Can We Make a Difference?

It seems to be a persistent mental flaw that prevents us from building a sustainable civilization. So far, I've focused on the cultural, technological, and political aspects to understand how and why every technological civilization ultimately ended in ruins and why ours is no exception. In my early blog posts long ago, I addressed a somewhat different topic. An insight that struck me some time ago made me think: Behind all these problems, there might be a fundamental hardware flaw in our brains. Is there a way to bypass this flaw? Is it possible to prevent it from recurring?

Before we delve into how our brains influence societies (and vice versa), let's first examine the civilizational dilemma on the software level; that is, what keeps going wrong in our societies when it comes to getting a group of people to move in the same direction.

The problem description looks something like this: As the civilizations we create mature, they become increasingly rigid—not only in how they do things but especially in how they think. They gradually lose their ability to recognize problems—let alone solve them—and become increasingly sclerotic and encrusted. Problems that could initially be solved by capable leadership grow ever larger until they become unsolvable, and burgeoning bureaucracies make even the simplest adjustments an impossible mission.

Here is a conversation that takes time but also delves deeply into how we ended up here: YouTube Link.

While new institutions are often introduced to solve rational problems (such as the need to collect taxes in an organized manner), they almost always become the most irrational things humans have ever created. Rules are made, exceptions to rules are created, and then exceptions to exceptions are established, all to be managed by committees tasked with overseeing all these exceptions and creating new rules... Until we end up with a handbook-sized manual on how to properly write rules and how to document, approve, and archive exceptions to non-compliant rules. If that sounds off-kilter, like something that could only happen in one of his famous novels or in a communist regime, I must disappoint you: I have witnessed this process myself in large Western multinational companies. Institutions will try to preserve the for which they are the solution. We often referred to this as Innovation Theater or the Innovation Dilemma.

The outcomes of this process were perhaps best described by anthropologist and historian Joseph Tainter in his seminal book "The Collapse of Complex Societies." According to the summary of his work, this continually increasing complexity can be identified by the following characteristics:

1. Numerous differentiated and specialized social and economic roles: In complex societies, there is a multitude of specialized roles such as bakers, shoemakers, jewelers, and landowners. This specialization leads to increased efficiency and productivity but complicates the coordination and management of the entire society.

2. The many mechanisms through which these roles are coordinated: Complex societies develop a variety of hierarchies and bureaucratic structures to coordinate the specialized roles. These hierarchies are necessary to connect the various parts of society and ensure smooth functioning but can also lead to rigidity and inefficiency.

3. Dependence on symbolic and abstract communication: Writing, laws, and accounting are essential means of symbolic and abstract communication in complex societies. These forms of communication enable the management and control of large and diverse populations but also create a distance between people and the concrete realities of life.

4. The existence of a class of information producers and analysts: In complex societies, there is a class of people who specialize in the production and analysis of information without being directly involved in primary resource production. This includes scribes, lawyers, and engineers. This class contributes to the efficiency and advancement of society but can also lead to a disconnection from the fundamental economic and social processes.

John Vervaeke adds to this perspective by emphasizing the deeper cognitive and existential problems that permeate our civilization. Here are three central features that Vervaeke highlights in his discussions about the collapse of civilization:

1. Meaning Crisis: Vervaeke argues that our civilization suffers from a profound crisis of meaning. This crisis is characterized by a loss of significance and commitment in our lives, leading to widespread feelings of alienation, depression, and purposelessness. This meaning crisis makes it difficult for people to engage and pursue collective goals.

2. Cognitive Constraints: Another feature Vervaeke emphasizes is the limitation of our cognitive abilities. He points out that our evolutionarily shaped cognitive mechanisms are not well-equipped to handle the complexity and challenges of the modern world. These cognitive constraints cause us to often respond ineffectively to complex problems and make us prone to cognitive biases and fallacies.

3. Fragmentation of Knowledge: Vervaeke also highlights the fragmentation of knowledge in our society. This fragmentation manifests in the division of disciplines and increasing specialization, which makes it difficult to develop holistic and integrative approaches to problem-solving. The fragmentation of knowledge hinders the development of shared narratives and coherent worldviews that are necessary for a sustainable civilization.

The problem, as many civilizations before us have discovered, is that this growing complexity comes with exponentially increasing costs. So much so that, at a certain point, maintaining the bureaucracy (or adding the next level) costs more than any benefits society might gain from it. The U.S. healthcare system is a pretty good example of this. An institution that, after a remarkable increase in life expectancy in the 20th century, has managed to undermine many of its achievements in the 21st century—despite ever-increasing costs. If you think this is mainly due to an exponential rise in bureaucracy leading to unprecedented cost increases (thus excluding a large portion of society from its services), you're not entirely wrong.

When you add theky Principle—which states that institutions will try to preserve the problem for which they are the solution—the picture becomes complete. While it might be good for business to keep the population unhealthy (by often prescribing addictive and, in many cases, ineffective medications whose side effects also need to be treated), such developments are far less beneficial for individuals and society as a whole. Seeing things in such a broad context does not seem to be one of the greatest strengths of a civilization that has passed its peak—especially not ours.

At this point, many might suspect malicious actors in the background: those who want to shorten our lives and turn the population into miserable debt slaves. And while this may be true (wealthy and powerful individuals have always sought to gain more money and power), there is an even greater force at play. Something that recurs in every highly complex society, regardless of whether it is 2024 BC or 2024 AD.

But what is the common cause of burgeoning bureaucracies, a sharp decline in scientific discoveries, and the increasingly authoritarian tendencies of once "democratic" and "liberal" societies? Why can't we openly discuss these issues, let alone make a good joke, without fear of consequences? The answer comes—perhaps unsurprisingly—from our very own configuration as a species with a nervous system: the fact that we have a brain split into two hemispheres.

While we tend to think that we have a single, separate self that makes its own decisions and that societies are designed and built by intelligent individuals, nothing could be further from the truth. Our brains, which apparently do "all this thinking," actually consist of two distinct entities: a left and a right hemisphere. Thanks to the groundbreaking work of psychiatrist Dr. Iain McGilchrist, we now know that these two hemispheres direct a very different kind of attention to what is happening around them, leading to two types of phenomenological worlds within one "individual." (And before you dismiss this as just another "esoteric theory," consider the growing body of empirical evidence derived from working with people who have injuries to their left or right hemispheres. The stories of how stroke patients respond to the world around them are particularly enlightening.)

The left hemisphere is filled with things that are already known. Things that are fixed, certain, detached, decontextualized, and abstract. The right hemisphere, on the other hand, is something entirely different: a web in which nothing is ever completely separate from everything else, and nothing is ever entirely certain or fixed. This is a world rich in subtlety and implicit meaning, something the left hemisphere finds entirely incomprehensible. The world of the right hemisphere is a living one, not an inanimate, two-dimensional map like that of the left.

In a healthy, balanced body and mind, the left hemisphere is merely a tool: responsible for grasping things and manipulating the world around us. And it is extraordinarily good at it! Obtaining and preparing food, speaking in coherent and logical ways, solving mathematical problems with symbols are just a few of its many uses. Meanwhile, the right hemisphere, with its divergent attention, monitors the world around it, finds new connections, and constantly updates the map used by the left hemisphere. It is responsible for finding the implicit meaning behind words, deciphering and creating metaphors, and recognizing dangers. Ideally, at least, the right hemisphere is the master, while the left is its emissary.

And why should the right hemisphere be on top rather than the left? Well, if the left hemisphere is left to its own devices, it becomes a narcissistic manipulator. Incapable of feeling empathy (the only emotional expression it is good at is anger) and convinced of its own infallibility, it sees no need to integrate other worldviews. It mistakenly believes that the map it holds is the world, and anything outside this map or contradicting it is wrong. Unable to decipher hidden meanings and understand context, the left hemisphere takes everything literally and often becomes paranoid and distrustful of others. Is it any wonder, then, that our culture, dominated by left-hemisphere thinkers, is unable to admit its mistakes and learn from them—let alone reverse decisions? That we have become delusional, assuming there is an infinite amount of resources out there and that we could get by just without the living world around us? Or that a war is nothing to fear, and the other side is just bluffing anyway? (They have no legitimate interests in the first place, so why bother?) Believe it or not, these dangerous beliefs all stem from the same loss of balance between the two modes of thinking.

Yes, they too have fallen into the same trap.

During the rise of civilizations (as compared to a non-civilized, egalitarian lifestyle), the need to organize, manage, and manipulate the world increases dramatically. Irrigation channels need to be dug. Dams, temples, and houses need to be built. Agricultural activities need to be planned and meticulously executed. All this work is the natural playground of the left hemisphere, while the right continues to be occupied with creating art, religion, and culture. Notice how both are equally important for a young society to emerge and thrive.

As civilizations expand, however, complexity tends to rise as well, demanding ever more attention from the left hemisphere. Bureaucracies emerge where rigid thinking becomes the norm rather than the exception. Once this approach proves successful and the expansion of civilization and its institutions becomes exponential, the process becomes self-reinforcing: more and more left-hemisphere thinking is favored, at the expense of what the right hemisphere excels at.

In this sense, the Age of Reason is an age of increasingly left-brained thinking, something that inevitably falls apart because it oversimplifies life while overcomplicating the way we do things. And while we tend to think that most scientific discoveries came about through painstaking work, this is nothing but left-brain propaganda: humanity's greatest discoveries came through intuition—the realm of the right hemisphere. Painstaking work came afterward to prove that the idea was correct. Once the right hemisphere is suppressed by ever more rigid rules and processes, administrators, and managers, scientific progress slows and turns into decline.

Throughout this process, more and more narcissistic (left-dominated) leaders come to power, and civilization begins to ossify around established dogmas and procedures. The leaders fall in love with their creation, often comparing it to a fine machine, without realizing that they are no longer at the helm: the system takes over and does the only thing it knows how to do: grow... At least until resources run out or the costs of increasing complexity massively outweigh its benefits, and collapse begins.

It's not far-fetched to say that civilizations, over time, lose their minds—at least the better half of them—and end up in a state of schizophrenia. "Use it or lose it," as the saying goes... and when a culture gradually stops using half of its brain capacity, it shouldn't surprise us that it ends up being governed by half-educated people. The problem is that left-hemisphere thinking—when left unchecked—wages a war against life itself. It destroys everything it doesn't understand and replaces it with a mechanistic worldview where every cog has its role. In the process, however, it destroys the very foundation (culture, religion, myth) upon which the society it governs was built. It makes life miserable and not worth living. It reinforces the illusion of separation from nature, from each other, from meaning, and thus becomes its own worst enemy. Unable to tolerate dissent, it suppresses critical voices (humor, art, or newsletters like this one) and produces propaganda on an unprecedented scale. Don't get me wrong: left-hemisphere thinking is necessary in many cases, but only where it's appropriate. When applied to all aspects of life, from education to science or from literature to culture, it becomes a destructive force.

Wisdom lies in maintaining a healthy balance between the two hemispheres or, in our case, restoring the right as master and the left as its emissary. This means looking at everything in a much broader context, appreciating nuances and connections. It means restoring the concept of the sacred, that which is separate from the everyday. Reintroducing the idea of sanctity—especially concerning nature. It involves rejecting things you might otherwise do. Experiencing awe and beauty with an open mind. Remaining curious and eager to learn.

So, how can we build a better civilization? What pitfalls should be avoided, and what lessons should we learn? Although I am fully aware that there is no "we" in this process, I still find it useful to list at least a few ideas on how things could proceed:

Avoid narcissistic leaders who offer simple answers to all our problems, and instead seek wise elders who speak in terms of context and meaning.

Create or adopt a religion that emphasizes humanity's role as one of many species and presents us as an integral part of the web of life, not as its sole beneficiaries.

Decentralize power structures: Power should be distributed across many shoulders to prevent abuse and corruption. Decentralization also promotes local decision-making and strengthens the autonomy of smaller communities.

Promote education and critical thinking: An informed population is less susceptible to manipulation and propaganda. Education systems should aim to foster critical thinking, problem-solving skills, and considerations. This helps establish a culture of reflection and continuous learning.

Sustainable lifestyles and local resilience: Instead of relying on global supply chains and resource-intensive industries, communities should develop local, sustainable practices. This includes promoting permaculture, renewable energies, and local economic cycles to minimize dependency on external resources.

Inclusive and participatory decision-making: Democracy should be understood not just as a political system but as a way of life. Decisions should be made through participatory processes that consider the voices of all community members. This increases acceptance and legitimacy of decisions and promotes social cohesion.

Cultural diversity and exchange: Promoting and valuing cultural diversity can help create a rich and dynamic society. Intercultural exchange and collaboration should be actively encouraged to strengthen understanding and cooperation.

Transparent and accountable institutions: Transparency and accountability in all institutions are crucial to prevent corruption and abuse of power. This includes regular reviews, public reporting, and mechanisms for involving the public in monitoring and evaluating institutions.

Respect for nature and ecological awareness: A sustainable civilization must respect and protect nature. This involves protecting biodiversity, restoring damaged ecosystems, and promoting a deep ecological awareness that emphasizes the interconnectedness of all living beings.

Ethics of care and solidarity: A civilization based on care and solidarity will be more socially just and stable. This means caring for the most vulnerable in our society and actively combating social inequalities.

Promoting innovation while assessing risks: Technological and social innovations should be encouraged but always with consideration of their potential risks and long-term impacts. Precautionary principles should be applied to ensure that innovations benefit society as a whole.

Creating community structures and social networks: Strong, supportive communities are the backbone of a healthy civilization. Community projects, social networks, and collective activities should be encouraged to strengthen social bonds and ensure mutual support.

Long-term perspectives and intergenerational thinking: Decisions should not only aim for short-term benefits but also consider the long-term impacts on future generations. A forward-thinking mindset helps make sustainable and responsible decisions.

Always leave room for fun and humor. Let the arts flourish and express a wide range of emotions and ideas. Practice appreciating awe and beauty daily.

Meditate. Think deeply about the meaning of things and how they relate to each other. Remember: context is everything.

Promote creativity and innovation: Creativity and innovation should be encouraged in all areas of life, from art to science. A creative environment can help find new solutions to old problems and advance society.

Here is a good and concise book that outlines some of the points mentioned above: https://www.amazon.com/Gardens-Democracy-American-Citizenship-Government/dp/1570618232.

Whether such a culture—should it ever fully emerge—will call itself a "civilization" is another question. Be that as it may, cultures change step by step, and mental transformations of this magnitude do not happen overnight. Modernity, with all its bad habits and ways of thinking, is going down the drain anyway, so why not try something different this time?

Until next time,

M