Planet Sutherland

Our next video is an online talk by Michael Dowd (minister, author, and eco-theologian) exploring how we can move beyond both unrealistic optimism and despairing pessimism in the face of ecological and likely societal collapse. It draws together different facets of the human experience, examining how we can maintain our humanity and work for good in a world which is likely to become progressively more difficult.

From the video description...

SUMMARY: The stability of the biosphere has been in decline for centuries and in unstoppable, out of control mode for decades. This “Great Acceleration” of biospheric collapse is an easily verifiable fact. The scientific evidence is overwhelming.

Evidence is also compelling that the vast majority of people will deny this, especially those still benefiting from the existing order and those who fear that “accepting reality” means “giving up.”

The history of scores of previous boom and bust (progress / regress) societies clearly reveals how and why industrial civilization is dying. Accepting that Homo colossus’ condition is incurable and terminal may be key to not making a bad situation catastrophically worse.

There is a huge abundance of other material on Dowd's website that is focussed on understanding the breadth, scale and implications of the environmental crisis, and putting that understanding into a human context that allows us to stay sane and perhaps even happy in the light of such troubling knowledge. He has conducted interviews with many of the leading lights of the environmental realism movement, and has made available his narration of several seminal essays and books on the subject.



What are your opinions? Is Dowd's vision of the future too pessimistic or too (post)hopeful? Do you think his focus on the human psychological and spiritual experience is useful for you? Or perhaps you feel it's a distraction from more tangible technical aspects of the problem? What do you agree or disagree with? As always you are encouraged to share your thoughts below.

Unstoppable Collapse - How to avoid the worst - Michael Dowd

It is difficult to know what to make of someone who seems to revel in gloom and doom. The central thesis of this and other videos that Dowd has produced is that the much of the life of the natural world and our civilisation has already passed the point of no return, and that rather than deluding ourselves by thinking we can prevent collapse we need to escape from denial and turn our attention to adapting to it as best we can.

This view was put forward as long ago as 1980 by William Catton, whose book 'Overshoot - the ecological basis of revolutionary change' is described by Dowd as the most important book he has ever read. More recently Jem Bendell has expressed similar ideas in his concept of 'Deep Adaptation', set out in a paper written in 2018 and revised in 2020. Bendell's view is that "a climate-influenced collapse of societies in most parts of the world in the coming decades is either likely, inevitable or already unfolding."

This is an academic version of the more homely approach taken by Dowd in his numerous very polished video productions, but Bendell does have the virtue of laying out a vision of our likely future in starker terms than Dowd ever does

"When we contemplate this possibility of ‘societal collapse’, it can seem abstract. The previous paragraphs may seem, subconsciously at least, to be describing a situation to feel sorry about as we witness scenes on TV or online. But when I say starvation, destruction, migration, disease and war, I mean in your own life. With the power down, soon you wouldn’t have water coming out of your tap. You will depend on your neighbours for food and some warmth. You will become malnourished. You won’t know whether to stay or go. You will fear being violently killed before starving to death".

Dowd's approach, in contrast, might be described as reassuringly sanitised, expressed in highly quotable soundbites of his own or from other writers he admires. Part of his definition of 'Post Doom' (the name of his website), for example, is "What opens up when we remember who we are, accept the inevitable, cherish our grief, and prioritize what is pro-future and soul-nourishing".

Bendell writes more soberly of believers in Deep Adaptation that "They are
organising a diversity of activities to help reduce harm, save what we can, and create
possibilities for the future while experiencing meaning and joy in the process."

Both refer to the future, which both believe to be bleak, without going into detail about what they believe the future of human civilisation, if it has one, will be. In 'Bottleneck: Humanity's Impending Impasse', his 2009 sequel to 'Overshoot', Catton, having abandoned the hope that population crash "might be mitigated by wise policy and serious, but achievable adjustments in the human way of life", talks about his great grandsons and their great grandchildren having, he hopes, survived the massive population crash or 'bottleneck' which he now sees as inevitable, and perhaps with sufficient wisdom to rebuild human civilization.

"I hope by the time [my great-grandsons] become great-grandfathers themselves, their generation will be so conspicuously more enlightened than mine was and our forebears were that the world population of bottleneck survivors will have evolved social systems better able to be circumspect in the use of their planet and its vulnerable biosphere."

According to one reviewer "His parting words simply express thankfulness that he lived during the epitome of human achievements in science and understanding as well as freedoms to travel the world."

Perhaps that is the best attitude for those who are approaching the end of their lives to adopt (Catton was 82 when he published 'Bottleneck'); I am certainly glad to have lived when I have, and that I have no children facing an uncertain future. One wonders if Dowd's attitude might be different if he were 20 rather than 62. His video shows him with at least one grandchild, and he does not seem to express any concern for her future.

I certainly prefer Bendell's science to Dowd's religiosity (perhaps unsurprising given his training and former occupation as a congregational minister), but Dowd may be said to have done some service by drawing attention to William Catton, who I have to confess I was not previously aware of, and who I have not yet had a chance to read. The key question, I suppose, when we consider our response to all these writers, is "are we all, as climate change activists, in denial?"

William Catton
Overshoot
'Resilience' review
Bottleneck
'Resilience' review

Jem Bendell
Deep Adaptation
Is Deep Adaptation good science?
Is Deep Adaptation flawed science?

Unless someone else suggests another video (please do so here), next month will be a Stanford University lecture on the subject of geoengineering as climate mitigation. There will be plenty solution focussed science there.

Many good points Peter, thank you.

I chose this particular video partly in response to your initial question in response to This is How We Save The World, which asked (I'm paraphrasing, correct me if I misunderstood): if we know several possible ways to reduce and mitigate environmental damage then why are we as a society not implementing these changes with the required scale and breadth, and how can we act to ensure that we move rapidly towards doing so? It seems the answer to that question lies in the human psyche, not in hard science. Attempting to answer the question with science is likely to lead to bewilderment.

I take your point regarding doom and gloom. It's no secret that I tend towards the pessimistic end of the spectrum, but I also agree with Stuart Scott, who points out that believing doom is a certainty is a manifestation the same human hubris that got us into this mess in the first place, or that views business as usual as inevitable. It's clear that we don't fully understand the climate and eco-systems, and as such we are unable to make any determination with certainty. Having said that, it's necessary to pick a window, to decide for ourselves which truth seems most likely, and to act accordingly. Dowd's point that opting for a more pessimistic view is not the same as giving up is one I share. I have found moving beyond hope to be a liberating an energising experience, in part because moving beyond hope also means moving beyond crippling depression, fear an anxiety.

I'm well aware of Jem Benell, I considered a couple of documentaries in which he features and also interviews with him, but rejected them because as you say, his position and presentation is particularly stark. I have to say (and this is not in relation specifically to Jem Bendell) that in my view an understanding that is purely scientific, mechanistic and utilitarian is dangerous. From a scientific point of view the purpose of human beings (and all life) is to reproduce, but in doing so we run into Limits to Growth, which is a kind of hell. I'm not arguing in favour of anti-science, or belief in magic, or Flying Spaghetti Monsters, but there are certain things that are outwith the remit of science. There are areas where science meets metaphysics and philosophy. Somewhere beyond that lies morality and a spiritual awareness. In order to have a rounded and holistic view I assert that we must also explore understandings that lie outwith (but do not contradict) science.

I agree wholeheartedly with Dowd's contention that modern western civilisation's failure to consider ourselves subordinate to an unknowable God (or unfathomable universe if you object to the word God) is one of the reasons we act in such environmentally destructive ways. Derrick Jensen espouses a similar view. Please don't misunderstand, I am not saying that it's not possible to have humility or respect for nature as an atheist, or that having a spiritual understanding of the universe automatically bestows a level of environmental sensitivity. I am saying that I agree with Dowd's identification of what he calls idolatry as being part of the problem, a reason our civilisation is so willing to wreak such destruction on the ecosphere and upon our own progeny.

Human beings are not rational animals, and some are less rational than others. We are subject to the same biochemical inducements that evolution has bestowed upon all life. When it comes down to it we tend to act in ways that maximise our individual dopamine levels. Also, the human psyche is not something that is understood. Perhaps it is a law of nature that no cognitive system is capable of understanding itself.

Perhaps that's too much of a tangent, but I see a false dichotomy between scientific and spiritual understandings of the universe. They both have their merits and their blind spots, and they do not preclude each other. One would think climate falls entirely within the purview of science, but to understand why our species behaves in the way it does requires other disciplines. Given that the behaviour of our species is influencing the environment (including climate) it suggests that there is value in exploring non-scientific frameworks of understanding.

Peter Moffatt wrote: ↑Tue Jan 26, 2021 3:15 pm "are we all, as climate change activists, in denial?"

The word "denial" has become emotive of late. I think we can all agree that none of us are in possession of complete and perfect truth.

The schism between environmental optimists and pessimists is fascinating. I suspect that pessimists are more likely to be those who seek more radical fundamental change for non-environmental reasons (social, economic, political). Optimists tend to want to preserve more of our current way of life by switching individual elements to sustainable alternatives. Perhaps the spectrum is idealism vs pragmatism. It's worth saying that "doomers" can be climate change activists too, most of the ones I know are. Ultimately we're all on the same side, we all want to do the right thing, we just differ slightly on which version of the truth we choose to believe. We advocate many, perhaps most, of the same changes and actions, though the balance between adaptation and mitigation/prevention may be different.