future each have known, tragic failure modes. The one fails by tribal conflict, the other by authoritarian overreach, respectively. And so, the only option thar remains is to stay with the trouble. To stay in the discomfort of the tension between these two extremes. This way, our eyes will open up to alternative options we were previously blinded to by our insistence on the one or the other extreme.
Secondly, and this is connected to the “staying with the trouble” point. The New Naturalist is humble enough to know they haven’t enough information to confidently assert a well-defined position. But confident enough to know that neither of the two extreme options will suffice, and so, the only option that remains is to stay in the tension. The thing about this “on the fence” position is that it is easily overpowered by either of the two extreme positions. And so, the future New Naturalist must take the time to arm themselves against attacks from both sides. And be capable of adequately exposing the insufficiencies of each extreme, without causing the individuals of either camp to take an aggressive, defensive stance. (This is an important point I’ll return to in another piece. The idea that people must be enticed and seduced into seeing sense, and not forced or coerced.)
So here’s the main point future New Naturalist’s can take from this particular piece.
Recall that within each individual human there rests a tremendous capacity for violence. Your task as a future New Naturalist is to tap into that innate ferocity, and to unleash it upon the world in a controlled, and strategic manner. This innate ferocity is something you can work with, and will give you a serious advantage in this world. The key is to have those demons (that constitute your tremendous capacity for violence) fuel your relentless activity. Learn how to transmute this power within, and have it fuel a means to an end. That “end” being your ability to defend your “on the fence” position, and persuade others that it is (currently) our only hope (until we develop the eyes to see our alternative options. But we will only be able to develop those eyes if we learn how to thrive within that tension-filled state.)