In short: Our species was not “born” stupid, but started to become so late in our history. It then started on a downward course, and will “soon” go extinct.[1]
We are on the brink of an irreversible climate disaster. This is a global emergency beyond any doubt. Much of the very fabric of life on Earth is imperiled. We are stepping into a critical and unpredictable new phase of the climate crisis.[2]
Preface
January, 2025, was a busy month for me![3] First, on January 6, I celebrated my 85th birthday—on what has come to be called Insurrection Day (because of the events of 2021 in support of Donald J. Trump). Given that Trump supporters were trying to overthrow our government, I prefer to call it Treason Day!
Second, during my appointment with my nephrologist, on January 15, we jointly decided that it was time for me to begin dialysis, and the plan was to start on Monday, January 27. Third, on Sunday, January 26, I started to have some intestinal problems, and they became serious enough for my wife to call an ambulance on Tuesday, January 28, and I was taken to St. Luke’s hospital in Milwaukee; after a wait of about 10 hours (!) I was admitted, assigned a room, then another room. Fourth, while in the hospital, my intestinal problem was treated, and I received three treatments of dialysis, the last one on Wednesday, February 5, after which I was discharged. My wonderful wife (of almost 59 years!) has been caring for me since, and I had my first dialysis treatment at a clinic that Friday, February 7, my wife driving me there. While in the hospital, I started creating this paper “in my head,” and when I arrived home on the 7th started writing a little bit each day since, when able to do so,. I completed a first draft on February 10.
*****
Our species—Homo sapiens—appeared on the scene about 270,000 years ago, and for most of our existence since then we have been foragers:[4]
The forager way of life is of major interest to anthropologists because dependence on wild food resources was the way humans acquired food for the vast stretch of human history. Cross-cultural researchers focus on studying patterns across societies and try to answer questions such as: What are recent hunter-gatherers generally like? How do they differ from food producers? How do hunter-gatherer societies vary and what may explain their variability?
As our ancestors spread across the globe, they encountered environmental differences, and they adapted to those differences in what they ate (e. g., whether or not they ate aquatic life), whether or not they wore clothes or created shelters for themselves, etc. But they retained certain similarities as well. For example, the late anthropologist Colin Turnbull [1924 – 1994] wrote this in 1983:
If we measure a culture’s worth by the longevity of its population, the sophistication of its technology, the material comforts it offers, then many primitive cultures have little to offer us, that is true. But our study of the life cycle will show that in terms of a, conscious dedication to human relationships that are both affective and effective, the primitive is ahead of us all the way. He is working at it at every stage of his life, from infancy to death, while playing just as much as while praying; whether at work or at home his life is governed by his conscious quest for social order. Each individual learns this social consciousness as he grows up, and the lesson is constantly reinforced until the day he dies, and because of that social consciousness each individual is a person of worth and value and importance to society, also from the day of birth to the day of death.
In other words, each individual was “born to be good,” was “good natured,” born to live by the principle “love thy neighbor” (!)
There’s also this interesting statement by the late anthropologist William E. H. Stanner [1905 – 1981][5] (p. 31) regarding the Aborigines in Australia:
The Aborigines have no gods, just or unjust, to adjudicate the world. Not even by straining can one see in such culture-heroes as Baiame and Darumulum the true hint of a Yahveh, jealous, omniscient, and omnipotent. The ethical insights are dim and somewhat coarse in texture. One can find in them little trace, say, of the inverted pride, the self-scrutiny, and the consciousness of favour and destiny which characterised the early Jews. A glimpse, but no truly poignant sense, of moral dualism; no notion of grace or redemption; no whisper of inner peace and reconcilement; no problems of worldly life to be solved only by a consummation of history; no heaven of reward or hell of punishment. The blackfellow’s after-life is but a shadowy replica of worldly-life, so none flee to inner sanctuary to escape the world. There are no prophets, saints, or illuminati. There is a concept of goodness, but it lacks true scruple. Men can become ritually unclean, but may be cleansed by a simple mechanism. There is a moral law but, as in the beginning, men are both good and bad, and no one is racked by the knowledge.
Those of us USans[6] who were raised in Christianity may find it difficult to recognize that the concept of deity is not a universal one. A fact that suggests that where that concept exists, it may have been invented there—or borrowed, with modifications, from a neighboring society. With the concept functioning to explain why things exist and why they “behave” as they do. We have been taught that things exist because a Being “out there” created them; it’s possible, however, is that we created god(s) rather than the other way around!
Or, it may be that God exists, but is a monster! How else explain the fact that this omniscient/omni-present Being was aware that the Nazis were killing millions of Jews, but failed to use His omnipotence to stop the slaughter?!
*****
We humans have been foragers for over 99% of our existence; it should not, therefore be surprising to learn that we became “designed”[7] for that way of life; so that it’s the way of life that’s natural for us.
And of particular importance is the fact that we became designed for small-group living:[8]
Many of our problems seem traceable to Homo sapiens being a small-group animal, most comfortable in collections of under 150 people or so, the so-called Dunbar’s number.[[9]] It was proposed by anthropologist Robin Dunbar based on studies of primate brain size and group size. That’s roughly the maximum size of most hunter-gatherer groups, as it is today of typical groups of colleagues, lengths of Christmas card lists, and so on.
From an empirical standpoint:
The fact that small-group living has become uncommon helps explain many of our problems today—including the likelihood that we are now headed for extinction!
A shattering collapse of civilisation is a “near certainty” in the next few decades due to humanity’s continuing destruction of the natural world that sustains all life on Earth, according to biologist Prof Paul Ehrlich.
And what adds to that certainty is the recent election of the clueless Donald J. (“drill baby drill”) Trump as our President!! (More on the threat of our extinction later.)
*****
Let me pause for a moment here to say that I wish that I could say that “I can see clearly now ….” But when we are born into a society, we learn to see through the “lens” provided to us by that society; what I am trying to do here is see through that lens—which is very difficult to achieve! I must continue with that effort here, though!
*****
Agriculture began to replace foraging in some groups about 12,000 years ago, and that was most certainly our “worst mistake” as humans!! For the new sedentary way of living associated with a dependence on agriculture fostered a growth in a group’s population size, and that development created a situation in which individuals with a tendency to dominate others were now able to do so.
While a group was still dependent on foraging it had developed means to control such behavior.
On the basis of … observations, Christopher Boehm:
proposed the theory that hunter-gatherers maintained equality through a practice that he labeled reverse dominance. In a standard dominance hierarchy—as can be seen in all of our ape relatives (yes, even in bonobos)—-a few individuals dominate the many. In a system of reverse dominance, however, the many act in unison to deflate the ego of anyone who tries, even in an incipient way, to dominate them.
According to Boehm, hunter-gatherers are continuously vigilant to transgressions against the egalitarian ethos. Someone who boasts, or fails to share, or in any way seems to think that he (or she, but usually it’s a he) is better than others is put in his place through teasing, which stops once the person stops the offensive behavior. If teasing doesn’t work, the next step is shunning. The band acts as if the offending person doesn’t exist. That almost always works. Imagine what it is like to be completely ignored by the very people on whom your life depends. No human being can live for long alone. The person either comes around, or he moves away and joins another band, where he’d better shape up or the same thing will happen again. In his 1999 book, Hierarchy in the Forest, Boehm presents very compelling evidence for his reverse dominance theory.
As some in a group began to dominate/exploit the others, the eventual result was the formation of a social class system. So that one became born into a social class.[10]
It was within early Hebrew society that there seemingly first arose individuals who objected to what was occurring (that is, the creation of social class systems with their exploitation). And a Tradition arose within early Hebrew society which began with Law creation, saw the rise of prophets (like Amos), and, finally,[11] the “ministry” of Jesus.[12]
The basis of those objections seems to have been a remembrance-of-sorts of an earlier way of life, one for which we had become “designed” (or a subsequent one, such as nomadism). As Warren Johnson has written:[13]
The Biblical legend of the expulsion from the Garden of Eden seems clearly to describe the invention of agriculture.
The reference to a Garden of Eden being spedifically to an earlier foraging way of life. Our ancestors were not, however, expulsed from the Garden; their development of agriculture led “naturally” to their leaving it.[14]
Although it was likely the abandonment of foraging for agriculture that somehow led to the early Hebrews objecting to the creation of social class systems during the Neolithic Revolution, the Tradition that developed as a result of that abandonment was misguided![15] As Barrie Wilson notes,[16] the Torah—the Holy Book of the ancient Hebrews—“presupposes the view that people are decision makers and can choose their path in life.”
What that assumption failed to recognize is that it was the societal system changes that occurred during the Neolithic Revolution that were responsible for the problems that began to arise during that Revolution. So that—and given that we are designed for a way of life based on foraging—the solution to those problems (if there is one now!) is societal system change in a reversionary direction.[17]
In a sense, the utopians over the centuries,[18] in recognizing a need for societal system change, sensed this. But their writings are not notable for recognizing that we humans are a small-group animal.
*****
The societal system changes that have occurred since the Neolithic Revolution—described well by Eugene Linden in his Affuence and Discontent (1979)—have been in a downward direction; we have been headed for (p. 178) “apocalypse,” for extinction! I next, then, present a case for such a conclusion.
*****
If “love of neighbor” should be the primary principle that guides our behaviors today—after all, that’s how we are “designed”!—then the Neolithic Revolution made following that principle difficult![19] For the development of social class systems fostered the development of invidious thinking[20] (of both a qualitative and quantitative nature) which, first, served to perpetuate class systems.
Second, invidious thinking is incompatible with the “love of neighbor” principle: If one thinks of another as “below” one, it will be difficult to demonstrate any degree of love for that person. It will, then, not be surprising if a high degree of inequality arises in one’s society. With the wealthy establishing residential enclaves for themselves to enable “out of sight, out of mind” so far as the society’s “unfortunates” are concerned.
Doing so is not only unfortunate—it’s STUPID!! For there’s this:
If you’re fortunate to be in reasonably good health, how should you live your life? I believe there should be a quest behind the question, which is, you should do all you can to maintain your health to live a purposeful life and serve those less fortunate. Instead of taking your health for granted, it can be an invaluable resource to support a loved one, a friend, a neighbor or your community. Your efforts to maintain your health and willingness to help those in need become a model of compassion to serve a greater good in society, rather than for self-serving motives. Plus, helping others can improve your own well-being and sense of self-worth.
Given that we humans are “born to be good,” we go against our nature when we fail to engage in helping behaviors.
And this:
Consider the positive feelings you experienced the last time when you did something good for someone else. Perhaps it was the satisfaction of running an errand for your neighbor, or the sense of fulfillment from volunteering at a local organization, or the gratification from donating to a good cause. Or perhaps it was the simple joy of having helped out a friend. This “warm glow” of pro-sociality is thought to be one of the drivers of generous behavior in humans. One reason behind the positive feelings associated with helping others is that being pro-social reinforces our sense of relatedness to others, thus helping us meet our most basic psychological needs.
Research has found many examples of how doing good, in ways big or small, not only feels good, but also does us good. For instance, the well-being-boosting and depression-lowering benefits of volunteering have been repeatedly documented. As has the sense of meaning and purpose that often accompanies altruistic behavior. Even when it comes to money, spending it on others predicts increases in happiness compared to spending it on ourselves. Moreover, there is now neural evidence from fMRI studies suggesting a link between generosity and happiness in the brain. For example, donating money to charitable organizations activates the same (mesolimbic) regions of the brain that respond to monetary rewards or sex. In fact, the mere intent and commitment to generosity can stimulate neural change and make people happier.
Those facts, reported above, may make one ask:
Why, then, isn’t loving behavior the norm in societies such as ours.
My answer to that question is that when one is born and raised in a society—such as ours—in which competition[21] plays such an important role—for example, the Super Bowl today (February 9, 2025—one is virtually forced to “join the crowd” of those who engage in some competition for their very survival.
*****
A reason why it’s UTTERLY STUPID to engage in invidious thinking is that it fosters consumption behaviors—“conspicuous consumption,” in fact. This was enabled especially since the Industrial Revolution, when technological developments enabled an expansion of production efforts. The use of fossil fuels—coal first, then petroleum—for that production had the unintended effect of affecting the “operation” of Earth System—in the direction of making Earth increasingly unlivable for humans (along with other species[22]).
Our burning of fossil fuels is causing global warming; and global warming, in turn, is having various consequences—all of them negative:
Climate change [[23]] affects all regions around the world. Polar ice shields are melting and the sea is rising. In some regions, extreme weather events and rainfall are becoming more common while others are experiencing more extreme heat waves and droughts. We need climate action now, or these impacts will only intensify.
Climate change is a very serious threat, and its consequences impact many different aspects of our lives. Below, you can find a list of climate change’s main consequences. Click on the + signs for more information.
A current consequence of extreme importance is the thawing of permafrost caused by the warming that we humans have caused:
A thawing permafrost layer can lead to severe impacts on people and the environment. For instance, as ice-filled permafrost thaws, it can turn into a muddy slurry that cannot support the weight of the soil and vegetation above it. Infrastructure such as roads, buildings, and pipes could be damaged as permafrost thaws.4 Infrastructure damage and erosion, due in part to permafrost thaw, has already caused some communities in western and southern Alaska to have to relocate. Additionally, organic matter (like the remains of plants) currently frozen in the permafrost will start to decompose when the ground thaws, resulting in the emission of methane and carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. This contributes to further global climate change.1
That latter fact—the decomposition of organic matter—is of particular importance for it causes further warming and global warming then “feeding on itself” and, then, being impossible to halt (“runaway”). If that is now occurring, warming will continue until most of Earth’s permafrost thaws—and we will go extinct!! The graph below shows global temperature change over the past 2,000 years:
Note that since about 1850 the trend has been steeply upward! There’s no reason to believe that that trend won’t continue—with our extinction “soon” being highly likely! There are articles “out there” with titles such as these:
“Humans may be extinct in 2026” (during the “reign”of Trump—which would be fitting!)
“Will the human race go extinct by 2030?”
“MIT Forecasts Civilization Will Fall By 2040” (but not necessarily go extinct).
Etc.
In 1984 (!) I published a strategy for bringing about societal system change, thereby possibly “saving” our species from extinction: “Ecotopia: A ‘Gerendipitous’ Scenario.” I lacked the financial means to act on that proposal; and although I have brought it to the attention of literally dozens of individuals and organizations, I’ve yet to receive a response from any of them!! It’s as if most humans have a death wish (or drive)!!
A more likely reason, however, is media failure to inform/educate the public about the threat posed by global warming. That failure is at the height of STUPIDITY! While also being understandable, though: The commercial media are dependent on advertising for their existence, and advertisers want people to continue to consume—thereby causing continued production and, as a consequence, continued global warming!
As one with three wonderful children and five fantastic grandchildren, my hope is that they all will have a future. I find it virtually impossible, however, to have any degree of optimism regarding the human future!!
Endnotes:
[1] Available upon request (from moc.liamgnull@5743nevs) are these two related papers of mine: “Ten Reasons Why We are Doomed” and “A More Relevant Gaia Hypothesis.”
[2] “The 2024 state of the climate report: Perilous times on planet Earth,” by William J. Ripple et al. [13 co-authors], 2020. The authors of this report are more cautious than I would be. I’m retired, so I cannot be terminated! I should add that little of my life has been spent in academia, my most recent employer being an avionics company (27 years), from which I retired in 2014.
[3] Ph.D. in Urban Economic Geography, University of Cincinnati, 1970.
[4] The term “hunter-gatherer” is also used, but I avoid that term because it’s a male chauvinist term: It suggests that hunting—typically done by males—was more important as a source of food than gathering—done typically by females. Not true!
[5] Author of White Man Got No Dreaming (1979); also see this.
[6] A resident of the United States—whether or not a “citizen”!
[7] The late anthropologist Alan Barnard [1949 – 2022], Hunters and Gatherers: What Can We Learn from Them (2020), p. 56.
[8] Also of relevance here is this article by the Ehrlichs; in it they state: “Today’s view of normality is possible because everyday thinking about human history largely ignores its first 300,000 years and does not recognize how extremely abnormal the last few centuries have been, roughly just one-thousandth of the history of physically modern Homo sapiens. Knowing how genetic and cultural evolution over millennia shaped us helps explain today’s human predicament, how hard that predicament is to deal with, and underlines how abnormal human life is in the twenty-first century.”
[9] See this on Dunbar’s number.
[10] At a later point in time (during the Commercial Revolution, which began in the 11th century?) one’s position in a society—although still influenced by one’s birth—became based on the wealth one was able to acquire. Which helps explain Trump’s choice of Elon Musk as an advisor. (Or did Gaia have a hand in this?! See the second paper listed in note 1 above.)
[11] Christianity did not continue the ministry of Jesus! And per the normative definition of “religion” given in James 1:27, doesn’t even qualify as a “religion”! Because its focus (except for Quakerism, as one example) is on orthodoxy and rituals, rather than orthopraxy.
[12] See my What Are Churches For? (2011).
[13] Muddling Toward Frugality (2010), p. 43. Here’s a discussion of Hebrew origins.
[14] Deuteronomy 26:5 says this about Hebrew origins: “‘Then you shall declare before the Lord your God: ‘My father was a wandering Aramean, and he went down into Egypt with a few people and lived there and became a great nation, powerful and numerous.’” And Morris S. Seale (The Desert Bible, 1974) notes the many desert references in the Bible—which suggests that the early Hebrews were nomads—and only earlier foragers. Here’s an article on Hebrew history.
[15] This is not to say, though, that the ethics of Jesus are not as relevant today as they were 2,000 years ago!
[16] How Jesus Became Christian (2008), p. 28. I am puzzled by Wilson’s lack of reference to L. Michael White’s slightly earlier (2004), closely related, From Jesus to Christianity.
[17] The current Ecovillage Movement can be thought of this way. Unfortunately, it has been too “weak” to accomplish much!
[18] There have AA many! I used to own a copy of Henry Olerich’s [1851 – 1927] A Cityless and Countryless World (1893); on the inside of the end cover is a list of utopian literature, and it is a long one!
[19] But not impossible—as the life of the recently-deceased President Jimmy Carter [1924 – 2024] demonstrates!
[20] This sort of thinking played an important role in the writings of Wisconsin-born intellectual Thorstein Veblen [1857 – 1929]. In his classic The Theory of the Leisure Class (1899), for example, “invidious” occurs 104 times!
[21] Rather than the cooperation advocated in this book.
[22] “One million species at risk of extinction, UN report warns.”
[23] I dislike the use of that term for reasons that I give in my “The Los Angeles Fires ‘Climate Change’ the Cause?” Available upon request; see note 1 above.