Although society at large will never find the courage to acknowledge its existential descent, there is a growing unspoken feeling that something is fundamentally wrong with “The World”: it has simply stopped making sense.
You say what I've been trying to for years now. I have so many words and thoughts, but I struggle to put them together in a coherent way. Since reading your stuff I feel like a) there is less need for me to write; and b) what I will write will be much easier and considered as you have given me a great guide to follow. I'll soon be signing up a funded subscription. Just working out some other stuff.
Keep up the great work.
Oh, and I'll check out your books too - have followed you on Amazon and added your books to my "to read" list.
Your points about the trajectory of human civilization are spot on. It is on a head on collision with planetary boundaries.
I would make the point it did not have to be this way and it is still worth the effort to identify why it got to this point.
The crash of this civilization is not likely to utterly destroy the biosphere no matter how many species we extinct along the way (which breaks my heart more than i can express). And humanity will likely rise up from the ashes of this civilization.
The big question is will we have the same civilizational values and ethics and repeat the same self destructive course?
Or will we really see the underlying ideology that brought us here and change course when the survivors step out of the destruction?
That is the what I am exploring in Egality. To look at the underlying ideology that makes humanity think it deserves to lay claim to everything as an extractable commodity. Including each other.
I am glad to find your Substack and look forward to reading more of your posts and your past posts! Thank you for the unfiltered content not trying to sell unfounded hope.
Unfortunately the survivors will be genetically identical to us which means the same cognitive biases and propensity for unchecked growth. That is my opinion but I also believe there is room for improvement in the situation. Thanks for joining my threads!
It is still worth the effort to see if better ways might still be available to our limited cognitive abilities. I think our ancestors lived for hundreds of thousands of years able to navigate the world without so much damage. They likely have something to teach us. Don’t give up on humanity just yet. No matter how small the probability is, there might still be a one in a billion chance. ;-)
I agree with George about the need to look at ancient civilizations. The idea that agriculture is the beginning of the end is not evidence-based. Rather, it is a story told mainly by Hobbes and Rousseau that has become the standard myth of civilization. However:
"The advent of farming were not confined to small, egalitarian bands. On the contrary, the world of hunter-gatherers as it existed before the coming of agriculture was one of bold social experiments, resembling a carnival parade of political forms, far more than it does the drab abstractions of evolutionary theory. Agriculture, in turn, did not mean the inception of private property, nor did it mark an irreversible step towards inequality. In fact, many of the first farming communities were relatively free of ranks and hierarchies. And far from setting class differences in stone, a surprising number of the world’s earliest cities were organized on robustly egalitarian lines, with no need for authoritarian rulers, ambitious warrior-politicians, or even bossy administrators."
Graeber, David. The Dawn of Everything: A New History of Humanity (p. 4). (Function). Kindle Edition.
I think what you're saying is correct. I just want to bicker a bit about definitions. The term "civilization" is often used synonymously with "society" or "empire" or "nation," which is to say that its meaning can get pretty nebulous. I like the definition used by William Catton and Daniel Quinn: civilization is living in cities. We didn't start living in cities until agriculture, and cities are extraction engines against nature. So, when you say things like "we should look to ancient civilizations," it makes no sense to me. Civilization has been our biggest problem all along.
I love this piece and simultaneously I have some issues with the rhetoric. This split you create between human world and natural world is difficult, and with that, the idea that human civilization is somehow 'breaking rules' that the rest of the universe follows. We as a species are (sadly) excellent at denying unity / separating ourselves, but that's as far as it goes. ALL species and ecosystems are always at risk of exponential population increase -- to the downfall of others in the system -- but there are checks and balances along the way (ex: predator-prey dynamics). Same for us. It's just that we have cleverly avoided many checks that have worked for the rest of the world. Not that we're in a different realm of rules. (Blame the neocortex?) Unfortunately that means we may destroy ourselves or face a very severe check and balance coming up soon here...
Agreed 100% with all this, and that all species have the risk of becoming exponential. If you had read my books you might recognise your own words in them :) For me the disappointment with humans is that they were smart enough to get rid of predators that used to control our population, and with the same intelligence they could have become masters of their own population. But they didn’t and this is why I’m a determinist. Ultimately we are exponential no matter how “intelligent” we are. I strongly encourage you to read my books! You will find the discussion fascinating even if you may disagree (which I doubt)
Could the term patriarchy be substituted for ‘civilizational lie’? I mean this term not as gender but as organizing principle. Matriarchy would as a higher state of consciousness we are evolving into that is based on a shared understanding of oneness vs separateness. Apologies if covered elsewhere in your work, just came across this article.
I mean matriarchy as a system of human organization that has nothing to do with gender but with a fundamental core ‘operating system’. Its opposite is the patriarchy which has dominated human recorded history which is a paradigm of belief in ‘power over’ based on separateness. I believe as a species we’ve yet to evolve consciousness to that of ‘oneness’ where interconnectedness is the underlying principle. I call that the matriarchy which hasn’t yet existed.
The consciousness of the dominant culture we live under is that of deservedness. We believe we (the powerful of our species more precisely) deserve to lay claim to anything and everything and treat it as a commodity for extraction.
Yes, a maternal matriarchal society would be a vast improvement over the patriarchy if it sought to meet the needs of everyone (nature too) to thrive. What would it be like to have the questions shift from “who deserves what and for what reason?” To “what should we do in order to meet everyone’s needs to thrive and flourish on this beautiful planet?”
We’re definitely exploring some of the same threads you and I - mine through Financing the Anthropocene. After 25 years in sustainable finance I’ve been going back to my basics in human ecology. But ‘meaning’ is a tough one - seems even our close relatives the Neanderthals used symbolism and were likely searching for meaning. Beyond the biological need to pass on our genes everything is a cognitive construct. Meaning seems to be found in tight social circles even back hundreds of thousands of years (why else all the genetic evidence for interbreeding where other communities were only miles away) that were in sync with their regional environments. Viktor Frankl, who faced the question when all humanity was stripped away, found meaning in work, love and suffering which probably has some evolutionary reality for humans. Happiness is probably more of a marketed concept…. personally I think in the future, and to your point, it will be found in restoration and conservation - which would recognize our limits and relationship to the earth.
potent clear and direct as always . Thank you 🙏🏼
thank you
You have a great ability to see through the bullshit, George. I’m happy to have found you.
Thank you Walt 🙏
You say what I've been trying to for years now. I have so many words and thoughts, but I struggle to put them together in a coherent way. Since reading your stuff I feel like a) there is less need for me to write; and b) what I will write will be much easier and considered as you have given me a great guide to follow. I'll soon be signing up a funded subscription. Just working out some other stuff.
Keep up the great work.
Oh, and I'll check out your books too - have followed you on Amazon and added your books to my "to read" list.
Thank you for your nice words and encouragement!
Your points about the trajectory of human civilization are spot on. It is on a head on collision with planetary boundaries.
I would make the point it did not have to be this way and it is still worth the effort to identify why it got to this point.
The crash of this civilization is not likely to utterly destroy the biosphere no matter how many species we extinct along the way (which breaks my heart more than i can express). And humanity will likely rise up from the ashes of this civilization.
The big question is will we have the same civilizational values and ethics and repeat the same self destructive course?
Or will we really see the underlying ideology that brought us here and change course when the survivors step out of the destruction?
That is the what I am exploring in Egality. To look at the underlying ideology that makes humanity think it deserves to lay claim to everything as an extractable commodity. Including each other.
I am glad to find your Substack and look forward to reading more of your posts and your past posts! Thank you for the unfiltered content not trying to sell unfounded hope.
Unfortunately the survivors will be genetically identical to us which means the same cognitive biases and propensity for unchecked growth. That is my opinion but I also believe there is room for improvement in the situation. Thanks for joining my threads!
It is still worth the effort to see if better ways might still be available to our limited cognitive abilities. I think our ancestors lived for hundreds of thousands of years able to navigate the world without so much damage. They likely have something to teach us. Don’t give up on humanity just yet. No matter how small the probability is, there might still be a one in a billion chance. ;-)
I agree with George about the need to look at ancient civilizations. The idea that agriculture is the beginning of the end is not evidence-based. Rather, it is a story told mainly by Hobbes and Rousseau that has become the standard myth of civilization. However:
"The advent of farming were not confined to small, egalitarian bands. On the contrary, the world of hunter-gatherers as it existed before the coming of agriculture was one of bold social experiments, resembling a carnival parade of political forms, far more than it does the drab abstractions of evolutionary theory. Agriculture, in turn, did not mean the inception of private property, nor did it mark an irreversible step towards inequality. In fact, many of the first farming communities were relatively free of ranks and hierarchies. And far from setting class differences in stone, a surprising number of the world’s earliest cities were organized on robustly egalitarian lines, with no need for authoritarian rulers, ambitious warrior-politicians, or even bossy administrators."
Graeber, David. The Dawn of Everything: A New History of Humanity (p. 4). (Function). Kindle Edition.
I think what you're saying is correct. I just want to bicker a bit about definitions. The term "civilization" is often used synonymously with "society" or "empire" or "nation," which is to say that its meaning can get pretty nebulous. I like the definition used by William Catton and Daniel Quinn: civilization is living in cities. We didn't start living in cities until agriculture, and cities are extraction engines against nature. So, when you say things like "we should look to ancient civilizations," it makes no sense to me. Civilization has been our biggest problem all along.
But, I guess that's just, like, my opinion, man.
/abides
I love this piece and simultaneously I have some issues with the rhetoric. This split you create between human world and natural world is difficult, and with that, the idea that human civilization is somehow 'breaking rules' that the rest of the universe follows. We as a species are (sadly) excellent at denying unity / separating ourselves, but that's as far as it goes. ALL species and ecosystems are always at risk of exponential population increase -- to the downfall of others in the system -- but there are checks and balances along the way (ex: predator-prey dynamics). Same for us. It's just that we have cleverly avoided many checks that have worked for the rest of the world. Not that we're in a different realm of rules. (Blame the neocortex?) Unfortunately that means we may destroy ourselves or face a very severe check and balance coming up soon here...
Agreed 100% with all this, and that all species have the risk of becoming exponential. If you had read my books you might recognise your own words in them :) For me the disappointment with humans is that they were smart enough to get rid of predators that used to control our population, and with the same intelligence they could have become masters of their own population. But they didn’t and this is why I’m a determinist. Ultimately we are exponential no matter how “intelligent” we are. I strongly encourage you to read my books! You will find the discussion fascinating even if you may disagree (which I doubt)
Could the term patriarchy be substituted for ‘civilizational lie’? I mean this term not as gender but as organizing principle. Matriarchy would as a higher state of consciousness we are evolving into that is based on a shared understanding of oneness vs separateness. Apologies if covered elsewhere in your work, just came across this article.
The civilisational lie includes human supremacy, which goes beyond gender and beyond species. Patriarchy is something very specific
I mean matriarchy as a system of human organization that has nothing to do with gender but with a fundamental core ‘operating system’. Its opposite is the patriarchy which has dominated human recorded history which is a paradigm of belief in ‘power over’ based on separateness. I believe as a species we’ve yet to evolve consciousness to that of ‘oneness’ where interconnectedness is the underlying principle. I call that the matriarchy which hasn’t yet existed.
The consciousness of the dominant culture we live under is that of deservedness. We believe we (the powerful of our species more precisely) deserve to lay claim to anything and everything and treat it as a commodity for extraction.
Yes, a maternal matriarchal society would be a vast improvement over the patriarchy if it sought to meet the needs of everyone (nature too) to thrive. What would it be like to have the questions shift from “who deserves what and for what reason?” To “what should we do in order to meet everyone’s needs to thrive and flourish on this beautiful planet?”
Well said
Not for Everyone. But maybe for you and your patrons?
Dear George,
I hope this finds you in a rare pocket of stillness.
We hold deep respect for what you've built here—and for how.
We’ve just opened the door to something we’ve been quietly handcrafting for years.
Not for mass markets. Not for scale. But for memory and reflection.
Not designed to perform. Designed to endure.
It’s called The Silent Treasury.
A sanctuary where truth, judgment, and consciousness are kept like firewood—dry, sacred, and meant for long winters.
Where trust, vision, patience, and stewardship are treated as capital—more rare, perhaps, than liquidity itself.
The two inaugural pieces speak to a quiet truth we've long engaged with:
1. Why we quietly crave for ‘signal’ from rare, niche sanctuaries—especially when judgment must be clear.
2. Why many modern investment ecosystems (PE, VC, Hedge, ALT, SPAC, rollups) fracture before they root.
These are not short, nor designed for virality.
They are multi-sensory, slow experiences—built to last.
If this speaks to something you've always felt but rarely seen expressed,
perhaps these works belong in your world.
Both publication links are enclosed, should you choose to enter.
https://tinyurl.com/The-Silent-Treasury-1
https://tinyurl.com/The-Silent-Treasury-2
Warmly,
The Silent Treasury
Sanctuary for strategy, judgment, and elevated consciousness.
We’re definitely exploring some of the same threads you and I - mine through Financing the Anthropocene. After 25 years in sustainable finance I’ve been going back to my basics in human ecology. But ‘meaning’ is a tough one - seems even our close relatives the Neanderthals used symbolism and were likely searching for meaning. Beyond the biological need to pass on our genes everything is a cognitive construct. Meaning seems to be found in tight social circles even back hundreds of thousands of years (why else all the genetic evidence for interbreeding where other communities were only miles away) that were in sync with their regional environments. Viktor Frankl, who faced the question when all humanity was stripped away, found meaning in work, love and suffering which probably has some evolutionary reality for humans. Happiness is probably more of a marketed concept…. personally I think in the future, and to your point, it will be found in restoration and conservation - which would recognize our limits and relationship to the earth.
Hmmm yes. Large societies seem to lose the meaning…and the plot