The Psychology Behind the Misunderstanding of Predicaments

February 26, 2025

Round Barn in Indiana

---

One of the primary goals of this blog has been (and remains) to establish the difference between a problem and a predicament, noting that problems have answers or solutions but predicaments only have outcomes. The other primary goal here is to establish the fact that all of our modern environmental issues are symptom predicaments of a root predicament - ecological overshoot. Name almost any issue - climate change, pollution loading, energy and resource decline, biodiversity decline, extinction, food and water security, etc. - and one will discover that these aren't "problems." They are symptom predicaments of ecological overshoot - without reducing overshoot, they likewise cannot be reduced. Going a step further, think of all problems within society today. Are these really problems or are they symptom predicaments of overshoot? Keep in mind that the system of civilization is unsustainable by definition and that a huge portion of the so-called "problems" we associate with it did not exist before civilization (supported by technology use) became a reality.

Our behavior of technology use is the very cause of ecological overshoot. Some technologies, such as our voice and our ability to talk to one another and communicate in writing, are natural abilities and as such are sustainable technologies. Other technologies, such as tools like spears, clubs, and atlatls, require external energy and resources to build. On a small scale, they are sustainable as long as the energy and resources used to build them are in ample supply. Modern techno-industrial civilization, on the other hand, is supported first and foremost by the technology of agriculture, which has time and time again been proven unsustainable. All advanced technologies supported by agriculture and civilization can therefore be realized as unsustainable. The more technology used, the more negative feedbacks can be reduced and/or removed from the equation. As more negative feedbacks which once used to limit our numbers (to be balanced with the carrying capacity of the surrounding landbase) are removed, we can increase the population, live longer, and live with more convenience. But doing so introduces the unfortunate predicament of overshoot. This article explains how we arrived at this point in time.

In the past, our species went through numerous civilizations which grew and grew due to negative feedbacks being removed, and as more technologies became available, these added to the environmental stresses of the surrounding landbase, eventually causing the collapse of the civilization each and every time it became impractical to continue in that location due to either a lack of energy and resources (often a lack of food or water) or the inability to transport the energy and resources needed into that location. The people who lived there scattered to new lands that were pristine and could support those people. Now, there is nowhere pristine left to scatter to - the entire world has been subjected to this overshoot and its consequences (symptom predicaments), destroying habitat and reducing carrying capacity as a result.

So, seeing the issues noted as symptom predicaments in the first paragraph (such as pollution loading, noted in last week's article regarding plastics pollution, nothing more than a subset of pollution loading in general) as "problems" is known as reductionism. They are NOT problems because they cannot be solved in isolation from the complexity of the overarching and interdependent nature of other symptom predicaments and overshoot itself. Reducing emissions, for instance, cannot be accomplished without reducing the overshoot causing them in the first place. This likewise means that climate change cannot be reduced without reducing the overshoot causing it. In the same manner, pollution loading cannot be reduced without reducing the overshoot causing it. In other words, all these attempts to address symptom predicaments without addressing overshoot are attempts at futility.

Recently, I came across a real head-scratcher of a video from Sabine Hossenfelder. Taking into account the above paragraph's implications, I couldn't do much but laugh at what was being explained in the video. Climate change is not a problem to be "fixed," so that idea is a non-starter to begin with. This is really yet another idea where the so-called "solution" would most likely be far worse than what it is trying to solve. Again, focusing on the reductionism of carbon emissions ignores all the other symptom predicaments of overshoot, meaning that even if "fixing" climate change was a possibility (it's not, sorry), we would still have everything else to deal with, some of which is an existential threat right now.

Attempting to accomplish something that simply cannot be is the definition of insanity. The Honest Sorcerer says in a new article about the consequences of real life versus the fiction that many would rather believe:

"And this is where tariffs come into the picture. As I explained elsewhere, steel is a vital input to all forms of energy extraction and conversion, be it oil and gas or wind, solar and nuclear. Since roughly a quarter of all steel used in the US comes from imports, slapping a tariff on it directly translates into higher costs. Building new LNG facilities, drilling more wells (both requiring hundreds if not thousands of tons of steel), or building just about any kind of infrastructure has just become more expensive — ruining previous return on investment calculations and potentially leading to project cancellations. So much for an energy ‘revolution’.

In this living/material world money, politics, culture, even belief systems are nothing but narratives politicians tell themselves so that they feel more secure. In fact geology, physics and ecology is, was and always will be in charge, not us. This world is an immensely complex self adaptive system, with countless interconnections, emergent features and feedback loops. This means, that no one is in control or have leverage over how world events unfold or what turn the economy takes. Yes, things can be easily made worse by stupid decisions, but we cannot avoid the consequences of past actions, no matter the intent. Burning fossil fuels, depleting natural and mineral resources or decimating ecosystems in the name of progress has created many predicaments (hence the term polycrisis). This is what economists, politicians and other utopists fail to take into account: such an abusive economic system based entirely on the exploitation of ecosystems and the extraction of non-renewable resources cannot be in equilibrium with its environment. This setup is inherently unstable eventually ruining the very conditions that made it’s existence possible in the first place."

Once again, I'm not the only one who understands our lack of agency with regard to all of this. In fact, a large number of people now see the collective predicament we've gotten ourselves into and realize that there is no way out. A recent video presentation from Dr. William Rees explains not only how slow our brains function (10 bits/second), but also why they work so slowly and how this affects our ability to cognitively connect the dots of today's world (spoiler alert: we can't!). Basically, our brains are outdated for the world we live in today. Because of this obsolescent brain, we are inherently maladapted for today's environment and don't realize we are trapped in this Darwinian sinkhole. Rees goes on to explain precisely why, more or less, we are not only incapable of understanding the hyperobjects which now surround us, but we can't even process the information quickly enough to be able to keep up even if we did understand them. Add the simple fact that there is no universal perspective from society and one can see why even attempting to improve our collective situation by reducing overshoot will never happen voluntarily because of this lack of universal perspective. Rees provides this slide which explains:

This is a very difficult fact to accept - that we are NOT a rational species, but a rationalizing one. I think that Rees' presentation is a must see for anyone not yet aware of precisely why we lack agency to be able to do much about the predicaments we find ourselves enmeshed within. As humans, we tend to always want to believe in an ability to have agency or control over things (because of our human ingenuity), but in reality, this is just an illusion. Be sure to check out the question session at the end of the video, where the recent analysis Art Berman delivered is discussed, among many other topics.

I brought Berman into the limelight partially because he came out with a new article which brings forth the very reality I am trying to address in this article today. Two quotes that point things out quite poignantly:

"Most, however, acknowledged that solutions avoid the real issue—unchecked growth—ONLY TO IMMEDIATELY SEARCH FOR ONE! Thorium reactors, geoengineering, carbon removal—different methods, same reflex: THERE MUST BE A WAY OUT.

Let me be clear: OUR IMPULSE TO CHASE SOLUTIONS TO EXISTENTIAL THREATS IS A PSYCHOLOGICAL PROBLEM. It’s a form of denial that allows us to sidestep the full depth and systemic nature of our predicament—along with our role in driving it forward.

We like to think of ourselves as uniquely curious problem-solvers, but that’s just hubris. All species solve problems. WHAT SETS US APART IS HAVING TO SOLVE THE ONES OF OUR OWN MAKING—a far more complicated challenge."

Second quote:

"Modern society runs on the myth of endless progress—the belief that every problem has a solution. This fuels relentless action and blind optimism, even when realism is needed. We cling to solutions as a way to maintain control in an uncertain world, unwilling to accept that some problems have no easy fix or demand painful sacrifices.

THE DRIVE FOR SOLUTIONS IS A DEFENSE MECHANISM AGAINST DISCOMFORT. Facing limits and loss is painful, so we distract ourselves with fixes instead of reckoning with reality. Politicians, CEOs, and activists push simplistic fixes that sound good but don’t work."

Now, all of the above is just a prepper for what comes next: the geopolitical shenanigans unleashing pain throughout the world. I've come across many people over the years who thought that "if we just get so-and-so elected, everything will be great." Those are the folks who suffer from the flawed thinking that there is a political solution to civilization (or any subset thereof), not recognizing that the entire system is unsustainable. Changing a subset of civilization such as how we power it or how we transport goods or how we rule it solves nothing because it doesn't change the basic facts of how everything is supported by technology use. So, no political solution exists for overshoot or any symptom predicament.

Many people frequently talk about so-called successful political strategies where society came together and "solved" particular problems. One such example is brought up time and again - The Montreal Protocol. But the Montreal Protocol hasn't actually solved the ozone hole above the planet. Despite rosy predictions that "the ozone layer will return to 1980 levels between 2040 (across much of the world) and 2066 (over Antarctica)," the reality is that new substances not foreseen at the time of the agreements and addendums as detailed in section B. Current Scientific and Policy Challenges on page 4 of the Ozone Depletion 2022 Executive Summary will extend this timeline much longer than originally anticipated (if ever) due to new and emerging threats to the ozone layer, including the Kessler Syndrome, increasing methane emissions, increasing nitrous oxide emissions, and increasing carbon dioxide emissions.

So, once again, the common narratives being spewed forth (like the Paris Agreement was in 2015) often tell a great story, but they usually hide an unpleasant truth just underneath the flashy veneer. In last week's article as I mentioned above, I delved into the plastics pollution predicament, a subset of pollution loading in general. If the Montreal Protocol and the Paris Agreement and the Kyoto Protocol and the Copenhagen Accord haven't accomplished their goals, what makes anyone think a plastics treaty will go any better? Anyway, as part of the article, I brought up the issue of male sperm decline caused by endocrine disruptors. Male sterility caused by endocrine disruptors predicted to be 100% by 2045 is just one reason for human reproductive failure. Here's another one emerging. It's always worse than you think.

For an example, I fielded an interesting comment on one of the other sites I post my articles on where the person wanted to know about mitigation and managing the predicaments we face. He thinks we should be working to improve the "post-collapse carrying capacity." Wait a minute...we're going extinct and he thinks we should be doing what? What good will improving carrying capacity be if we can't reproduce? Isn't an inability to reproduce improving carrying capacity? It is a negative feedback, so I do think it is. Haven't we done enough meddling with nature already? I guess I don't think mitigating and managing extinction is a possibility. Once we're extinct, how will we manage anything?

I understand that he appears to think that "if we just do this" or "if we just do that" that everything will work out just fine. Yes, here we go again - if, if, if. Who exactly is WE again? Apparently he is under the illusion that we will change direction. So many people clearly don't comprehend our lack of agency. So they posit all sorts of pie in the sky ideas (aka Fantasies, Myths, and Fairy Tales here) based on denial of reality and live in a virtual reality. This is just more proof that cognitive dissonance can definitely lead into serious denial.

Perhaps the biggest fault of logic I see with many of these types of narratives is that they appear to ignore the innovative nature of our species. What one person can do to improve carrying capacity can easily be undone by somebody (or corporation) seeking an advantage as outlined by the Maximum Power Principle. With artificial intelligence continuing to gain ground and taking over jobs previously held by humans, it will seek ways to gain efficiency, undoing any gains made by projects established to serve nature which inevitably increase resiliency over efficiency of civilization, which is necessarily anthropocentric rather than biocentric.

Take one look at the outcomes of what is happening in the U.S. right now with the illegal DOGE and one can see where the MPP and wetiko come into play. This is exactly what has been predicted as a result of the predicaments we face. I'm well aware that this isn't what most of us would like to see. Nobody wants collapse, either. But that is the outcome of overshoot, every time. Often, mass die-off accompanies collapse, and I doubt we will escape that either.

Once again, articles about acceptance can help. More help is available here. I often point out The Cycle of Life, especially to those who think that what I promote is "giving up" (which couldn't be further from the truth with the exception to those things which simply cannot be). I often sprinkle articles with information designed to be helpful, and occasionally, entire articles are written for that purpose such as these:

Don't Postpone Joy!

The Beauty of The Silence

The Beauty of The Darkness

Activities Which Can Help Us Deal With Climate Anxiety

Trees

What Kind of Mindsets Lead Us Into Traps?

Are You Running Towards Life or Running Away From Death?

Why Do We Lack Agency and What Makes Humans Happy?

So, What Should We Do? Part Four

A Plea To Scientists, Teachers, Influencers, and Politicians Everywhere

I do need to make clear that my research is focused on the predicaments we face, not potential ways to manage and/or mitigate those predicaments except where those potential ways obviously can only increase overshoot and/or make the existing situation worse rather than better, or have no effect whatsoever, making them a complete waste of time. The fact remains that while there are a few people throughout society who understand and see these predicaments for what they are and have an ability to make a certain prescription based upon those findings, most people do not understand the predicaments for what they are and will therefore generally prescribe actions which only increase overshoot, thereby making all the existing symptom predicaments worse. I have made certain prescriptions as well and taken it to the actual specific issue of our behavior of technology use. But I am also aware that humans have a rather unique ability to deny reality, utilize optimism bias, and ignore our shared delusions which prevent us (as a species) from seeing clearly the issues at stake. This means that I am under no illusion whatsoever that my prescription will ever be acted upon except by a few people who comprehend their truth. Expecting anything more than that is simply magical thinking.

To understand better than what I've already brought forth in this article, check out this quote from Lyle Lewis in an interview from Pat Matsueda with him and George Tsakraklides:

"As our species approaches extinction, our choices become severely limited. The first decision we face is whether to accept reality. Many individuals, influenced by indoctrination, anthropocentrism, or personal beliefs, ultimately choose to reject it. Those who reject reality often find themselves presented with numerous alternatives, including hope, denial, and a multitude of religions. These concepts are interconnected in various ways, reflecting a similar thought process when we confront our own mortality on a personal level and the fate of humanity on a planetary scale.

For those who choose to embrace reality, the next decision is whether to pursue happiness. Acceptance of reality is not easily achieved and is quite rare; it demands a connection to our environment and an understanding of its impact on our existence. This acceptance also requires personal courage. Ultimately, there is no distinction between accepting our own mortality and that of our species. After the initial shock of acceptance wore off, I found that I was neither more nor less happy, but I began to appreciate life more deeply. I experience a full spectrum of emotions—sadness, happiness, grief, joy, contentment, and many others. I cherish my friends and family, the beauty and unpredictability of nature, and the joy of movement. I love to laugh and embrace the many aspects of life that bring me delight."

As one can see, one who accepts reality and doesn't pin their hopes, goals, or aspirations on futures that cannot be can remain much more appreciative of life - of what is (rather than what isn't). That interview is another excellent example of top-notch analysis on an ecological basis and one everyone will enjoy.

On to some more enjoyment with many pictures from Sleeping Bear Dunes National Landmark in Michigan!

---