Although it is certainly true that some Indigenous cultures destroyed their natural habitat it is not the case that this behaviour was (or is) universal.
The native inhabitants of Turtle Island seemed to maintain their biodiversity for the many thousands of years from the time the Aleutians first entered the land up until the Europeans came to steal & destroy everything.
Many Indigenous cultures recognise the vital importance of stewardship in respect of natural resources and warn of the dangers of unchecked greed & accumulation. Wetiko, wendigo, and pleonexia are all examples of pathological behaviour identified by ancient cultures with more wisdom than our own.
Thank you so much for those counter examples, Matthew. They provide evidence that we're capable of stewardship and sustainability, and that is essential to remain hopeful for our collective future.
To your main point, agent Smith is technically right. Humans, in my opinion, are parasites. We invade, extract, destroy the host. Not only do we do that to the planet, we do that to different versions of our own species. Humans are bad for the planet and need to be eradicated but as you know, those of us who see clearly just have to watch with the patience of a dying sun.
And do you know why? Because the good stewards of the world were conquered by parasites with white skin, long ago, so long ago that the planet we currently live on looks nothing like the one that used to exist back then. Whole water systems are moved. There are trees on the planet that can be up to 8k years old. How long can trees live? Why are there only baby trees everywhere? What does a wild tree look like? Black and white photos have bigger trees. I can see that with my own two eyes let alone after reading history books.
The parasites extracted everything before I even entered the frame. They sold our ancestors the land to live on because there was nothing left so they moved in workers to extract their value. Parasites. And we've just been ok going along with their ancient system of extraction. (Just something to ponder, but money is literally some ancient dude's rock collection that had enough charisma to convince others to give him things for his pretty rocks.)
And my call to action:
I know what a wild tree looks like. Their branches strangle each other in a neverending battle for light. And that's the battle to be won. Who gets light and who doesn't.
I live in an inner city with neighbors who all use riding mowers and lawn care services. Green grass, no bugs, no birds, no animals. And then I moved in. I spent 3 years turning my grass into clover. I let the area on the side of my house grow wild. Over the three years we lived here, we planted foods that grow locally. And now we have food that just grows every year. Pumpkins, cucumbers, onions, garlic, dill, strawberries. More of it with each passing year. The only thing we have to do is not eat it all. That's it. We already had mulberries growing and added plums, hazelnuts, and gooseberries (for the birds). In 3 years, we took a dead city lawn and turned it into an ecosystem. We are the only lawn that has lightning bugs. The only lawn that now has 13 varieties of birds that visit and poop out our seeds all over the place. This is the first year that I saw predator birds flying overhead and we also have a family of cats that moved in. So our tiny, inner city lot now produces enough food for the humans and attracted insects and animals enough to have predators living in the area. One inner city lot. Imagine if the food the birds spread actually grew instead of being mowed. Our whole neighborhood can grow wild food.
And that leads me to my final conclusion. The human parasites have indoctrinated the entire global population with greed software...I call this religion - which is weird because the matrix is literally the story of the Bible. Religion teaches people they are dominant, that there is some other bad force outside of them, and to blame that outside force for wrong. And so you see, until that way of thinking is eradicated, those of us who understand how things work have to watch what you all do with the planet and cry. That's all we can do. It is all I do.
It’s interesting that the bad guys were telling the truth and the humans perpetrating all the horrors since they learned to walk on two, were the resistance, the good guys, those who truly know what’s going on, the sacrificing heroes, fighting for the future of the human race. That self delusional script has been around for a long time and playing on a continuous loop.
Hi Jackrabbit, that script I talked about, it can never stop running. The realization of a reality in stark contrast to civilization would be such a revelation that humans would simply walk away from everything they’ve known and experienced for the past 10,000 years.
I have a background in environmental science and I’m a history enthusiast. Everything I’ve read, experienced and realized for a few decades now is that humans are mostly destructive, selfish and self centered in the context of civilization. We’re suffering from cognitive dissonance and our archaic logic is collapsing under the weight of its own contradictions and nihilistic tendencies. In this case, I refer specifically about those living within the civilizational matrix.
100% on board with this, Aman. I genuinely hope that humans do walk away from the results of 10k years of civilization and recognize there is another way of being that isn't invasive. Is it likely? No. Do I need to hope for it? Yes. I recognize that hope as a necessity for my cortex so that my subcortex doesn't freak the fuck out. But, I hang that hope on the evidence that it is a non-zero possibility.
Non-zero is about right. Strong evidence suggests that the best chance humans have of inhabiting this planet in the future and living in harmony with flora and fauna, is civilizational collapse. Although, some scientists believe this would also accelerate climate catastrophe and guarantee extinction of all life on earth. Thinking gives me a headache anymore.
"Although, some scientists believe this would also accelerate climate catastrophe and guarantee extinction of all life on earth" can you point me to this? That sounds like an interesting take I'm not familiar with.
An excellent point and one that does indict the majority of the media we consume: it is all in service to the status quo…
I will offer a caveat to your comment: we do see humans are capable of stewardship. There is evidence - both historical and present - that after a society has been pushed to the brink of collapse, if it doesn’t end entirely it can result in a human society that operates within sustainable parameters. The pacific northwest saw the potlatch and the forest gardens of the first nations, for example. It could well be that the humans from the movie learn from their mistakes.
I admit that is a stretch. There’s nothing in the movie that explicitly states this, although I do argue in the post that this is what the movie expresses in its ending metaphor.
Regardless, your point stands. Our modern media is a plague on our future and has been for a generation.
We are, however, the only invasive species that can transcend the inevitable trap if we choose to do so. An invasive plant goes where the conditions are conducive, same for an invasive animal. They don’t have the ability to reason what their effect will be, we do. Unfortunately the selfish gene overrules our ability to act collectively and change our behaviour. Some peoples in the past have come to an equilibrium with nature and were successful managers or stewards of their environment. Pre colonial Australia is one such example where the people, after causing major environmental change after arrival, managed to come up with a continental wide system of environmental stewardship and lore that even survived in Tasmania after it was cut off from mainland Australia at the end of the last ice age. Not saying it was perfect, just saying that we are the only species that can do it if we choose to.
I hope to present this in future posts, with the caveat that it is highly unlikely. Yes, we are capable of getting out of the mess we’ve made, but the key paradox is that it has to be via the very abilities that got us into the nightmare scenario we are currently falling into.
I also argue that the instance of stewardship we do see around the world in human societies results from an initial decimation of the local environment. It is only once humans see their unchecked consumption is a threat to their own existence that they reconfigure their behavior to be more sustainable.
It’ll also require us to drop the selfishness and nationalism. I agree with you entirely with stewardship, we have to be faced with decimation before we act. I remember watching a current affairs programme 20 years ago where the guest speaker was talking about the world community needing to go on a war footing to tackle climate change. That would require us letting go of our base instincts, unfortunately we aren’t ready to do that yet.
William Catton was writing about Overshoot in the 80s. The 80s. He was talking about how we needed to reverse course immediately then. Yeah, that admonition fell on deaf ears.
I remember our science teacher talking about this in the ‘70s. We have been completely captured by the energy industry and our inherent bias for thinking how things are now is how it will continue. The ability to look into the future is what sets us apart from other species yet not many use that ability, if we did we wouldn’t have had this senseless debate whether we should do something about our energy consumption for 30+ years. I don’t think we have grasped the idea that we are hurtling through space on a little blue ball that is perfect for us if only we look after it.
Yeah, it was my biology teacher in the 80s that got me thinking. Then I went to work for Greenpeace over the summer and that ruined me. They wanted me to canvass the suburbs for donations...what a shit show. I kind of gave up on humanity at that moment.
We really appreciated this essay, Jackrabbit. We can feel the thought and effort you put into it.
We found ourselves resonating deeply with your central observation that humans are capable of removing negative feedback from our environment in ways that no other species can. That feels like one of the defining challenges of our time.
Where we found ourselves wondering, though, is whether the pattern you describe is best understood as human nature ~or~ as the expression of a deeper relational pathology.
One of the questions we're exploring through The Experience of We is this:
~What kind of human nervous system naturally produces regenerative behavior?~
That question has gradually become more foundational for us than asking whether humans are "good" or "bad."
We completely agree that the archaeological record challenges the comforting myth that humans once lived in some kind of perfect harmony with nature (at best we'd name it something like "adaptive homeodynamic co-regulation"). Our species has always transformed ecosystems. But we're not yet convinced that this means we are invasive by nature.
What if humans are better understood as an extraordinarily adaptive species whose intelligence allows us to remove ecological feedback faster than our developmental capacities can integrate it?
From that perspective, our technologies aren't the root problem. Nor are our instincts.
The deeper issue is that our relationships—with ourselves, each other, our communities, and the living more-than-human world—can become progressively disconnected from the very feedback that keeps living systems healthy.
In other words, the pathology isn't located in humanity itself.
It's located in the relationships through which humanity organizes itself.
That distinction matters to us because it changes where we take on hope as a living practice.
If humans are inherently invasive, then our highest aspiration may simply be to restrain ourselves.
But if the deeper problem is relational, then regeneration becomes possible not only through better policies or technologies, but through restoring the conditions under which humans become capable of perceiving and responding to living feedback again.
We were especially moved by your closing reflections about clarity, forgiveness, care, and love. Those didn't feel separate from the ecological analysis; they felt like its natural culmination.
To us, love isn't a sentimental alternative to realism.
It's one of the ways living systems remain responsive to feedback.
We're curious whether anything we shared resonates with you. We're also curious what parts might not have.
Have you read Shikasta by Doris Lessing? She talks about a 'substance of we' that reminds me of your handle. Curious if that may have been an inspiration.
Thank you so much for your excellent comment. It is so encouraging to get to engage with thoughtful and inquisitive folks.
"Where we found ourselves wondering, though, is whether the pattern you describe is best understood as human nature ~or~ as the expression of a deeper relational pathology." I think it is both. I think it is not just human nature, but nature nature. I have strong reason to believe that the pathology we're witnessing is rooted in a fundamental principle of life itself and that humans are an expression of an imbalance in that principle. I'll write more about that principle in future posts.
I absolutely don't think that good/bad thinking is helpful when it comes to clarity about how we work and how we arrived at our current state of pathology. But I do think you're right to focus on the nervous system.
"we're not yet convinced that this means we are invasive by nature" I think you're right to doubt that we're invasive by nature. With this article I hoped to share that I believe we're invasive by behavior. But, I also wanted to make clear that this is not unique to our species AND that it isn't inevitable. There are examples of humans acting as stewards of their environment and working in cooperation with each other.
"What if humans are better understood as an extraordinarily adaptive species whose intelligence allows us to remove ecological feedback faster than our developmental capacities can integrate it?" Absolutely. It is my sincere belief that the key issue is the mismatch between cultural evolution and biological evolution. And I hear you on the relationships could be seen as being a key factor in that mismatch. And I also agree that how "humanity organizes itself" is certainly at issue. IMHO, it the dysfunction at the individual level is mirrored at the institutional.
"If humans are inherently invasive, then our highest aspiration may simply be to restrain ourselves." I do not think it is our highest aspiration, but I do think it is what our next step needs to be. To sit with who we are and appreciate the paradox that we have to hold; our brilliance and our lust for consumption.
And yes, love is "one of the ways living systems remain responsive to feedback." is something that resonates with me.
I'm very grateful for your response and I hope some of what we're discussing here will be expanded on in upcoming posts. I will be checking out your account as well. Thank you!
Hey, Jackrabbit! We really appreciate your thoughtful reply. :)
We haven't read Shikasta by Doris Lessing, although we read a synopsis after receiving your reply, and it really resonates.
Our handle (and our work) is based on the fact that humans have a range of adaptive neurobiological expressions that are context-dependent. We can adapt (or be entrained by dominant systems) toward an embodied experience of separation (not just an "illusion" -- a genuine felt sense of being isolated or separate from the rest of our species, the more-than-human world, the biosphere, etc.). We can also adapt (or be entrained) toward an embodied experience of "We-ness" (which we call reunion but could also be called interbeing, interdependence, etc.).
We think many people, especially in spaces like this, have had various realizations of the "We" experience. But the dominant systems have a powerful attractor state toward separation; they actively enforce and incentivize it. So the design challenge, as we see it, is how do we create counter-systems that entrain reunion in a system that solves for separation.
We could say more, but we're more interested in replying to the rest of your response.
"I absolutely don't think that good/bad thinking is helpful when it comes to clarity about how we work and how we arrived at our current state of pathology. But I do think you're right to focus on the nervous system."
We completely resonate with that. We don't find moral categories especially useful for understanding complex systems.
Your comment about the nervous system also landed with us. We've increasingly come to wonder whether the deeper issue isn't just that we've removed ecological feedback, but that we've become progressively less able to perceive and metabolize feedback in the first place.
"I think you're right to doubt that we're invasive by nature. With this article I hoped to share that I believe we're invasive by behavior. But, I also wanted to make clear that this is not unique to our species AND that it isn't inevitable. There are examples of humans acting as stewards of their environment and working in cooperation with each other."
We really appreciate that distinction. "Invasive by behavior" feels much closer to how we're thinking about it as well, especially because it leaves open the possibility of development.
Your point that humans can also become stewards feels especially important to us. It keeps raising the question: what are the relational and developmental conditions that reliably cultivate stewardship rather than extraction? That's a question we've found ourselves returning to again and again.
"It is my sincere belief that the key issue is the mismatch between cultural evolution and biological evolution. And I hear you on the relationships could be seen as being a key factor in that mismatch. And I also agree that how "humanity organizes itself" is certainly at issue. IMHO, it the dysfunction at the individual level is mirrored at the institutional."
We found ourselves resonating with this quite a bit. One place our curiosity keeps returning is whether culture itself might emerge from something even more fundamental: patterns of relationship.
If that's true, then families, communities, institutions, and civilizations might all be expressions of the same underlying relational dynamics playing out at different scales. That's been a fascinating line of inquiry for us.
"I do not think it is our highest aspiration, but I do think it is what our next step needs to be. To sit with who we are and appreciate the paradox that we have to hold; our brilliance and our lust for consumption."
We resonate with that. We also appreciate the distinction between what may be our next developmental step and what our ultimate aspiration might be.
One thing we've been wondering is whether sustainable restraint can arise from willpower alone, or whether it ultimately depends on cultivating the relational conditions in which restraint begins to feel less like self-denial and more like participation in a thriving whole.
We're grateful for the opportunity to sense-make with you on this.
Gaia has brain cancer, and it's our malware of intergenerational narcissism and trauma.
The cure is a secular religion based on critical thinking and free will scepticism, and engineering to transcend individual limitations through collective intelligence.
Intelligence is expecting well, which means modelling reality as accurately as we can.
I COMPLETELY forgot about that line and it really does distill it all down, doesn't it? The literal embodiment of human invasivness loving up on a cityscape. Perfect encapsulation of the theme of my post.
One of my enduringly favourite lines about the Matrix is that it is not a film, but a documentary and yes, based on the facts, modern humans are an invasive colonizing species, or as Bill Hicks drily put it: 'a virus with shoes'.
Thank you for this. I had realized a lot of this but you have framed it in a new way that is impactful… and so, so meaningful.
I do wonder if we get extra points (“invasive+”) because we, as a species, have the ability to attack an ecosystem by taking advantage of other species… we were the ones that carried rabbits to Australia, per your point.
I think there are other species who do similar things, also similar to your point that we are not the only cause of eco destruction, like the ‘zombie predators’ that infect another species and that changes the behavior of the infected to benefit the predator. That level of manipulation, in my mind, gets its own distinction but I’m not a scientist.
I also need to agree with your assessment about our attachment via love. Having been aware of, and having felt guilt about, my own contributions to this human-induced fiasco, I reconcile daily between knowing I am chronically ill, not wanting treatment, and wanting to make things just a little bit better for my grandkids.
Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts.
What I don't think I emphasized enough in the article is that it is a quality of life itself - this urge to explore and procreate and consume. It doesn't make us special that we have these drives. It is the 'short-circuiting' of ecological guardrails that sets us apart. It is what has created the globe-spanning mismatch between biological and cultural evolution. The single most important question for our planet is: what do we do with this terrible knowledge and profound responsibility.
IMHO, it starts with what you mention in your penultimate paragraph - forgiveness. Guilt is a blinking light. It is just a warning of your brain telling you "Hay! Attention needed here! Please attend to this issue!" It is an opportunity for forgiveness. And it is only by accepting the truth of who we are that we can offer true forgiveness. Taking our natures and holding it up to our actions. Seeing the cause and effect and realizing we weren't actually thinking. We were just acting out programs we weren't aware of. Embracing the context of how we got here.
Well, now we get to exert agency. That is only by being honest with ourselves about who we are that agency is possible. It is only through forgiveness of who we thought we were that we can act with grace. Doing the right thing doesn't have to mean you look like Superman. Or that you're celebrated as a hero. Doing the right thing means listening to world in this moment. Listening to the self that lives beyond the patterns that got us to this terrible place. Don't be afraid to just be you. Don't be afraid to just be; sitting with your acceptance. Acting with the agency of a self on the other side of guilt.
If he’d been correct, the machines would’ve restored the Earth.
There would also be no need to keep humanity in a simulated time bubble of roughly the 1990s through 2010ish. It’s argued that this was a peak, which made humans naturally fall into the patterns, as though they were living.
Why is that?
What the humans are being used for certainly doesn’t require them to be happy or productive. In fact, Smith’s presence entirely undercuts everything he claims across multiple scenes. A comatose state would be far more efficient and there’d be no way to extract someone. Smiths very existence is an anomaly that never truly makes sense.
Although it is certainly true that some Indigenous cultures destroyed their natural habitat it is not the case that this behaviour was (or is) universal.
The native inhabitants of Turtle Island seemed to maintain their biodiversity for the many thousands of years from the time the Aleutians first entered the land up until the Europeans came to steal & destroy everything.
Many Indigenous cultures recognise the vital importance of stewardship in respect of natural resources and warn of the dangers of unchecked greed & accumulation. Wetiko, wendigo, and pleonexia are all examples of pathological behaviour identified by ancient cultures with more wisdom than our own.
Thank you so much for those counter examples, Matthew. They provide evidence that we're capable of stewardship and sustainability, and that is essential to remain hopeful for our collective future.
I just watched this series a few weeks ago.
To your main point, agent Smith is technically right. Humans, in my opinion, are parasites. We invade, extract, destroy the host. Not only do we do that to the planet, we do that to different versions of our own species. Humans are bad for the planet and need to be eradicated but as you know, those of us who see clearly just have to watch with the patience of a dying sun.
And do you know why? Because the good stewards of the world were conquered by parasites with white skin, long ago, so long ago that the planet we currently live on looks nothing like the one that used to exist back then. Whole water systems are moved. There are trees on the planet that can be up to 8k years old. How long can trees live? Why are there only baby trees everywhere? What does a wild tree look like? Black and white photos have bigger trees. I can see that with my own two eyes let alone after reading history books.
The parasites extracted everything before I even entered the frame. They sold our ancestors the land to live on because there was nothing left so they moved in workers to extract their value. Parasites. And we've just been ok going along with their ancient system of extraction. (Just something to ponder, but money is literally some ancient dude's rock collection that had enough charisma to convince others to give him things for his pretty rocks.)
And my call to action:
I know what a wild tree looks like. Their branches strangle each other in a neverending battle for light. And that's the battle to be won. Who gets light and who doesn't.
I live in an inner city with neighbors who all use riding mowers and lawn care services. Green grass, no bugs, no birds, no animals. And then I moved in. I spent 3 years turning my grass into clover. I let the area on the side of my house grow wild. Over the three years we lived here, we planted foods that grow locally. And now we have food that just grows every year. Pumpkins, cucumbers, onions, garlic, dill, strawberries. More of it with each passing year. The only thing we have to do is not eat it all. That's it. We already had mulberries growing and added plums, hazelnuts, and gooseberries (for the birds). In 3 years, we took a dead city lawn and turned it into an ecosystem. We are the only lawn that has lightning bugs. The only lawn that now has 13 varieties of birds that visit and poop out our seeds all over the place. This is the first year that I saw predator birds flying overhead and we also have a family of cats that moved in. So our tiny, inner city lot now produces enough food for the humans and attracted insects and animals enough to have predators living in the area. One inner city lot. Imagine if the food the birds spread actually grew instead of being mowed. Our whole neighborhood can grow wild food.
And that leads me to my final conclusion. The human parasites have indoctrinated the entire global population with greed software...I call this religion - which is weird because the matrix is literally the story of the Bible. Religion teaches people they are dominant, that there is some other bad force outside of them, and to blame that outside force for wrong. And so you see, until that way of thinking is eradicated, those of us who understand how things work have to watch what you all do with the planet and cry. That's all we can do. It is all I do.
Thank you for this. I hear you.
It’s interesting that the bad guys were telling the truth and the humans perpetrating all the horrors since they learned to walk on two, were the resistance, the good guys, those who truly know what’s going on, the sacrificing heroes, fighting for the future of the human race. That self delusional script has been around for a long time and playing on a continuous loop.
Hi Jackrabbit, that script I talked about, it can never stop running. The realization of a reality in stark contrast to civilization would be such a revelation that humans would simply walk away from everything they’ve known and experienced for the past 10,000 years.
I have a background in environmental science and I’m a history enthusiast. Everything I’ve read, experienced and realized for a few decades now is that humans are mostly destructive, selfish and self centered in the context of civilization. We’re suffering from cognitive dissonance and our archaic logic is collapsing under the weight of its own contradictions and nihilistic tendencies. In this case, I refer specifically about those living within the civilizational matrix.
100% on board with this, Aman. I genuinely hope that humans do walk away from the results of 10k years of civilization and recognize there is another way of being that isn't invasive. Is it likely? No. Do I need to hope for it? Yes. I recognize that hope as a necessity for my cortex so that my subcortex doesn't freak the fuck out. But, I hang that hope on the evidence that it is a non-zero possibility.
Non-zero is about right. Strong evidence suggests that the best chance humans have of inhabiting this planet in the future and living in harmony with flora and fauna, is civilizational collapse. Although, some scientists believe this would also accelerate climate catastrophe and guarantee extinction of all life on earth. Thinking gives me a headache anymore.
"Although, some scientists believe this would also accelerate climate catastrophe and guarantee extinction of all life on earth" can you point me to this? That sounds like an interesting take I'm not familiar with.
This is one of many good articles. Some can get pretty technical. This one hits the spot and there are links for further research. https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-how-human-caused-aerosols-are-masking-global-warming/
Ach. I almost wish I hadn't read that. Now my brain has to contend with the insane paradox that a reduction in pollution is making things worse. (╥﹏╥)
Same. It is exhausting to hold this.
An excellent point and one that does indict the majority of the media we consume: it is all in service to the status quo…
I will offer a caveat to your comment: we do see humans are capable of stewardship. There is evidence - both historical and present - that after a society has been pushed to the brink of collapse, if it doesn’t end entirely it can result in a human society that operates within sustainable parameters. The pacific northwest saw the potlatch and the forest gardens of the first nations, for example. It could well be that the humans from the movie learn from their mistakes.
I admit that is a stretch. There’s nothing in the movie that explicitly states this, although I do argue in the post that this is what the movie expresses in its ending metaphor.
Regardless, your point stands. Our modern media is a plague on our future and has been for a generation.
We are, however, the only invasive species that can transcend the inevitable trap if we choose to do so. An invasive plant goes where the conditions are conducive, same for an invasive animal. They don’t have the ability to reason what their effect will be, we do. Unfortunately the selfish gene overrules our ability to act collectively and change our behaviour. Some peoples in the past have come to an equilibrium with nature and were successful managers or stewards of their environment. Pre colonial Australia is one such example where the people, after causing major environmental change after arrival, managed to come up with a continental wide system of environmental stewardship and lore that even survived in Tasmania after it was cut off from mainland Australia at the end of the last ice age. Not saying it was perfect, just saying that we are the only species that can do it if we choose to.
Absolutely, Rob.
I hope to present this in future posts, with the caveat that it is highly unlikely. Yes, we are capable of getting out of the mess we’ve made, but the key paradox is that it has to be via the very abilities that got us into the nightmare scenario we are currently falling into.
I also argue that the instance of stewardship we do see around the world in human societies results from an initial decimation of the local environment. It is only once humans see their unchecked consumption is a threat to their own existence that they reconfigure their behavior to be more sustainable.
It’ll also require us to drop the selfishness and nationalism. I agree with you entirely with stewardship, we have to be faced with decimation before we act. I remember watching a current affairs programme 20 years ago where the guest speaker was talking about the world community needing to go on a war footing to tackle climate change. That would require us letting go of our base instincts, unfortunately we aren’t ready to do that yet.
Look forward to the next article.👍
William Catton was writing about Overshoot in the 80s. The 80s. He was talking about how we needed to reverse course immediately then. Yeah, that admonition fell on deaf ears.
I remember our science teacher talking about this in the ‘70s. We have been completely captured by the energy industry and our inherent bias for thinking how things are now is how it will continue. The ability to look into the future is what sets us apart from other species yet not many use that ability, if we did we wouldn’t have had this senseless debate whether we should do something about our energy consumption for 30+ years. I don’t think we have grasped the idea that we are hurtling through space on a little blue ball that is perfect for us if only we look after it.
Yeah, it was my biology teacher in the 80s that got me thinking. Then I went to work for Greenpeace over the summer and that ruined me. They wanted me to canvass the suburbs for donations...what a shit show. I kind of gave up on humanity at that moment.
I bet! That would have been a reality check 🤯🤯🤯
Human are an invasive noxious species.
We really appreciated this essay, Jackrabbit. We can feel the thought and effort you put into it.
We found ourselves resonating deeply with your central observation that humans are capable of removing negative feedback from our environment in ways that no other species can. That feels like one of the defining challenges of our time.
Where we found ourselves wondering, though, is whether the pattern you describe is best understood as human nature ~or~ as the expression of a deeper relational pathology.
One of the questions we're exploring through The Experience of We is this:
~What kind of human nervous system naturally produces regenerative behavior?~
That question has gradually become more foundational for us than asking whether humans are "good" or "bad."
We completely agree that the archaeological record challenges the comforting myth that humans once lived in some kind of perfect harmony with nature (at best we'd name it something like "adaptive homeodynamic co-regulation"). Our species has always transformed ecosystems. But we're not yet convinced that this means we are invasive by nature.
What if humans are better understood as an extraordinarily adaptive species whose intelligence allows us to remove ecological feedback faster than our developmental capacities can integrate it?
From that perspective, our technologies aren't the root problem. Nor are our instincts.
The deeper issue is that our relationships—with ourselves, each other, our communities, and the living more-than-human world—can become progressively disconnected from the very feedback that keeps living systems healthy.
In other words, the pathology isn't located in humanity itself.
It's located in the relationships through which humanity organizes itself.
That distinction matters to us because it changes where we take on hope as a living practice.
If humans are inherently invasive, then our highest aspiration may simply be to restrain ourselves.
But if the deeper problem is relational, then regeneration becomes possible not only through better policies or technologies, but through restoring the conditions under which humans become capable of perceiving and responding to living feedback again.
We were especially moved by your closing reflections about clarity, forgiveness, care, and love. Those didn't feel separate from the ecological analysis; they felt like its natural culmination.
To us, love isn't a sentimental alternative to realism.
It's one of the ways living systems remain responsive to feedback.
We're curious whether anything we shared resonates with you. We're also curious what parts might not have.
Have you read Shikasta by Doris Lessing? She talks about a 'substance of we' that reminds me of your handle. Curious if that may have been an inspiration.
Thank you so much for your excellent comment. It is so encouraging to get to engage with thoughtful and inquisitive folks.
"Where we found ourselves wondering, though, is whether the pattern you describe is best understood as human nature ~or~ as the expression of a deeper relational pathology." I think it is both. I think it is not just human nature, but nature nature. I have strong reason to believe that the pathology we're witnessing is rooted in a fundamental principle of life itself and that humans are an expression of an imbalance in that principle. I'll write more about that principle in future posts.
I absolutely don't think that good/bad thinking is helpful when it comes to clarity about how we work and how we arrived at our current state of pathology. But I do think you're right to focus on the nervous system.
"we're not yet convinced that this means we are invasive by nature" I think you're right to doubt that we're invasive by nature. With this article I hoped to share that I believe we're invasive by behavior. But, I also wanted to make clear that this is not unique to our species AND that it isn't inevitable. There are examples of humans acting as stewards of their environment and working in cooperation with each other.
"What if humans are better understood as an extraordinarily adaptive species whose intelligence allows us to remove ecological feedback faster than our developmental capacities can integrate it?" Absolutely. It is my sincere belief that the key issue is the mismatch between cultural evolution and biological evolution. And I hear you on the relationships could be seen as being a key factor in that mismatch. And I also agree that how "humanity organizes itself" is certainly at issue. IMHO, it the dysfunction at the individual level is mirrored at the institutional.
"If humans are inherently invasive, then our highest aspiration may simply be to restrain ourselves." I do not think it is our highest aspiration, but I do think it is what our next step needs to be. To sit with who we are and appreciate the paradox that we have to hold; our brilliance and our lust for consumption.
And yes, love is "one of the ways living systems remain responsive to feedback." is something that resonates with me.
I'm very grateful for your response and I hope some of what we're discussing here will be expanded on in upcoming posts. I will be checking out your account as well. Thank you!
Hey, Jackrabbit! We really appreciate your thoughtful reply. :)
We haven't read Shikasta by Doris Lessing, although we read a synopsis after receiving your reply, and it really resonates.
Our handle (and our work) is based on the fact that humans have a range of adaptive neurobiological expressions that are context-dependent. We can adapt (or be entrained by dominant systems) toward an embodied experience of separation (not just an "illusion" -- a genuine felt sense of being isolated or separate from the rest of our species, the more-than-human world, the biosphere, etc.). We can also adapt (or be entrained) toward an embodied experience of "We-ness" (which we call reunion but could also be called interbeing, interdependence, etc.).
We think many people, especially in spaces like this, have had various realizations of the "We" experience. But the dominant systems have a powerful attractor state toward separation; they actively enforce and incentivize it. So the design challenge, as we see it, is how do we create counter-systems that entrain reunion in a system that solves for separation.
We could say more, but we're more interested in replying to the rest of your response.
"I absolutely don't think that good/bad thinking is helpful when it comes to clarity about how we work and how we arrived at our current state of pathology. But I do think you're right to focus on the nervous system."
We completely resonate with that. We don't find moral categories especially useful for understanding complex systems.
Your comment about the nervous system also landed with us. We've increasingly come to wonder whether the deeper issue isn't just that we've removed ecological feedback, but that we've become progressively less able to perceive and metabolize feedback in the first place.
"I think you're right to doubt that we're invasive by nature. With this article I hoped to share that I believe we're invasive by behavior. But, I also wanted to make clear that this is not unique to our species AND that it isn't inevitable. There are examples of humans acting as stewards of their environment and working in cooperation with each other."
We really appreciate that distinction. "Invasive by behavior" feels much closer to how we're thinking about it as well, especially because it leaves open the possibility of development.
Your point that humans can also become stewards feels especially important to us. It keeps raising the question: what are the relational and developmental conditions that reliably cultivate stewardship rather than extraction? That's a question we've found ourselves returning to again and again.
"It is my sincere belief that the key issue is the mismatch between cultural evolution and biological evolution. And I hear you on the relationships could be seen as being a key factor in that mismatch. And I also agree that how "humanity organizes itself" is certainly at issue. IMHO, it the dysfunction at the individual level is mirrored at the institutional."
We found ourselves resonating with this quite a bit. One place our curiosity keeps returning is whether culture itself might emerge from something even more fundamental: patterns of relationship.
If that's true, then families, communities, institutions, and civilizations might all be expressions of the same underlying relational dynamics playing out at different scales. That's been a fascinating line of inquiry for us.
"I do not think it is our highest aspiration, but I do think it is what our next step needs to be. To sit with who we are and appreciate the paradox that we have to hold; our brilliance and our lust for consumption."
We resonate with that. We also appreciate the distinction between what may be our next developmental step and what our ultimate aspiration might be.
One thing we've been wondering is whether sustainable restraint can arise from willpower alone, or whether it ultimately depends on cultivating the relational conditions in which restraint begins to feel less like self-denial and more like participation in a thriving whole.
We're grateful for the opportunity to sense-make with you on this.
Gaia has brain cancer, and it's our malware of intergenerational narcissism and trauma.
The cure is a secular religion based on critical thinking and free will scepticism, and engineering to transcend individual limitations through collective intelligence.
Intelligence is expecting well, which means modelling reality as accurately as we can.
Let's keep working on it, one good idea at a time, JLS!
I think we could potentially manage better than one at a time ;)
No seriously, i doubt we've scratched the surface of what we could be. We have all this tech, but we're livestock.
https://agnosticfundamentalism.substack.com/p/the-forbidden-subject
Nice piece:)
I think far too much about this scene in the Matrix as climate change descends, especially since his rant kicks off with another Agent Smith banger -
“Do you ever just stare at it? Marvel at its bew-teee?”
He was asking so much with that question.
I COMPLETELY forgot about that line and it really does distill it all down, doesn't it? The literal embodiment of human invasivness loving up on a cityscape. Perfect encapsulation of the theme of my post.
Yes, yes! And the flip side - a computer program doing what humans fail too often to do, which is consciously appreciate their material world.
Thank you for this, I could talk about The Matrix metaphors for days🤣
One of my enduringly favourite lines about the Matrix is that it is not a film, but a documentary and yes, based on the facts, modern humans are an invasive colonizing species, or as Bill Hicks drily put it: 'a virus with shoes'.
Bill Hicks was a saint. One of the best.
Thank you for this. I had realized a lot of this but you have framed it in a new way that is impactful… and so, so meaningful.
I do wonder if we get extra points (“invasive+”) because we, as a species, have the ability to attack an ecosystem by taking advantage of other species… we were the ones that carried rabbits to Australia, per your point.
I think there are other species who do similar things, also similar to your point that we are not the only cause of eco destruction, like the ‘zombie predators’ that infect another species and that changes the behavior of the infected to benefit the predator. That level of manipulation, in my mind, gets its own distinction but I’m not a scientist.
I also need to agree with your assessment about our attachment via love. Having been aware of, and having felt guilt about, my own contributions to this human-induced fiasco, I reconcile daily between knowing I am chronically ill, not wanting treatment, and wanting to make things just a little bit better for my grandkids.
Yeah. Great piece and very thought provoking.
Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts.
What I don't think I emphasized enough in the article is that it is a quality of life itself - this urge to explore and procreate and consume. It doesn't make us special that we have these drives. It is the 'short-circuiting' of ecological guardrails that sets us apart. It is what has created the globe-spanning mismatch between biological and cultural evolution. The single most important question for our planet is: what do we do with this terrible knowledge and profound responsibility.
IMHO, it starts with what you mention in your penultimate paragraph - forgiveness. Guilt is a blinking light. It is just a warning of your brain telling you "Hay! Attention needed here! Please attend to this issue!" It is an opportunity for forgiveness. And it is only by accepting the truth of who we are that we can offer true forgiveness. Taking our natures and holding it up to our actions. Seeing the cause and effect and realizing we weren't actually thinking. We were just acting out programs we weren't aware of. Embracing the context of how we got here.
Well, now we get to exert agency. That is only by being honest with ourselves about who we are that agency is possible. It is only through forgiveness of who we thought we were that we can act with grace. Doing the right thing doesn't have to mean you look like Superman. Or that you're celebrated as a hero. Doing the right thing means listening to world in this moment. Listening to the self that lives beyond the patterns that got us to this terrible place. Don't be afraid to just be you. Don't be afraid to just be; sitting with your acceptance. Acting with the agency of a self on the other side of guilt.
Thought-provoking - so good to see this here. Looking forward to more.
Smith was wrong for another reason.
If he’d been correct, the machines would’ve restored the Earth.
There would also be no need to keep humanity in a simulated time bubble of roughly the 1990s through 2010ish. It’s argued that this was a peak, which made humans naturally fall into the patterns, as though they were living.
Why is that?
What the humans are being used for certainly doesn’t require them to be happy or productive. In fact, Smith’s presence entirely undercuts everything he claims across multiple scenes. A comatose state would be far more efficient and there’d be no way to extract someone. Smiths very existence is an anomaly that never truly makes sense.
Excellent analysis, thank you.
"You like suffering."
Sort of like Original Sin. Oh well. The idea of sentient motivated ai is absurd to me. The faith we place in our pull-string dolls astounds me.