The unthinkable – how to discuss you?
Human behavior is determined by logic and emotions. That is why all discussions gravitate towards one of two poles – what was read is so wrong that you want to correct the mistake. Or so outrageous that it is impossible to pass by! You can understand what state you are in now in relation to the author of the article – if you are struggling with his theses, then logic controls you. If with personality, then emotions. The problem is that this knowledge is useless: when emotions rule, you have no time for logic – you have to crush the reptile!
As you probably already understand, I suggest you act as a defender of an incorrect, but emotionally comfortable position. In the article before last, I proved that it is impossible to convince an emotionally involved person. In this article, I propose to discuss what to do if it is necessary to change your mind. In other words, I propose to discuss how to convey to society ideas that society categorically does not want to hear.
Can you muster up the courage to look through a telescope?
Mixing the blood with a spoon,
Great death is coming
Why are you running, stupid?
(c) Lullaby of Death
Now we are on the eve of the most important event in history – the beginning of human extinction. I am not kidding. Throughout history, the population has grown steadily. Local declines in numbers were observed only during times of monstrous cataclysms, such as the catastrophe of 535, which gave us the Dark Ages. But in the near future, during the lifetimes of most readers of this article, the world will face a global, comprehensive catastrophe that will change the entire face of the world, redrawing literally everything – from state borders to public morality.
The most amazing thing about this is that no one notices the bull in the china shop, pretending that nothing special is happening. Society is not trying to understand the situation, find and eliminate the cause. On the contrary, all attempts to start a conversation on this topic end the same way – the interlocutors interrupt the conversation out of emotion.
People diligently ignore data on the decline in fertility below the replacement level, hiding behind an increase in life expectancy. For any other species, such a reduction in fertility by several times, literally in a matter of decades, would be called a reproductive catastrophe. But not in the case of humanity. “Is the population growing? Growing! What else do you need, horonyaks? I have sad news for you – all people living now will die. Sooner or later. They will be replaced by children born now – of which there are monstrously few.
And this is not my personal opinion – but an established scientific consensus:
Combining mortality, fertility, and migration scenarios, we projected that the global population in the base case would peak at 9.73 billion (95% UI 8.84–10.9) people in 2064 and then decline to 8.79 billion
I will not retell this lengthy article. I have nothing to add to the opinion of scientists except a couple of my own conclusions. For example, some of my interlocutors call the coming extinction a “demographic transition.” Of course this is not true. Simply by definition:
The demographic transition is a change from the balance of high mortality and high fertility to the balance of low mortality and low fertility.
We don't have any sense of balance. On the contrary, the area of extinction is expanding, capturing new countries and cultures. There is not a single factor known that can, at least in theory, reverse this trend. The most optimistic scenario associates the cessation of fertility decline with the onset of a new Middle Ages – a decline in the level of culture and a new enslavement of women.
Well, what do you want from a world inhabited by the descendants of the most dense orthodoxies? Equality and tolerance? Only communities capable of reproducing will survive. Now they are savages, religious fanatics and religious fanatic savages. Modern Atlantic culture will either change or follow the trilobites. At the same time, I assess the chances that we will be able to change as extremely low.
However, the likelihood of other scenarios for solving the problem is even lower – in the time remaining for our civilization, humanity will not have time to achieve immortality, will not invent cloning and will not build an artificial womb. I attribute the latter to positive factors – the replacement of society with a society of people raised in factories and educated in orphanages and barracks is the same death of our civilization, only from the side.
The new Middle Ages that have come will drag on forever. Humanity has already developed all available sources of fossil carbohydrates and minerals. Therefore, a new industrial revolution will not happen – the Middle Ages will drag on and drag on and drag on until some cataclysm: an asteroid fall, global warming or a new virus finally ends humanity. The theory's only bright spot is that it does a great job of explaining the silence of the universe, if you know what I mean.
But do not rush to rejoice, repeating after the Marquise of Pompadour: “After our death, even the whole world will perish” – the negative consequences of population decline are poisoning our lives right now. Throughout our history, the planet has always been dominated by youth. She actually ruled: “The army is run by me and the sergeants.” New ideas, insights, discoveries, revolutions are the prerogative of the young. Have you noticed that this has all disappeared now? In politics, science, art – old men reign everywhere. However, compared to the coming migration crisis of the sixties – when young people from overpopulated Africa pour into empty Europe, all this is flowers. At least emigrate to Mars.
In this article I propose to discuss why this happens. Why does Atlantic civilization – capable of stopping famine, sending a man to the moon and creating the Internet – seem incapable of not only coping with, but simply admitting that there is a problem?
We are in an absurd situation: modern science knows everything about the coming crisis – causes, consequences, solutions. Psychology, sociology, cognitive science, and other sciences have long sorted out all the issues of human behavior. Society can easily find answers to all questions – but does not discuss them – everything that concerns the functioning of the human mind is under an unspoken taboo. To start discussing this topic means to find yourself in a man-made vacuum – you will be buried under a heap of emotional objections, and then excluded from communication.
Like any complex phenomenon, there are several rational reasons for denial. Let's start with the fact that our history has many unfulfilled apocalyptic predictions. We have been predicted the end of the world so many times – the Bible, Malthus, the Mayans – that we have developed a strong aversion to such predictions. This is why, when the pandemic began, everyone (including me) was sure that the virus would soon disappear. As it was all the previous times within the memory of a generation. But no. Didn't come down. But the time when it could have been stopped was lost. It cost us tens of millions of lives. But society will not take measures against the following epidemics because:
Most people only have a planning horizon of a few months. Rarely years. Taking measures to prevent the catastrophe that will happen after their death goes against human nature. Doing nothing is much easier than doing something. Especially if the changes happen gradually. People get used to everything – that’s why we don’t have mechanisms to prevent slow catastrophes. We simply don’t notice them, considering them the new normal.
But the main reason, in my opinion, is the categorical reluctance of humanity to study its own nature. We are not ready to seriously discuss what girls and boys, men and women, old men and women are made of. This is precisely the reason for the situation when the best books on the psychology of influence are books on dog training Karen Pryorand the best book on the nature of power is Politics among Chimpanzees by Frans de Wahl.
You're probably expecting me to tell you how to solve the problem? I have them, but I will not discuss them here and now. Because the answer to the question asked at the beginning of the article: “how to convey to society ideas that society categorically does not want to hear?” banal. Slowly and carefully. There is a limit to the unfamiliar information that the average reader can absorb without throwing a mug at the author of the article, and I think I have come extremely close to this limit.
Therefore, I stop permitted speeches and remain silent, O respected padishahs of Khabr. I will talk about human nature and ways to solve the current situation next Friday – if I still have karma left by then.
