Response to Second Sapiens

This book is a masterpiece. I am already inclined to agree with a Graves/Beck viewpoint, but no one has extended it so far and so deep. I read it all the way through once, and after about page ten, I had to start marking it up in pencil because there were so many areas I wanted to revisit. So much respect to Said. Then I spent two weeks transcribing those comments and passages, and then two more weeks trying to synthesize my learnings and come to grips with a couple of issues I have.

While the analysis is deep, it is not without omissions that I’m wondering about, or interpretations that I think need questioning. I’m not up to writing a full-blown review and probably don’t have the chops to do it justice anyway. But maybe these observations will spur a little discussion. (A couple of the observations here come across a little personal — let me just say that a — Said is a genius for putting this masterpiece together, and b — I’ve had lunch with him a couple times in San Diego, and he is not only a genius but charming and fun to hang out with as well.) With that said, four general questions:

Where are Sapiens 1.6?

Said spends considerable time elucidating 1.3, 1.4 and especially 1.5 (the latter of which he knows especially well by experience.) But there is really very little presented that suggests 1.6 was worth much discussion. In fact, he dismisses almost any beneficial output from 1.6

“…this emphasis on feelings and harmony is certainly a positive development, but the outcome is often at the expense of productivity and actually accomplishing something.” (p. 195)

So, he may think that women’s rights and glacial progress on diversity or inclusion are not big deals or are sideshows, but lots of diverse communities don’t have that luxury.

A second characteristic of 1.6 that is missing is virtually any mention of the impact of the Internet, social media, or really anything digital. He might (and I do) observe that the benefits of the technology have been shrunk and co-opted by toxic 1.5, but surely it can be characterized as expected in late stages as new problems arise? My own book predicting the Internet as unifying and purely beneficial was wrong (so far), but it still seems to me that the enabling of polarization is a function of technology that brings us all together, with all our flaws and unhealthy behavior. I would have enjoyed a deeper dive on this from Said.

Are you really dismissing the climate movement?

A third characteristic of 1.6 is environmentalism, going back 50 years now. As I have been a professional environmentalist since 1979, I feel this dismissal is facile and would seem intended to discourage any personal accountability or agency.

I personally was challenged by my life conditions in my dying industrial hometown in the 1970s, with direct negative impacts of industry on my hometown. I was inspired and able to move up the spiral by embracing the rise of the environmental movement, one core characteristic of 1.6 in the U.S. and Europe for the last 50 years. I guess I should be pleased that Said is name-checking The Gaia Hypothesis, Limits to Growth, et al as Second Tier, but is it possible he only recently discovered these foundations that emerged as part of 1.6?

A little respect to those who were inspired by these visionaries on the spiral might be called for; instead, we get cheap shots like:

“The systems that have emerged represent a form of intelligence only slightly more advanced than that inherent in the virtues of Enlightenment. They strategically manipulate human pursuits under the pretense of higher consciousness and inclusion…masquerading as “green and sustainable” practices.” (p. 144)

Gee, I just wanted Monsanto to stop dumping poison in the river my father used to fish in. And then I read this

“…ignorance pervades the ways in which we have addressed climate change so far…electric cars and solar are blissfully ignorant…rarely examine sustainability of the entire supply chain. (p. 205)”

In general, the books discussion and dismissal, of the current work being done on climate issues is superficial, and presents no citations. I do this work today as a professional in the clean energy space, and can tell you the literature and business practice continues to move in the direction of a fully sustainable supply chain. Unless you are suggesting the petroleum supply chain is so much more sustainable.

And by the way, this is all an emergent phenomena; 1.6 had plenty of failures on the road to sustainability — but life conditions (economics, science) are driving the emergence of a sustainable global community.

There is plenty for individuals to do, irrespective of the oscillations of politics. (And business greenwashing has gradually been superseded by actual, sober 1.5 investments, for example as the price of renewables plummets.) Instead, the book sides with those boomers who preach but then desperately find reasons not to do anything about the crisis — “it’s too complicated, and I’d have to stop driving my gas fueled Cadillac.”

Here’s an article I published two years ago on just one aspect of a transformation that is happening now. https://medium.com/@dulchinos/ev-charging-3-0-3355bebe1147 — here’s another interesting, real world example of this transformation. https://www.intersolar.us/news-insights/solar/a-historic-milestone-californias-grid-is-being-powered-by-100-clean-energy/

Why the Yearning for Collapse?

Here’s the crux of my biggest issue with the book — the apparent need for despair. The book cites Graves and Beck as saying the regression of the entire planetary population to a primitive state is one equally possible outcome of current crises. If you look at the cited section, Beck talks about regression “as far back as to when humanity started.” So this sort of framing simplifies and extends the original research — Graves only ever acknowledged that regression happens, citing the case of the Ika tribe in Africa. But he never contemplated the complete complete collapse and regression of the human race. If he really believed that, he could have cited the nuclear arms race but never did that either.

Then I just take issue with Second Sapiens’ contention that the time frame for the second tier to establish itself is going to take as long as 1.1 to develop. This seems to me a direct contradiction to Graves. See Graves’ graphic below, illustrating that each successive stage in the first tier and on into G-T, or what Said is calling 2.1, happens in a shorter time frame. No suggestion that the trend to 2.1 will suddenly reverse this trend and take 40,000 years to develop.

And what especially bothers me about the “dark reality” of “collapse psychology” (p. 265) is that it logically leads to lack of agency, and that’s what bothers me most.

Why no advice on how to affect the toxic, late stage 1.5?

Said, as an economist, knows the 1.5 level better than anyone, yet never gives any concrete steps to moving them out of their closed state, other than broad statements like:

“The expansion of our psychosocial capacities beyond human concerns — or the nesting of Promethean intelligence in Gaian intelligence — is change that must take place. (p. 312)”

Elsewhere he writes

“Financial crisis in 2008… if open would have wound down many of the fringe toxic practices. The bailout didn’t do this. (p. 82)”

Well then, as an economist, these are your people — how do you plan change their minds, at scale? What kind of actions/messages would work with this audience?