Towards the End of Civilization as We Know It

Whether Crash or Rejuvenation

Any hope for a culture of sustainability and general equality among our own species will likely include very different lifestyles and require very different worldviews than those we presently inhabit. But given the three powerful obstacles to significant change, it seems unlikely that humanity is on the cusp on of a revolutionary shift in consciousness. One, mistaking knowledge for wisdom; two, the power of civilization’s paradigms; and three, the entrenchment of institutions vested in the status quo—these stand as powerful obstacles to the kind of social transformation necessary for human’s sustainable existence on the planet. Powerful, but not omnipotent. These will certainly change, must change if we are to either avoid dieback or, in the event of unavoidable dieback, respond in sustainably adaptive and compassionate ways.

Systemic change occurs at all levels of a culture and at all scales of our civilization. An informed and caring citizen lifts the average consciousness of the whole society by doing her little bit, in the same way that raising the kinetic energy of one molecule incrementally raises the average kinetic energy (measured as the temperature) of the whole system. Simultaneously—to now borrow from the economists—a rising tide raises all boats. If the inequality of race and gender is institutionalized in the society’s laws and practices, then the society will be predominated by racists and misogynists. And when its laws are changed to reflect new cultural norms, the values of the society’s members will also change, especially of those in succeeding generations who will be born into the new paradigm. If our society provides and values public transportation, recycling, and alternative energy, then our citizens are far more likely to participate in these practices. And, conversely, if individuals are more politically vocal about their demands for these services, our governments are more likely to offer them.

So, there is a kind of twinned upraising that must occur, a mutual reinforcement of values at all levels of Civilization—one that must be accelerated in the coming years if we are to avert disaster. Whether it will occur quickly enough to avert population and societal collapse, or whether it occurs more slowly in response to these disasters, or whether it will occur in the distant future after some dark period of retrenchment, there will likely occur, at some point or the other, a simultaneous lifting “by the aid of our bootstraps,” as Leopold Bloom put it in James Joyce’s Ulysses.

Whether we begin today or a thousand years from now, Civilization will one day transition into a sustainable relationship with the rest of Earth. It will, or it will disappear. And it will likely be more equitable, for inequity creates social tensions, and more equal they are, the more peaceful. The sooner we become sustainable and equitable, the less suffering we will inflict on the biosphere and ourselves.

We do not know precisely what a sustainable society will look like or what a equitable culture will believe. We can intelligently surmise, however, that a sustainable and equitable culture will involve lifestyles very different—and materially downsized—from the ones with which many of us are familiar. It has been estimated that the Earth can now sustain no more than about three billion people living at an average lifestyle of $11,000. With further biospheric destruction, the Earth’s capacity will surely diminish, and it will be able to accommodate even fewer of us.

Whereas Western society has chosen in the past centuries to emphasize our natural selfishness and economic and national competition, we could also choose to emphasize generosity and cooperation, or as the Dali Lama put it, enlightened self-interest. It is possible to envision a society where such values and human behavior dominate—contrary to our simplistic notions of biology—and where such a society flourishes. It is at least imaginable that we could voluntarily consume less, have fewer children, help the less fortunate, and generally behave more empathically because we choose to, because we have changed our perspectives and values. In this view, humans are indeed naturally selfish, fearful, dishonest, and greedy, and we are also naturally loving, compassionate, empathetic, and giving. Which values we adopt depends in great part on the culture in which we live.

A sustainable society would likely not preclude capitalism, but it would certainly be a kinder and gentler variety. Nor would it necessarily exclude large institutional religions, nation-states, armies, and large media outlets, but, on the other hand, a sustainable world may very well be one that has transcended a need for some or even all of them.

The transition to sustainability may cause cognitive dissonance for many of us as we acclimate to an existence that is presently outside our comfort zone. Culture and society may change so dramatically that a person born in the year 2000 may not recognize the world of 2100. This is what is meant by the “end of Civilization as we know it.” It does not mean an end to Civilization—an end to social organization and security, to art and architecture, to work and entertainment, to business, communication, and trade—but to an end of Civilization as we have been doing it (what is called “business as usual”).

This will necessarily involve a huge change of behavior by billions of people on the planet. The healthy behavioral changes triggered by the other solutions usually proposed—economic development, technological innovations, and political will—although important, will not by themselves come fast enough. To either prevent a catastrophic collapse of the human population or to live as gracefully and kindly in the transitional years of the human dieback, these three spheres of solutions will be accompanied by a transformation in the consciousness of most of us.

Of the many change agents that have been proposed to catalyze and facilitate the needed inner and social transformation, coming posts will discuss education, art, meditation, psychedelics, and necessity, reviewing their promise and their drawbacks.