More than human world and Randers 2052

[theanimal]

@jacob- I understand and mostly agree with the framework. I got off the original point I have been making across these threads, which is that an individual can still craft an immersive, deep life within all 3 iterations of nature. My earlier point was that most individuals will not live in wilderness like areas in 30 years for the same reason they don't do so now. It's the same reason why these areas will largely not be developed by industry. I am not speaking for society as a whole. I am saying that there are many places where you could live the same way now as Dick Proenneke in 2022, and I have little reason to believe the same will not be true in 2052. Almost everyone doesn't want to live that extreme, but my point is that there are areas of the world and will continue to be, where that lifestyle or even a less extreme version of that, is possible. So as an individual, accepting that Rander's prediction is a foregone conclusion and following his advice would be foolish in my case. And on a broader scale, I would say the same for people outside of cities, who would be better off following @AH's advice, rather than pretending nature doesn't exist/ignoring it and going into online worlds.

[7Wannabe5]

Yeah, yeah, yeah, but I was just out window shopping with my sisters a few weeks ago, and you can currently buy your choice of 3 bedroom cottage on .7 acre with deeded access to private beach on Lake Huron OR 3 bedroom house on 7 acres with orchard and pond 5 miles from Lake Huron for $130,000.

Also, since Moore’s Law is also due to sputter out within a couple decades, why is living in the virtual world likely to remain a more affordable means of recreation for all of those who are newly relatively and absolutely poorer at the median?

One reason why Northern Michigan real estate isn’t relatively more expensive than when I was 7 years old in 1972 is that the globalization of manufacturing already crashed the affordability of a summer cottage for a semi-local worker without a college degree. Also, still f*cking cold in the winter.

[candide]

Also, since Moore’s Law is also due to sputter out within a couple decades, why is living in the virtual world likely to remain a more affordable means of recreation for all of those who are newly relatively and absolutely poorer at the median?

Let's also not forget rent seeking and its friend Digital Rights Management systems.

[7Wannabe5]

@candide:

Yup, and AI could even figure out how much pleasure you were receiving in virtual world and charge accordingly.

[AxelHeyst]

Isn’t that what serenity and the new studio are about? Just need some desert fog nets and you can start calling yourself Lisan al Gaib .

It might be helpful to add a pinch of Holmgren to this discussion.

In his brown tech scenario, which is at least somewhat similar to Randers' 2052 forecast, je mentions a minority of population who choose (?) to live in the hinterlands, out beyond the boundaries of the megacities, and mostly beyond the jurisdiction and protection of the State that sees after the cities. We can imagine that Randers is talking exclusively to future citizens of the megacities. You've already cast your lot with the hinterlands folk (#fistbump).

[jacob]

Add:
I might take a stab at rephrasing the recommendation in a way that doesn't bother me:
[...]

It's hard to argue that denial of the state of affairs is the way to go. For example, look at what putting civics-classes on the back burner has done to the body politic of the US. Ditto, dispreferring shop class and home economics in favor of abstract STEM classes and the pursuit of hyperspecialization.

And I don't think that's where Randers is going either.

Knowing how the world works---where food and electricity comes from and how much is available---would be very helpful in terms of making the correct decisions, especially in a democracy. (Actually another Randers recommendation is to live in a place/country that is capable of making effective [pro-active] decisions.)

On the other hand, when did the educators' call for "more education" to "fix the problem" ever work on humans?

Where Randers is going is avoiding developing a recreational or vocational or semi-professional relationship with nature.

Knowing how the world works is essentially Nature (deep understanding of the right hand side, that is, the objective side). The above relationships are nature (ego and sociocentric understanding of both objective and subjective---that is, "what does this mean for "me and my family"; how will the weather in my backyard change; can I still go hiking; should I sell the beach house; where should I move? There aren't all that many people asking questions beyond this concern-sphere.). Nature can be understood dispassionately like a scientist; nature can not as it is very much associated with a person's values and "way of life". NATURE is even harder to let go of---at this people the (in)dividual has completely rewired their brain.

A lot of the grieving and gnashing of teeth in the nature and NATURE communities originates in worldviews (delusions) getting quenched by reality. People who are heavily vested in nature/NATURE are literally crying tears and/or seeking therapy for these issues. This is a thing! This is what Randers wants to preempt.

I don't think Randers considers the NATURE crowd---it's so tiny as to fly under almost everyone's radar. It's fairly clear that non-specialists don't understand Nature all that well. (See the climate change threads.) The advice is basically to the common person to seek their "nature" in "indoor-environments" (since the ability to be outside in 2052 is going to be more limited than it is today). And for the aspiring professional to not invest their career in Holocene-era Nature(*).

(*) Add: I suppose what makes this hard to grok is how it all seems so abstract still. But think of someone who grew up sailing and wanted to open a marina on Lake Mead. Someone who grew up skiing and wanted to get into winter sports only to find that the remaining ski slopes are now impossibly far away. There are a lot of vocations that tie directly into the outdoors; not just recreational. Also garden landscaper, construction worker (imagine being shut down for 3 weeks because of 100F heat), police officer,...

Don't fight the trend ...

[AxelHeyst]

Okay that helped clarify the nature/Nature/NATURE distinctions for me. I think I basically agree with what you just said.

Basically he's saying make sure your Orientation is both precise and up to date. Aka kill your nature delusions, your old orientation, your dream of the future extrapolated from your childhood. Step one is do that, then figure out how to act in the world. I'm good with that.

Add:
I agree with Randers point wrt nature.

Everyone agrees generally that we need to be good (enough) at Nature so we can keep eating and breathing, although our ideas of what that needs to look like at a society level might differ.

Imo, the Holocene > Antrhopocene transition is no threat to a mature robust NATURE connection from a psychological well being perspective. I'd argue that if witnessing the Antrhopocene totally derails you, what you have isn't actually a NATURE connection but a nature connection. Further, I think the more humans get a solid NATURE connection the better, probably, and that'll actually decrease suffering, despite Randers' curves.

(Add2: this is a tricky subject. I don't have my head wrapped all the way around it yet for sure. I think I've still got a couple blind spots I haven't spotted yet that's making it difficult for me to grok the whole thing.)

[7Wannabe5]

So, when I was a 7 year old squatting under an oak tree, playing at making “witch” potions with acorn caps and berries, that was “nature”? But, according to Plotkin, aren’t these sort of experiences throughout early development the building blocks for eventually developing a solid mature“NATURE” connection? Can you discourage one without inhibiting the other?

[AnalyticalEngine]

My understanding of NATURE from Plotkin and other depth psychologists is that NATURE experiences are important to get you to experience reality outside of your ego or even the human ego. It has less to do with any single rock or insect or tree and more about making you realize the world beyond the human. NATURE is a convenient way to do this because fasting in the desert for three days a la Plotkin's spirit journey is a good way to make you realize the universe outside of you can be more salient than the universe inside of you, but I don't think nature/Nature is the only way to get to NATURE. You could probably do this in the middle of a city if you can realize the external experience of the Other in connection to You is more salient than you worrying about you (or even you worrying about the human).

[jacob]

Imo, the Holocene > Antrhopocene transition is no threat to a mature robust NATURE connection from a psychological well being perspective. I'd argue that if witnessing the Antrhopocene totally derails you, what you have isn't actually a NATURE connection but a nature connection. Further, I think the more humans get a solid NATURE connection the better, probably, and that'll actually decrease suffering, despite Randers' curves.

I'd speculate that it is easier to process a loss happening at a lower/earlier stage than the present stage.

For example, a worldcentric person can stand losing sociocentric clusters like family and homeland, since there are many other people in the world to form connections with. It's harder when the losses come from "above" because they affect all lower stages. A worldcentric person would struggle a loss of the ecology since the resulting suffering affects all humans, whereas a kosmocentric person would see the loss as simple one ecology amongst many past, future, and elsewhere.

Graduation: egocentric, sociocentric, (nationcentric), worldcentric, ecocentric, (planetcentric), kosmocentric.

I don't know where the split between nature and NATURE is here. I'm guessing between worldcentric (all humans) and ecocentric (all life (on this planet)).

[Jean]

humans are animals that evolved in a certain environnement and that natturaly develop bonds withs other humans or even other animals.
Of course it is possible to cheat your way out of the pain caused by a loss by a belief in a biger thing, based on an old book, or factual observations.
But that's just cheating, like painkillers or refined sugars.
You could call it hacking, but i might only have one run, so i don't wan't to ruin it by altering the gameplay.

[chenda]

Life is but a dream...

[7Wannabe5]

...until the bed bugs start biting.