Shane Hanlon

Serious props need to be given to @Emerald @Something Funny @Scholar and @Michael569 I deeply appreciate you guys putting in the effort to address the same psychological pitfalls and lack of understanding that are brought up over and over again. I do not have the energy to do that. But it is really important work. For those genuinely considering a vegan diet here are high-quality resources. This article is one of the least biased pieces of media I have ever read and is chock full of relevant statistics. https://80000hours.org/problem-profiles/factory-farming/ Here is the most comprehensive study ever done on the environmental impacts of different diets. Download this and ask ChatGPT questions about it. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/325532198_Reducing_food's_environmental_impacts_through_producers_and_consumers If you watch Earthling Eds debate videos, you will find that your exact argument comes up in almost every one of these. And you can see how your thinking could be flawed: If you want to see how animals are treated in our modern-day context this documentary is brutally honest, representative of 95%+ of all animals and free to watch. And finally, when you make it through the insane mess of an information-scape that we live in today, you will likely come out vegan. If we can live healthily and harmoniously without causing unnecessary harm to animals, it becomes a moral, ecological, and compassionate imperative to choose to do so.

I'd like to introduce Nora Bateson to this forum. She does not get the attention she deserves. Nora Bateson is the only other person I would put on the same level as Daniel Schmachtenberger when it comes to profound, systems-level thinking while maintaining a depth of heart. Her work embodies an extraordinary sense of interconnectedness and ecological understanding that feels deeply ingrained in her very way of being. She explores the relational dynamics that shape our world in ways that transcend traditional reductionist frameworks. If you’re familiar with Spiral Dynamics, Nora is a beautiful example of turquoise consciousness—her thinking will push you far beyond orange patterns of logic and analysis, challenging you to embrace the complexity, nuance, and interdependence of life. My heart is always more open after I have listened to her. Nora talking with Susanne Cook-Greuter: Nora Speaking with Daniel: A more recent conversation with Nora:

I understand why you might feel that way, and I can't deny that greed, ego, and unconsciousness have a strong grip on humanity. But I think there's value in holding progressive expectations. Not as rigid demands, but as guiding stars. They remind us of what we can strive for, even if the path is long and filled with setbacks. Letting go of attachment to outcomes can bring peace, but letting go of hope entirely is apathetic. I’d rather engage with the world as it is, while still nurturing the seeds of what it could be. Even small acts of awareness and care ripple outward. That might not overturn the tides in my lifetime, but it’s worth the effort to me. For me, that’s what it means to live in alignment with Love.

That’s like watching videos of road rage incidents and concluding that all drivers are reckless maniacs. While there’s value in understanding the behaviors captured in those moments, they represent a specific subset of human behavior under stressful circumstances. They’re not reflective of humanity as a whole, nor even most people’s interactions with police.

A small, aligned group acting with coherence can shift the trajectory of entire systems, even when the majority remains unchanged. Examples: The Aboliton of Slavery: A relatively small group of abolitionists, such as Frederick Douglass, William Wilberforce, and their allies, worked relentlessly to shift societal values and laws, despite initially facing overwhelming opposition. The Scientific Revolution: Revolutionary ideas from a handful of thinkers like Galileo, Newton, and Copernicus shifted the paradigm of science, eventually transforming society’s understanding of the universe. Keystone Species in Ecology: A single keystone species in an ecosystem (like wolves in Yellowstone) can dramatically shift the entire system’s dynamics. Islands of coherence act as the 'keystone species' in human systems, fostering stability and change simultaneously Open Source Movements: A few committed individuals and groups created Linux and other open-source platforms, which now underpin vast portions of the global digital infrastructure. Tech Startups: Small, highly aligned teams like those at the forefront of the tech revolution (e.g., early Apple, Google) have reshaped entire industries, showing how coherence can scale influence exponentially. For those of you capable, please help herald a better world.

I understand this. And I tend to predict the same thing. However, we don't need everyone to be at an integral stage of development in order to implement these things. We need those who are capable of heralding this change to lead others. That means you. So it is frustrating when I see people capable of leading others into a more loving world decide they've got better things to do. 100% agreed. However, these people and better systems can coexist. And better systems will lead to less of these people. It's a trap to believe everyone within a system has to be at the level of development at which it is created.

Humanity is obviously capable of both. Part of making a better world is creating structures that are intentionally designed to bring out our best. For example aligning incentives with the well-being of all life or reorganizing our living so that it is obvious how interconnected we are with every other life form. Right now our incentives are to fuck over a lot of the most beautiful things. (actual human connection for likes or Living breathing trees for lumber). Most of the current contexts we exist in accentuate our selfish and destructive tendencies.

You're right that we don't want to focus on objectives that are impossible. This is not one of those things. I don't like using these terms Game B and Game A because everyone has a different idea of what we are talking about so we end up talking past each other. If you think of game B as a utopian flawless destination then you'd have a point. But, it's not flawless and I don't think of it as a destination. Think of it as a direction towards a better world. Every ounce of effort working towards a better world is worth it. I'm not sure what your concept of game B is, but moving in a better direction collectively is absolutely possible and worthwhile. Examples of actual "game B" ideas: - Post growth closed loop supply chains where waste becomes new inputs into the system - Coordination mechanisms that allow transparent and trustworthy agreements between nations. - Regenerative agriculture practices - Forcing the internalizing of externalities - Proving the safety of technologies before financializing them - Holistic education systems - Planetary Boundary Governance etc.... None of these things are impossible. Just fucking hard. And doing some of them without completing all of them is still a good thing that is worth working towards. Doing none of them means collapse. LOL ya not very far. Point taken. Even still they are not representative of most people.

He does. So much so that he realizes it can no longer continue with exponential tech. Exponentially increasing weapons capacity in the hands of chimps is game over. It’s unlikely to work perfectly right now, but dismissing the possibility altogether doesn’t help. Instead of predicting failure, focus on how we can improve the odds of success. It’s like a firefighter sitting back and saying, ‘This place is going to burn down,’ instead of helping to put out the fire. You underestimate humanity's potential. You talk down to people and assume you know better. You've admitted this yourself. You focus too narrowly on a part of humanity. Humans are also beautiful and care about doing good and want a better life for themselves and others. Having faith in someone can be a self-fulfilling prophecy. Open your heart brother. This is so important.

@Emerald

Yes. There is indeed a spectrum. However, if it is a 5 on the 0 to 100 scale it probably shouldn't be labeled a crisis. We don't want a crisis. That should never be the goal. Now you are starting to understand.

Have you only learned through crises? Probably not. Crises can be catalysts for growth, but be careful what you wish for........

This is interesting. Could you expand on this? I don't like using those terms. Only responding in context to Leo. I don't want an ultimate resolution utopia. I want a civilization that is better at aligning incentives with shared values.

@Nilsi You're right to point this out. I don't think anyone in that room other than Daniel has thought much about it. We desperately need more people contemplating, lobbying, and working towards global cooperation and structures that make it easier. The average American has the understanding of a chipmunk so we elect leaders that push us further away. When continuing game A means the collapse of civilization and the biosphere, game B becomes imperative. It can open up avenues of cooperation that would not normally exist. We are sooooo far away from understanding what an alternative looks like, let alone implementing one. That doesn't mean it is impossible. game B is still within the framework of survival. A more cooperative intentional survival. It may only emerge after much pain though if it ever does.

Washington state in the middle of the Cascade Mountains. That or Vermont. Maybe Alaska.

Ok Leo, this is a rough take. Because you care about truth so much, are a genuine earnest thinker, and a lot of people look up to you, I will fully break this down for you. Firstly, the premise that underpopulation will lead to collapse is entirely true and a serious threat to society in its current form. Without major reform almost all global societies require exponential growth. However, this take breaks down when we say that it is a larger threat than overpopulation. Planetary Boundaries Both overpopulation and underpopulation pose risks of collapse, but their consequences differ significantly. Underpopulation threatens the collapse of human society, while overpopulation endangers not only human society but also the Earth's life-supporting systems. In essence, the fate of all life on Earth hangs in the balance. We know this because planetary boundaries (This site is rich with good information on our planet) are breached. Meaning that if we continue to extract and destroy ecosystems at the same rate we are now, we will threaten and ultimately collapse the life giving systems of the planet. Think of it like maintaining a 50% calorie deficit for months. Eventually, your human system will fail and collapse. You are taking more than you are giving. And what drives the destruction of planetary systems? To make it simple but still relatively accurate, you can think of it as destruction = average consumption/person x human population. Global GDP is over 99% correlated with energy use and materials. I know. It seems hard to believe given how almost no one knows this. But it is true. I ran the numbers myself. You can download the datasets and use chatgpt to find the correlation coefficient if you want to check yourself. (Has to be global gdp and global energy use because all of the economic value captured by selling the iphone goes to Apple in America but so much of the supply chain is elsewhere. however, not all of the energy use in the supply chain is captured by America). The data I used: Global GDP - https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/national-gdp-wb?tab=chart&country=~OWID_WRL Global Energy Consumption - https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/global-energy-substitution Result - https://chatgpt.com/share/67622af1-0dc8-800c-a87e-c62af50dca8d Technological advancement and energy. If we refer back to the global energy consumption chart: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/global-energy-substitution We have increasingly created more green energy (which costs a lot of upfornt energy and materials to create) but that has not stopped fossil fuels to continue increasing exponentially. It has just slightly lowered the exponent. Green energy has been more like energy addition rather than energy replacement. And whats worse, is that the first things technological advancement (especially AI) is being applied to is: - How to drill more oil more efficiently. This means more emissions. - How to create more synthetic chemicals. - Enhancing military tech - Accelerating mining and deforestation and resource extraction - developing more addictive products - Creating more effective marketing And to fully debunk the claim that more technology will save us, we must look at jevons paradox. The Jevons paradox is an economic phenomenon that describes how technological progress can lead to increased resource consumption, rather than reduced consumption. Further Jevons paradox reading: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Julius-Mcgee/publication/285643149_Understanding_the_Jevons_paradox/links/5bdb72704585150b2b982762/Understanding-the-Jevons-paradox.pdf? https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10668-024-05766-0? Example of Jevons paradox: Imagine you’re heating your home. Old heaters are inefficient, so they use a lot of energy to keep your house warm. This makes heating expensive, so people try to use it sparingly—maybe they only heat one room or turn it off at night. Now, let’s say someone invents a new heater that’s super efficient. It uses way less energy to do the same job. Sounds great, right? You’d think this would mean we’d use less energy overall because each heater uses less. But here’s the catch: because heating is now cheaper to run, people start using it more. Maybe they heat their whole house instead of just one room. Maybe they leave the heat on all night because it’s so affordable. And on a bigger scale, businesses might start heating bigger offices, or new factories pop up in cold places because heating them is no longer so costly. Even beyond that, cheaper energy costs make new markets and industries profitable. For example, a factory that wasn’t worth building before might now make financial sense because running it uses less energy per unit of production. So more factories are built, more energy is used, and the total energy demand goes up, even though each machine or heater is more efficient. This is Jevons Paradox: improving energy efficiency often leads to using more energy overall, not less, because efficiency makes energy cheaper and easier to use, driving more demand across the board. It’s a bit counterintuitive, but it helps explain why just improving technology isn’t enough to solve our energy and climate problems. Agriculture: When we dive into the economic sectors that drive the most destruction of the planet, we find agriculture as the number one suspect. It isn't the most destructive in only emissions, but it is a larger driver of every planetary boundary that is currently breached. Most fresh water is diverted for growing crops, most land system change is for farmland, many novel chemicals are biocides for agriculture, phosphorous and nitrogen flows are disrupted almost entirely due to nitrogen and phosphorous fertilizers and extracting nutrients from the soils without regenerating it, and it is top 3 emissions of fossil fuels. Agriculture destroys thriving ecosystems with so much biodiversity in order to replace it with a single species of plant and then soak it in biocides to make sure no other organisms can exist there. Then it is littered with synthetic fertilizer to grow as much as possible as fast as possible. This converts nutrients into the soil which then is taken and shipped across the planet. This extracts from our soils and makes them desertified and lifeless. Animal agriculture then multiplies the degradation - https://www.josephpoore.com/Science 360 6392 987 - Accepted Manuscript.pdf Some points of reference: Wildlife populations have declined by over 70% in the last 50 years. - https://www.worldwildlife.org/press-releases/catastrophic-73-decline-in-the-average-size-of-global-wildlife-populations-in-just-50-years-reveals-a-system-in-peril Toxic PFAS chemicals are in all rainwater across the world beyond safe levels. And it never ever ever breaks down. - https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.2c02765 Only 6% of US forests have not been degraded by human activity - https://wilderness.org/articles/blog/what-makes-old-growth-forest-it-depends-more-just-age?utm_source=chatgpt.com# Humans and our livestock make up over 96% of all mammalian biomass on Earth - https://ourworldindata.org/wild-mammals-birds-biomass By 2050, there could be more plastic than fish in the ocean by weight if current trends continue. https://www.weforum.org/press/2016/01/more-plastic-than-fish-in-the-ocean-by-2050-report-offers-blueprint-for-change/?utm_source=chatgpt.com Atmospheric CO₂ levels are at 420 ppm, higher than at any point in at least 800,000 years, with the last time it was this high corresponding to a world where sea levels were 20 meters (65 feet) higher. - https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/ Conclusion: Human population and consumption are what are driving the destruction of our planet. Everything we rely upon whether food or water or shelter originates from our planet. If we continue to grow exponentially the whole planet and society collapses. If we stop growing exponentially, we may save our planet but risk societal collapse. The way through is by moving to a post-growth society. Where outputs/waste become inputs and we stop extracting. You cannot have exponential growth on a finite planet forever. And if you aren't convinced by me. Daniel Schmachtenberger agrees. I'm not totally sure which podcast it was but Daniel Schmachtenberger was asked a similar question. Paraphrasing: Host: What do you think about declining birth rates? Elon Musk seems to be very worried about it. Daniel: I don't think we should continue a society that demands exponential growth just to not collapse.

Love. Working to alleviate their suffering and transform the world so that there are not animals in factory farms and less people are getting murdered.

How does one communicate the depth of Love and how core it is to reality to those who are quick to reduce it to a survival mechanism happening in the brain? Similar to fight or flight response. I struggle with this. Does it require personal experience? I'm not talking about lost cause dogmatic materialism, but rather those who are open minded and hearted and are open to other explanations but they struggle to grasp the immensity and pervasiveness of Love.

This is incredibly important and might just be the only way, but often times I find that these people require understandable coherent explanations as well. Explanations that I struggle to find since Love is beyond rationality or explanation. Still, I think it would be worth having a better answer than I currently do.

LOL something tells me that wouldn't work very well

This is true and I agree with it on human time scales. However, on larger time scales (like from the beginning of time) Ken Wilbers ideas on evolution have somewhat altered my view. I'd recommend (if you don't care to read his work) asking chat gpt about his views on the direction of evolution in his book sex, ecology, spirituality.

Have you read Ken Wilber's Sex, Ecology, Spirituality? If you have, how have you integrated his insights on the direction of evolution?

You will have to understand league of legends to get this. If you do then this is prime self deception. This extends to all parts of your life including moral compass, dietary choices, occupation, consumer choices, societal stockholm syndrome, and so much more. So much of our lives are driven by motivated reasoning.

Every spiritual circle I have been a part of always promises transcending your problems. How often is the focus on including and integrating your current and past beliefs, feelings, thoughts, actions, pain, love, relationships? It often seems like this is given no value or is the uglier cousin no one cares about in spiritual circles. It's all about realizing enlightenment, or god, or ending your suffering as fast and efficiently as possible - Totally missing the point of a human life and ultimately making for a more confusing, more shallow, and more painful journey. To include is to Love.

@toasty7718 Good share! Here is the written corrollary. https://civilizationemerging.com/dharma-inquiry-2/