Very good essay, thanks! Also a good reminder that I have been meaning to read more of N.S. Lyons essays Substack. He is definitely one of the most interesting writers out there that I know of.
I don't know if there is a revolt against materialism and a move toward spirituality of various sorts happening now or not. If you compare today to the 1970s, that era seemed to fit that bill far better. There is definitely a disillusionment with materialist modernity and accompanying forms of liberalism, though.
Paul Kingsnorth's series of essays on "The Machine" is very interesting on these sorts of questions - you need a paid subscription to access them all, but for those of us who are sufficiently curious, it's well worth it as he is also an exceptionally original and engaging voice. (Or, just wait for the book, which is in the works, I understand.)
I was driving back today from a yoga/drumming/sound bath retreat and (ironically) listened to this podcast episode on the drive. Provocative discussion based on the theory that liberal democracy could have only grown out of a Christian base and is now on the wane as Christianity recedes. I would love to hear a fair-minded debate with the author, as I don't (necessarily) agree with several of his points but admittedly don't have the historical/ anthropological chops to weigh in. Worth a listen. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DegXefWvYDY
I listened to about half last night. Didn't get to the part about liberal democracy yet, but I think I understand the argument to come, at least in the essentials.
The discussion struck me as alarmingly fundamentalist: Either you are a Christian (who, presumably, understands Christianity in essentially the same way that they do, which has so far not be elucidated - there are, of course, many, many different configurations of the Christian tradition) OR you are a literally demon-worshiping pagan (and, furthermore, these demons are real). The fact that the history of Christianity has contained many wars, quests of power, etc. has so far been entirely brushed over. Similarly, the way in which they dismissed slavery in the U.S. as somehow fundamentally different and better than slavery in the ancient world I found unconvicning.
I think that there are some really good arguments out there about how liberalism used up the cultural foundation it needed to thrive, and how that was rooted in the Judeo-Christian tradition, but these guys are more much hardcore religious fundamentalist than, say, Patrick Deneen's "Why Liberalism Failed," which is a really good critique. And while Deneen might secretly share these guys views (IDK), he can also make his argument in much more nuanced and non-fundamentalist terms.
And when it comes to talk of the supernatural realm, I definitely prefer Paul Kingsnorth.
In other words, while I think there is some sort of there there in much of what they are talking about, I am put off by the very black-and-white paganism-versus-Christianity framework they put it in.
Yes I also found it to be an air-brushed view of Christianity and also of the history of the U.S., although my knowledge is vague enough that I wouldn't be able to write a rebuttal.
Its not just liberalism that may or may not have failed but Western culture altogether. It could be said that the in-your-face "living" proof of this is the appearance of the religiously and culturally illiterate nihilistic barbarian Donald Trump who is enthusiastically supported by many right-thinking back-to-the-past Christian "traditionalist". Never mind that he does have even one teensy-weensy religious molecule in his heart - does he even have a heart?
Speaking of the heart as the centre of our existence-being please check out a book by Joseph Chilton Pearce titled The Heart-Mind Matrix How the Heart can Teach the mind New Ways to Think (and be).
He cites many references including these two - the first ones features Joseph's work and that of the second reference too
I actually came to liberalism/progressivism through feeling opposed to the conservative, Reaganite atmosphere I grew up in as an adolescent in the 80s in Texas.
What's been interesting to me lately is how people from so many different ideological camps are coming to similar conclusions as to what we are up against. I like your new paradigm, although I know there are many others who think traditional religion is the answer.
Thanks, I'll check out that podcast! And yes, I'm somewhat au courant about the "we need to return to a Christian culture" movement on the right. I don't agree with that - although I do think that having a culture that affirms the importance of feeling connected to a positive force or purpose in life that's bigger than you is really important. And I agree that we currently don't have that at all.
But I am still very much a liberal in that I am commited to religious pluralism. And I also have that old-time liberal Protestant horror of simplistic religious doctrines being forced down people's throats, as opposed to heartfelt spiritual experiences that happen within.
Plus, we already have a religiously, spiritually, and philosophically diverse culture. Rather than the right-wing Christians taking over, I'd like to see us move towards affirming the common ground that everyone who's commited to a better life for both humans and the rest of life on Earth shares.
There is a lot to unpack in this essay but I thought of your Substack piece when I read it. Would be interesting to think about where they align and where they diverge-- https://unherd.com/2023/12/our-godless-era-is-dead/. On my end I have yet to feel compelled to return to church, although I have added that perspective when I analyze things.
I really like Paul Kingsnorth. I heard him speak live recently and was very impressed. Currently, I am reading through his long series of "Machine" essays on his Substack. I find him a very original thinker and a great writer and speaker. In person, he comes off as very personable and unpretentious.
I think Kingsnorth is right about the religious instinct that at least many humans have. I certainly do - even though I'm not following any formal religion, as he is. But I have always wanted to cultivate some sort of spiritual life. And while I don't think everyone has an equivalent desire by any means, I do think that most people want to feel like they're on the side of "good" and have something meaningful to believe in. Of course, we humans can all too easily fool ourselves when it comes to discerning what is, in fact, good. But the impulse is there just the same.
I am not, however, at all drawn to the advocacy of some sort of mass societal return to some form of traditional Christianity, which is quite popular in certain parts of the right. It's not that I have anything against it on a personal level - if people want to do that for themselves, great. Plus, I see myself as interpreting the world through a highly Christian-inflected lens. The problem for me is rather that I don't see that good project to push when it comes to political thought.
As an American who comes from a mixed religious background and has always enjoyed connecting with friends and family of different religious and/or spiritual traditions (or none), that agenda is way too exclusive for me. Plus, history shows that religion can be harnessed to negative means and ends, too, just like secular political ideologies. (Kingsnorth recognizes this, too, and keeps his Christianity within a personal frame, which is why I find it interesting rather than problematic. But there are definitely others on the right who don't have that sort of humility, openness, and discernment.)
The idea with ecohumanism, which I obviously need to develop further, is that a shared understanding of natural and human ecologies could provide the grounds for a culture that's much more actively encouraging of religious and spiritual commitment, but still not pushing any one particular faith as the path to salvation for all.
To go into wonky territory, I think this is an oversimplistic view of Smith. In this, it's in line with the standard view, so not surprising. But Smith was not a Social Darwinist. That was a latter development. Smith believed that people naturally wanted both to pursue self-interest and to be virtuous. He also thought there was a "natural law" that we could tap into to find the proper balance that would work for us both individually and socially. So his theory of how to try and do this was really more complex than just "let's battle it out in the free market, that will naturally produce the best outcomes, full stop."
In one way or another the author of your cited essay links into various people and outfits that are associated with the US CPAC freak shows, and by extension Donald Trump, and the right-wing Christians in their very well organized strategies and actions to take over every aspect of American culture - something like the Seven Dominions
Next step is getting people to put the pieces together in order to realize that we are, in fact, hurtling towards a transhumanist future. Happy Thanksgiving!
Excellent and accurate analysis - I love especially the “you can’t tell fish about water because that’s all they know.”
One physicist said, “We take in the idea of the universe as meaningless, pointless, non conscious, non intelligent and non directional with our mother’s milk,” and despite thousands of conversations on this, I still don’ t know any foolproof way even to invite people to reconsider their stubborn belief in what is not in the least bit supported by science but is rather a stubborn, purely faith based belief.
People will admit they can’t point to any foolproof detail that would tell them they’re dreaming or awake. Materialists will admit they really haven’t any logical objects to the idea that the world exists solely in Consiousness. People don’t seem to mind (especially the rational old fashioned liberal sort) that their belief in the faith of scientism requires them to believe:
* nobody can be held responsible for anything because the concept of free will makes absolutely no sense if all our intentions are conditioned reactions produced by purely physiological mechanisms
* no common notions of beauty, ethics, value or purpose can be defended in any purely logical way
* all of our feelings of love, compassion, caring, passion, fear, anger, sadness, etc are merely bubbling of a variety of hormones, neurochemicals, neurotransmitters, etc in the body-brain
*the entire panorama of a world filled with solid substances, colors, sounds, tastes, etc does not exist apart from the construction of our brains; there is nothing but invisible, intangible, inaudible, tasteless matter/energy/physical stuff.
I can’t imagine anything more irrational or horrific, yet well educated people cling to these superstitions and worse, believe they’re justified by science.
For over a century, prophets such as Jean Gebser and Aurobindo Ghose saw the end of the era of what Jean Gebser categorized as “the deficient aspect of the mental structure of consciousness,’ a structure born some 2500 years ago.
Yet we all keep thinking we’ve just discovered the end of history, the end of an era.
Iain McGilchrist has been writing about a neurological correlate of this radical shift of consciousness, yet who is listening? He says, along with Orthodox Christian theologian David Bentley Hart (Perhaps one of the most intelligent humans alive), we are at the end of a 2500 year long era, Robert Thurman speaks of the potential of a Global Renaissance which will far outshine the original Renaissance - if we get this transition right.
It’s so interesting to see - what do you want to give up? Ideas we grew up with 40-50 years ago? The belief in modern liberalism (the classical kind or post FDR kind?)
What if we give up in the idea that mind - logic and reason - as we know it now can ever solve ANY problems? Whole civilizations (much of Asia) saw this thousands of years ago - when nothing else is working and everything is falling apart, maybe we have to give up an awful lot more than a half century old idea.
If we’re in the Matrix, we can redo and redo and paste over everything, but we’re not going to solve anything until we know how to get out of the Matrix.
And we can’t even begi to know how to get out if we aren’t willing to consider the possibility that we are living in Maya, Avidya, subject to Mara (the original meaning of “sin”) and recognize in fact, we are living in the Matrix.
I get what you're saying conceptually, I think, and appreciate the radicalism of it. But on a pragmatic level, I just don't see how it's possible for any sort of critical mass within a society to completely overthrow and replace a view of reality that has been in place for 2,500 years. What could possibly make that happen? And what would it look like concretely in terms of the essentials of everyday life?
I am more drawn to reformist measures, such as radically changing the U.S. Farm Bill so that we support regenerative and small-scale farms, rather than industrial agriculture. There are machines that can plant using no-till methods that enable farmers to restore and enliven the soil rather than deplete and destroy it. We already know how to do that - the problem is mustering the political will to do it.
So, in many ways I still retain that boring reformist liberal sensibility, lol. But I've always appreciated radical thinkers who push me further outside of that box. So thanks :)
I actually love your boring reformist liberal sensibility ("liberal" in the largest sense, well articulated - if poorly carried out in a more neoliberal way - by Cass Sunstein in his recent NY Times article)
So, I'll answer by sharing my personal history.
1970: I 'got" (will sound WAY too "woo" to give details) several things one afternoon in May of that year. One was that the 400 year paradigm of materialism (the modern one, not the one predominating the previous 2100 years) was nearing its "sell by date."
1970-1997 (that is, before I got on the net). I went through various phases of thinking my 1970 hunch might be right, and might be wrong, but was convinced I would not live to see the change. I just felt I had to contribute in whatever way I could. I gave up a financially and psychologically rewarding and enormously fun career as a professional composer/pianist to get trained as both a clinical and research psychologist to further this.
1997: I began meeting others (almost for the first time) around the world who were in rather prestigious positions in various of the physical, life and mind sciences, as well as a remarkable number of philosophers, who were more optimistic than I was.
2010. Up until this date, after having written a book which dealt with physicalist delusions, spoken at conferences, participated daily in the 600+ member Journal of Consciousness Studies online forum (with leading figures in the scientific fields exploring the possibility of giving up the 400-year paradigm), I STILL figured I would not be alive to see the shift.
Several truly enormous things happened. After 125+ years of stark resistance, parapsychology skeptics were giving up. No more cries of fraud, bad methodology, inability to replicate experiments, successful experiments but only by .0000% above chance (all of which were lies, but that's another thing). Suddenly across the board, the skeptics are saying, "yes, there's proof, yes, it's strong proof." They now only have one resort: "We agree that what we've been calling for over a century has been done - solid scientific proof. Our conclusion? Since we know psi is impossible, the only explanation is something's wrong with science."
At that point, you know they've shifted into pure fundamentalism.
2015. I would say, it's only been about 8 years ,but an exponentially growing number of internationally renowned scientists (including the Nobel Prize winner in physics in 2022) are saying, "This is it. We can no longer explain the universe without considering consciousness as fundamental."
I never thought I'd live to see this.
Will it make a difference on the ground level in my lifetime? I'm 71 and I may have 15-20 years - I'd say no. It won't.
But you're quite a bit younger than me, and do I think in about 30-40 years, will you see a difference?
Yes, without question. Actually, if you look close enough, not just at the philosophical surrender in regard to consciousness, and not just parapsychology, but entire fields of lucid dream, psychedelics (revealing the most vivid experiences when the brain is hardly active) near death experiences (which provide ample evidence of parapsychological phenomena as well as vivid experience when the brain is nearly flatlined) and many others, you'll see clearly it's already happening, but the resistance among the well educated (journalists, lawyers, scientists, writers, etc) is so strong, we don't hear about it.
But if you talk to people in their teens and 20s, it's stunning. I remember just 20 years ago talking to folks of that age - they were getting the whole "spiritual but not religious" and open to some weird, woo New Age versions of this stuff - but nowadays, I find more and more I can talk to very intelligent, articular, non-woo non-wellness nonsense young folks who are totally open to a post materialist view - AND they get that the new economics and politics has to be post liberal post Right post Left post conservative.
What I think I may live to see is what you hint at, which is clearly the solution to everything - we have the technology (and we don't really need much) to solve food issues (regenerative and small scale farms, for example). It seems to me you're not old enough to know we were talking quite clearly about this in the 1960s - E F Schumacher, Frances Moore Lappe. The New Left was NOT primarily old fashioned Marxist but anarchist - in the original sense of calling for quite well organized SMALL SCALE business, government, etc (similar to the Catholic subsidiarity movement and the opposite of right wing libertarianism).
This is the case with schooling, a truly fair and equitable economy for all, international relations (small scale globally coordinated efforts), etc. Aurobindo Ghose wrote at length about this in "The Ideal of Human Unity," and I think he has some street cred in that he was the first to call for complete independence of India and was the leader of the movement prior to Gandhi (he gave advice to the British in the early 1940s which many agree, if it had been followed, there would have been no partition).
Sorry for another way too long comment. Pin Van Lommel responded quite well to your initial question - how would it look in terms of the essentials of everyday life:
Imagine if the global priesthood - that is, leading scientists - told us, "oops ,we were wrong. The universe is not dead, meaningless, unintelligent, pointless. We live in a vibrant, dynamic, intelligent, conscious universe - not ruled by some psychopathic sadistic "God" but pervaded by a truly meaningful Awareness/Consciousness, one that is unfolding when we examine scientific evidence regarding the complexification of consciousness from one celled organisms to fish to insects to reptiles, mammals, etc - one FULLY in line with the best science of evolutionary biology, and each one of us has a profound role to play - equally profound, from ditch digger to Prime ministers - in contributing to this evolution of consciousness.
And then (30-40 years from now, the breaking point for climate change!) we can come together across the planet to support each other in this ever ongoing awakening which will have practical, radical, concrete effects on how we heal ourselves, educate ourselves, create new governance for our towns, villages, cities, states, nations, and international relations.
TL:DR: I'm still optimistic glimmers of the paradigm shift will be bright enough at least for you to see concrete changes in your lifetime.
I think you're right that when I'm imagining ecohumanism, I'm necessarily also imagining some sort of broad based cultural shift away from seeing the world as a machine and to something more like you descibe. Something along those lines would have to be part of it (albeit poured into a perhaps more culturally pluralist frame).
Actually, I"m only a decade younger than you. So I do have some memories of the 1970s sensibility you describe, although I didn't participate in it so directly. I do remember reading "Small is Beautiful" in college and how that seemed like the obvious progressive direction to go at that time. Now the left seems to have mostly ceded that whole territory of localism, decentralization, and even reverence for nature to the right.
Thanks also for the Cass Sunstein reference. I hadn't seen that editorial, but looked it up and was nterested to read it. He was on my dissertation committee at U Chicago and consistently good to work with (although I agree with your comment about the neoliberalism). (Here's the link for anyone who might be interested: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/20/opinion/cass-sunstein-why-liberal.html)
It's funny, though, that he ended his quite long editoral with the clincher that liberals "like to think that the arc of history bends toward justice" (!). Calling Christopher Lasch . . . :) :) :)
Thanks Carol. A decade younger, now that I’m in my early 70s, sounds like a lifetime away. My advice to young folks these days is - the next time you have a birthday, that’s it. Don’t grow any older. Stay that age! (Or you might appreciate Fran Lebowitz’ advice to young folks. In “Pretend It’s a City, her interview with Martin Scorsese, she says she heard that the world would run out of water by 2050. First she freaked out, then she said, “Hey I’ll be dead by then.” So she goes on to say she doesn’t really understand why so many young people constantly come up to her after her shows and ask her for life advice - what should they do with their lives - should they write that screenplay, become a standup comedienne? She says, “You know, I don’t really care. But here’s one thing - save up some water!”
That’s cool about Sunstein on your dissertation committee. And I agree about the progressives ceding the territory of localism, etc.
I kind of think I should apologize for pushing what most likely seems a wildly impractical view way beyond mindfulness in what is probably not the appropriate place for it. I mean, I have 3 graduate degrees, I’ve worked in a lot of mainstream hospitals, psychiatric centers, etc and I fully get how cautious one must be in touching on such things.
I guess it has to do with being older - having worked on challenging the foundations of materialist science since 1970, and seeing internationally renowned scientists (a exponentially increasing number in the past 10 years) declaring the need to make consciousnes the foundation of the universe and saying other things that just 20 years ago I thought I would never live to see….. it makes one perhaps a tad bit insufficiently cautious.
Anyway, wild times, and I hope you continue to articulate the post liberal future - despite all the apparent horrors and crises, and despite the fact that I probably won’t live the 20 or 50 years it will take to see a truly profound paradigm change, I remain ridiculously optimistic.
If you want to "restore and sustain the health of our human and environmental ecologies in interdependent, synergistic ways", then join a rural ecovillage, where people who have come to the same conclusions are helping to restore the sustainable rural economy. Talking the talk is one thing. People ready to walk the walk are what's needed.
In my opinion Paul does (naively and unconsciously) belong in that bucket.
In one way or another he gives the aura of his now popular authority as a presumed prophetic voice to the kind of applied politics promoted by the 72 or so deep-pocket outfits promoting the outfit in the reference below. An outfit, which if it gains the necessary political power to do so intends to reshape every aspect of America's culture - religious, cultural, political, and environmental too. It has a very detailed manifesto/planet describing what it intends to do. The election of Donald Trump will give them the almost unlimited power so to do.
Many/most of these outfits are in one way or another closely connected to or associated with First Things. Paul is lined up to give their next prestigious Erasmus Lecture.
I have looked at Project 2025 and I agree, it is concerning. And I have a vague but alarming sense of the level of right-wing religious nationalism that has been on the rise for some time now. So, I think that I get what you're saying and agree that there is a lot that's worrisome (to say the least) there.
It's tough, though, because there are a lot of hot-button issues that I agree with the moderate right on, and not the progressive left: e.g., I think DEI bureucracies are bad, I don't support open borders, and I don't believe that confused teenagers should be blithely encouraged to take puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones. Then, on tope of that, there are also more general philosophical orientations I share with a much more philosophical type of conservativism: e.g., I think that there is such a thing as "human nature" and that the human condition is often inescapably tragic.
It's been true for years now that the progressive left ruthlessly attacks and excommunicates anyone who disagrees with their party line even in the slightest. I find today's progressivism extremely authoritarian and conformist. And I hate it.
But we have only two parties in the U.S. Both choices on offer are bad. Both sides are disingenuous and undermining democracy. Both find it most convenient to demonize the other 100%, all the time, no exceptions. Neither represents the majority of the population, which is more reasonable and willing to see nuance and compromise.
This level of polarization leaves anyone who's thoughtful with no good place to go, at least in terms of something that's big and established and can pay the bills. And if you are a professional writer and speaker like Kingsnorth who has a family to support, you naturally go where you can make a living. He used to be considered "on the left," but got cancelled for writing about how he liked some historical film about the English agrarian past and countryside. He also became religious (although not in a politicized way). Regardless, I have no doubt that no progressive outfit would never pay him a dime. Hence, he goes to the right.
Many other people I like are in the same boat: Matt Taibbi, Glenn Greenwald, Bari Weiss. Reading the comment sections in their publications reveals a disproportionate number of right-wing zealots and I don't like what they're saying. Nor do I agree with the original content in every single case. But on the whole, it's not only good but infinitely better than the one-dimensional party line served up by the likes of NPR and the rest of the establishment progressive media.
Thank you for the post. I always enjoy reading your thoughts. Interesting that you cite Lasch as an inspiration for your critique of Progress. I was a grad student of his while he was writing "A True and Only Heaven." Unfortunately, he died just a couple of weeks before I was going be his TA for a class on the "History of Love." I still wonder what he would have covered in that class ...
TBH, however, I wasn't convinced by his thesis in True and Only Heaven. I wrote about some of the people that discussed in that book (Henry George for example) and I think that he got some things wrong. But it has been a long time. Maybe, I need to go back and reread Lasch from a post-2016 perspective.
I also doubt that I can follow you into Ecohumanism. A couple of objections that occurred to me:
1. I don't think that you need to abandon Liberalism to get some of the values that you are looking for in ecohumanism. Amongst some historians, there has been an interesting re-evaluation of Liberalism in response to the crisis that you describe -- their idea is that our post-WWII version of Liberalism is a impoverished form of it, and that its history offers richer resources for responding to critiques from people like Deneen. A couple of books to consider: "Lost History of Liberalism" by Rosenblatt or "Liberalism Against Itself: Cold War Intellectuals and the Making of Our Times" by Moyn.
2. Maybe this is a bigger disagreement between us, but as part of my re-evaluation of my liberal politics after 2016, I have become more skeptical of the doom and gloom view our our relationship to nature offered by the environmental movement. I think that part of our political crisis may actually be due to less to a misplaced faith in Progress than to the pessimism (bordering on fatalism) engendered by environmentalism. A book I recommend is "Factfulness: Ten Reasons We're Wrong About the World--and Why Things Are Better Than You Think" by Hans Rosling. You probably will be put off by the fact Bill Gates is plugging it on Amazon (I was too ...) But it really did make me re-think a lot of things ...
Thanks for a great comment! And also the book recommendations. Some thoughts in response:
Full disclosure: I never read "A True and Only Heaven" in its entirety; I just read around and skimmed. The reason I started with that quote that I think it's worth noting that someone as smart as Lasch thought that faith in Progress was both misguided and worth writing a 600-page book explaining why it has nonetheless been so culturally tenacious.
As an aside, when it comes to Lasch, the book I always recommend is "Revolt of the Elites," which I have read cover to cover more than once. It's also what I was thinking of specifically when I said that he was at times "eerily prophetic." That said, in general, I am a fan.
When it comes to liberalism, I think we're in agreement that we don't want to jettison many or even most core liberal values. Rather, a (in my opinion, radical) reframing is need. Given that acutally existing liberalism is what it is, though (it's certainly true that some much more attractive alternative paths were not taken), my suggestion is that thinking in terms of a clear-cut paradigm shift (ecohumanism) is both warranted and helpful.
Re environmentalism, I agree that there is an apocalyptic, extremist current out there that's inaccurate and unhelpful. That said, I think we're already in a terrible place right now on the environmental front, even bracketing the climate change issue completely (which I don't think we should do, but just to make the point that it's not only about that).
I'm particularly concerned and outraged by our industrial "food" system, which is sending billions of taxpayer dollars annually to 1) subsidize megafarms that keep working farmers in debt while enriching a few giant landowners; 2) degrade the soil to the point that it literally blows or washes away; 3) pump countless amounts of dangerous chemicals into the soil and water supply; 4) produce low-nutrient, genetically altered, and chemically treated crops; 5) treat animals horrifically; 6) underwrite the junk food and fast food industries that deliberately try to addict consumers; 7) make the bulk of our people fat, depressed, and prone to all sorts of diseases and disorders; and 8) funnel them into a "health care" system that is medicalizing the bulk of the population while enriching giant pharaceutical companies. (And then there is also the impact on climate change, which is also horrific.)
Also, just to clarify, I don't think that our political crises are caused by faith in Progress. My point is rather that this belief system enables progressives who resonate with being on "the right side of history" (most likely without even realizing how much they're relying on that faith to interpret the world) from asking the sorts of hard questions that I think they should be (about the obvious madness on their own side) and, beyond that, engaging with today's issues in a serious and potentially helpful way.
Another interesting piece that is somewhat related:
https://www.firstthings.com/article/2024/05/dark-enchantment?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
Very good essay, thanks! Also a good reminder that I have been meaning to read more of N.S. Lyons essays Substack. He is definitely one of the most interesting writers out there that I know of.
I don't know if there is a revolt against materialism and a move toward spirituality of various sorts happening now or not. If you compare today to the 1970s, that era seemed to fit that bill far better. There is definitely a disillusionment with materialist modernity and accompanying forms of liberalism, though.
Paul Kingsnorth's series of essays on "The Machine" is very interesting on these sorts of questions - you need a paid subscription to access them all, but for those of us who are sufficiently curious, it's well worth it as he is also an exceptionally original and engaging voice. (Or, just wait for the book, which is in the works, I understand.)
I was driving back today from a yoga/drumming/sound bath retreat and (ironically) listened to this podcast episode on the drive. Provocative discussion based on the theory that liberal democracy could have only grown out of a Christian base and is now on the wane as Christianity recedes. I would love to hear a fair-minded debate with the author, as I don't (necessarily) agree with several of his points but admittedly don't have the historical/ anthropological chops to weigh in. Worth a listen. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DegXefWvYDY
I listened to about half last night. Didn't get to the part about liberal democracy yet, but I think I understand the argument to come, at least in the essentials.
The discussion struck me as alarmingly fundamentalist: Either you are a Christian (who, presumably, understands Christianity in essentially the same way that they do, which has so far not be elucidated - there are, of course, many, many different configurations of the Christian tradition) OR you are a literally demon-worshiping pagan (and, furthermore, these demons are real). The fact that the history of Christianity has contained many wars, quests of power, etc. has so far been entirely brushed over. Similarly, the way in which they dismissed slavery in the U.S. as somehow fundamentally different and better than slavery in the ancient world I found unconvicning.
I think that there are some really good arguments out there about how liberalism used up the cultural foundation it needed to thrive, and how that was rooted in the Judeo-Christian tradition, but these guys are more much hardcore religious fundamentalist than, say, Patrick Deneen's "Why Liberalism Failed," which is a really good critique. And while Deneen might secretly share these guys views (IDK), he can also make his argument in much more nuanced and non-fundamentalist terms.
And when it comes to talk of the supernatural realm, I definitely prefer Paul Kingsnorth.
In other words, while I think there is some sort of there there in much of what they are talking about, I am put off by the very black-and-white paganism-versus-Christianity framework they put it in.
Yes I also found it to be an air-brushed view of Christianity and also of the history of the U.S., although my knowledge is vague enough that I wouldn't be able to write a rebuttal.
Its not just liberalism that may or may not have failed but Western culture altogether. It could be said that the in-your-face "living" proof of this is the appearance of the religiously and culturally illiterate nihilistic barbarian Donald Trump who is enthusiastically supported by many right-thinking back-to-the-past Christian "traditionalist". Never mind that he does have even one teensy-weensy religious molecule in his heart - does he even have a heart?
Speaking of the heart as the centre of our existence-being please check out a book by Joseph Chilton Pearce titled The Heart-Mind Matrix How the Heart can Teach the mind New Ways to Think (and be).
He cites many references including these two - the first ones features Joseph's work and that of the second reference too
http://www.ttfuture.org Touch the Future
http://www.wombecology.org Womb Ecology
Whoops! that should be:
http://ttfuture.org
http://www.wombecology.com
Thank you for the references! I will check them out.
I actually came to liberalism/progressivism through feeling opposed to the conservative, Reaganite atmosphere I grew up in as an adolescent in the 80s in Texas.
What's been interesting to me lately is how people from so many different ideological camps are coming to similar conclusions as to what we are up against. I like your new paradigm, although I know there are many others who think traditional religion is the answer.
As for transhumanism, I found many similar echoes and concerns in this podcast on the history of cybernetics. https://soundcloud.com/subliminaljihad/127-the-purpose-of-a-911-is-what-it-does-a-subliminal-history-of-cybernetics-pt-2-w-jay
Thanks, I'll check out that podcast! And yes, I'm somewhat au courant about the "we need to return to a Christian culture" movement on the right. I don't agree with that - although I do think that having a culture that affirms the importance of feeling connected to a positive force or purpose in life that's bigger than you is really important. And I agree that we currently don't have that at all.
But I am still very much a liberal in that I am commited to religious pluralism. And I also have that old-time liberal Protestant horror of simplistic religious doctrines being forced down people's throats, as opposed to heartfelt spiritual experiences that happen within.
Plus, we already have a religiously, spiritually, and philosophically diverse culture. Rather than the right-wing Christians taking over, I'd like to see us move towards affirming the common ground that everyone who's commited to a better life for both humans and the rest of life on Earth shares.
There is a lot to unpack in this essay but I thought of your Substack piece when I read it. Would be interesting to think about where they align and where they diverge-- https://unherd.com/2023/12/our-godless-era-is-dead/. On my end I have yet to feel compelled to return to church, although I have added that perspective when I analyze things.
I really like Paul Kingsnorth. I heard him speak live recently and was very impressed. Currently, I am reading through his long series of "Machine" essays on his Substack. I find him a very original thinker and a great writer and speaker. In person, he comes off as very personable and unpretentious.
I think Kingsnorth is right about the religious instinct that at least many humans have. I certainly do - even though I'm not following any formal religion, as he is. But I have always wanted to cultivate some sort of spiritual life. And while I don't think everyone has an equivalent desire by any means, I do think that most people want to feel like they're on the side of "good" and have something meaningful to believe in. Of course, we humans can all too easily fool ourselves when it comes to discerning what is, in fact, good. But the impulse is there just the same.
I am not, however, at all drawn to the advocacy of some sort of mass societal return to some form of traditional Christianity, which is quite popular in certain parts of the right. It's not that I have anything against it on a personal level - if people want to do that for themselves, great. Plus, I see myself as interpreting the world through a highly Christian-inflected lens. The problem for me is rather that I don't see that good project to push when it comes to political thought.
As an American who comes from a mixed religious background and has always enjoyed connecting with friends and family of different religious and/or spiritual traditions (or none), that agenda is way too exclusive for me. Plus, history shows that religion can be harnessed to negative means and ends, too, just like secular political ideologies. (Kingsnorth recognizes this, too, and keeps his Christianity within a personal frame, which is why I find it interesting rather than problematic. But there are definitely others on the right who don't have that sort of humility, openness, and discernment.)
The idea with ecohumanism, which I obviously need to develop further, is that a shared understanding of natural and human ecologies could provide the grounds for a culture that's much more actively encouraging of religious and spiritual commitment, but still not pushing any one particular faith as the path to salvation for all.
This piece might also be of interest. https://tobyrogers.substack.com/p/niccolo-machiavelli-adam-smith-and?
To go into wonky territory, I think this is an oversimplistic view of Smith. In this, it's in line with the standard view, so not surprising. But Smith was not a Social Darwinist. That was a latter development. Smith believed that people naturally wanted both to pursue self-interest and to be virtuous. He also thought there was a "natural law" that we could tap into to find the proper balance that would work for us both individually and socially. So his theory of how to try and do this was really more complex than just "let's battle it out in the free market, that will naturally produce the best outcomes, full stop."
In one way or another the author of your cited essay links into various people and outfits that are associated with the US CPAC freak shows, and by extension Donald Trump, and the right-wing Christians in their very well organized strategies and actions to take over every aspect of American culture - something like the Seven Dominions
I don't think Kingsnorth belongs in that bucket (see comment above).
Honestly I've never heard of CPAC or the Seven Dominions but I'm pretty illiterate when it comes to religion.
Next step is getting people to put the pieces together in order to realize that we are, in fact, hurtling towards a transhumanist future. Happy Thanksgiving!
Excellent and accurate analysis - I love especially the “you can’t tell fish about water because that’s all they know.”
One physicist said, “We take in the idea of the universe as meaningless, pointless, non conscious, non intelligent and non directional with our mother’s milk,” and despite thousands of conversations on this, I still don’ t know any foolproof way even to invite people to reconsider their stubborn belief in what is not in the least bit supported by science but is rather a stubborn, purely faith based belief.
People will admit they can’t point to any foolproof detail that would tell them they’re dreaming or awake. Materialists will admit they really haven’t any logical objects to the idea that the world exists solely in Consiousness. People don’t seem to mind (especially the rational old fashioned liberal sort) that their belief in the faith of scientism requires them to believe:
* nobody can be held responsible for anything because the concept of free will makes absolutely no sense if all our intentions are conditioned reactions produced by purely physiological mechanisms
* no common notions of beauty, ethics, value or purpose can be defended in any purely logical way
* all of our feelings of love, compassion, caring, passion, fear, anger, sadness, etc are merely bubbling of a variety of hormones, neurochemicals, neurotransmitters, etc in the body-brain
*the entire panorama of a world filled with solid substances, colors, sounds, tastes, etc does not exist apart from the construction of our brains; there is nothing but invisible, intangible, inaudible, tasteless matter/energy/physical stuff.
I can’t imagine anything more irrational or horrific, yet well educated people cling to these superstitions and worse, believe they’re justified by science.
For over a century, prophets such as Jean Gebser and Aurobindo Ghose saw the end of the era of what Jean Gebser categorized as “the deficient aspect of the mental structure of consciousness,’ a structure born some 2500 years ago.
Yet we all keep thinking we’ve just discovered the end of history, the end of an era.
Iain McGilchrist has been writing about a neurological correlate of this radical shift of consciousness, yet who is listening? He says, along with Orthodox Christian theologian David Bentley Hart (Perhaps one of the most intelligent humans alive), we are at the end of a 2500 year long era, Robert Thurman speaks of the potential of a Global Renaissance which will far outshine the original Renaissance - if we get this transition right.
It’s so interesting to see - what do you want to give up? Ideas we grew up with 40-50 years ago? The belief in modern liberalism (the classical kind or post FDR kind?)
What if we give up in the idea that mind - logic and reason - as we know it now can ever solve ANY problems? Whole civilizations (much of Asia) saw this thousands of years ago - when nothing else is working and everything is falling apart, maybe we have to give up an awful lot more than a half century old idea.
If we’re in the Matrix, we can redo and redo and paste over everything, but we’re not going to solve anything until we know how to get out of the Matrix.
And we can’t even begi to know how to get out if we aren’t willing to consider the possibility that we are living in Maya, Avidya, subject to Mara (the original meaning of “sin”) and recognize in fact, we are living in the Matrix.
I get what you're saying conceptually, I think, and appreciate the radicalism of it. But on a pragmatic level, I just don't see how it's possible for any sort of critical mass within a society to completely overthrow and replace a view of reality that has been in place for 2,500 years. What could possibly make that happen? And what would it look like concretely in terms of the essentials of everyday life?
I am more drawn to reformist measures, such as radically changing the U.S. Farm Bill so that we support regenerative and small-scale farms, rather than industrial agriculture. There are machines that can plant using no-till methods that enable farmers to restore and enliven the soil rather than deplete and destroy it. We already know how to do that - the problem is mustering the political will to do it.
So, in many ways I still retain that boring reformist liberal sensibility, lol. But I've always appreciated radical thinkers who push me further outside of that box. So thanks :)
I actually love your boring reformist liberal sensibility ("liberal" in the largest sense, well articulated - if poorly carried out in a more neoliberal way - by Cass Sunstein in his recent NY Times article)
So, I'll answer by sharing my personal history.
1970: I 'got" (will sound WAY too "woo" to give details) several things one afternoon in May of that year. One was that the 400 year paradigm of materialism (the modern one, not the one predominating the previous 2100 years) was nearing its "sell by date."
1970-1997 (that is, before I got on the net). I went through various phases of thinking my 1970 hunch might be right, and might be wrong, but was convinced I would not live to see the change. I just felt I had to contribute in whatever way I could. I gave up a financially and psychologically rewarding and enormously fun career as a professional composer/pianist to get trained as both a clinical and research psychologist to further this.
1997: I began meeting others (almost for the first time) around the world who were in rather prestigious positions in various of the physical, life and mind sciences, as well as a remarkable number of philosophers, who were more optimistic than I was.
2010. Up until this date, after having written a book which dealt with physicalist delusions, spoken at conferences, participated daily in the 600+ member Journal of Consciousness Studies online forum (with leading figures in the scientific fields exploring the possibility of giving up the 400-year paradigm), I STILL figured I would not be alive to see the shift.
Several truly enormous things happened. After 125+ years of stark resistance, parapsychology skeptics were giving up. No more cries of fraud, bad methodology, inability to replicate experiments, successful experiments but only by .0000% above chance (all of which were lies, but that's another thing). Suddenly across the board, the skeptics are saying, "yes, there's proof, yes, it's strong proof." They now only have one resort: "We agree that what we've been calling for over a century has been done - solid scientific proof. Our conclusion? Since we know psi is impossible, the only explanation is something's wrong with science."
At that point, you know they've shifted into pure fundamentalism.
2015. I would say, it's only been about 8 years ,but an exponentially growing number of internationally renowned scientists (including the Nobel Prize winner in physics in 2022) are saying, "This is it. We can no longer explain the universe without considering consciousness as fundamental."
I never thought I'd live to see this.
Will it make a difference on the ground level in my lifetime? I'm 71 and I may have 15-20 years - I'd say no. It won't.
But you're quite a bit younger than me, and do I think in about 30-40 years, will you see a difference?
Yes, without question. Actually, if you look close enough, not just at the philosophical surrender in regard to consciousness, and not just parapsychology, but entire fields of lucid dream, psychedelics (revealing the most vivid experiences when the brain is hardly active) near death experiences (which provide ample evidence of parapsychological phenomena as well as vivid experience when the brain is nearly flatlined) and many others, you'll see clearly it's already happening, but the resistance among the well educated (journalists, lawyers, scientists, writers, etc) is so strong, we don't hear about it.
But if you talk to people in their teens and 20s, it's stunning. I remember just 20 years ago talking to folks of that age - they were getting the whole "spiritual but not religious" and open to some weird, woo New Age versions of this stuff - but nowadays, I find more and more I can talk to very intelligent, articular, non-woo non-wellness nonsense young folks who are totally open to a post materialist view - AND they get that the new economics and politics has to be post liberal post Right post Left post conservative.
What I think I may live to see is what you hint at, which is clearly the solution to everything - we have the technology (and we don't really need much) to solve food issues (regenerative and small scale farms, for example). It seems to me you're not old enough to know we were talking quite clearly about this in the 1960s - E F Schumacher, Frances Moore Lappe. The New Left was NOT primarily old fashioned Marxist but anarchist - in the original sense of calling for quite well organized SMALL SCALE business, government, etc (similar to the Catholic subsidiarity movement and the opposite of right wing libertarianism).
This is the case with schooling, a truly fair and equitable economy for all, international relations (small scale globally coordinated efforts), etc. Aurobindo Ghose wrote at length about this in "The Ideal of Human Unity," and I think he has some street cred in that he was the first to call for complete independence of India and was the leader of the movement prior to Gandhi (he gave advice to the British in the early 1940s which many agree, if it had been followed, there would have been no partition).
Sorry for another way too long comment. Pin Van Lommel responded quite well to your initial question - how would it look in terms of the essentials of everyday life:
Imagine if the global priesthood - that is, leading scientists - told us, "oops ,we were wrong. The universe is not dead, meaningless, unintelligent, pointless. We live in a vibrant, dynamic, intelligent, conscious universe - not ruled by some psychopathic sadistic "God" but pervaded by a truly meaningful Awareness/Consciousness, one that is unfolding when we examine scientific evidence regarding the complexification of consciousness from one celled organisms to fish to insects to reptiles, mammals, etc - one FULLY in line with the best science of evolutionary biology, and each one of us has a profound role to play - equally profound, from ditch digger to Prime ministers - in contributing to this evolution of consciousness.
And then (30-40 years from now, the breaking point for climate change!) we can come together across the planet to support each other in this ever ongoing awakening which will have practical, radical, concrete effects on how we heal ourselves, educate ourselves, create new governance for our towns, villages, cities, states, nations, and international relations.
TL:DR: I'm still optimistic glimmers of the paradigm shift will be bright enough at least for you to see concrete changes in your lifetime.
I think you're right that when I'm imagining ecohumanism, I'm necessarily also imagining some sort of broad based cultural shift away from seeing the world as a machine and to something more like you descibe. Something along those lines would have to be part of it (albeit poured into a perhaps more culturally pluralist frame).
Actually, I"m only a decade younger than you. So I do have some memories of the 1970s sensibility you describe, although I didn't participate in it so directly. I do remember reading "Small is Beautiful" in college and how that seemed like the obvious progressive direction to go at that time. Now the left seems to have mostly ceded that whole territory of localism, decentralization, and even reverence for nature to the right.
Thanks also for the Cass Sunstein reference. I hadn't seen that editorial, but looked it up and was nterested to read it. He was on my dissertation committee at U Chicago and consistently good to work with (although I agree with your comment about the neoliberalism). (Here's the link for anyone who might be interested: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/20/opinion/cass-sunstein-why-liberal.html)
It's funny, though, that he ended his quite long editoral with the clincher that liberals "like to think that the arc of history bends toward justice" (!). Calling Christopher Lasch . . . :) :) :)
Thanks Carol. A decade younger, now that I’m in my early 70s, sounds like a lifetime away. My advice to young folks these days is - the next time you have a birthday, that’s it. Don’t grow any older. Stay that age! (Or you might appreciate Fran Lebowitz’ advice to young folks. In “Pretend It’s a City, her interview with Martin Scorsese, she says she heard that the world would run out of water by 2050. First she freaked out, then she said, “Hey I’ll be dead by then.” So she goes on to say she doesn’t really understand why so many young people constantly come up to her after her shows and ask her for life advice - what should they do with their lives - should they write that screenplay, become a standup comedienne? She says, “You know, I don’t really care. But here’s one thing - save up some water!”
That’s cool about Sunstein on your dissertation committee. And I agree about the progressives ceding the territory of localism, etc.
I kind of think I should apologize for pushing what most likely seems a wildly impractical view way beyond mindfulness in what is probably not the appropriate place for it. I mean, I have 3 graduate degrees, I’ve worked in a lot of mainstream hospitals, psychiatric centers, etc and I fully get how cautious one must be in touching on such things.
I guess it has to do with being older - having worked on challenging the foundations of materialist science since 1970, and seeing internationally renowned scientists (a exponentially increasing number in the past 10 years) declaring the need to make consciousnes the foundation of the universe and saying other things that just 20 years ago I thought I would never live to see….. it makes one perhaps a tad bit insufficiently cautious.
Anyway, wild times, and I hope you continue to articulate the post liberal future - despite all the apparent horrors and crises, and despite the fact that I probably won’t live the 20 or 50 years it will take to see a truly profound paradigm change, I remain ridiculously optimistic.
I think it's great! No need to apologize. And I'm glad to hear that you remain ridiculously optimistic; it's a rare trait these days.
If you want to "restore and sustain the health of our human and environmental ecologies in interdependent, synergistic ways", then join a rural ecovillage, where people who have come to the same conclusions are helping to restore the sustainable rural economy. Talking the talk is one thing. People ready to walk the walk are what's needed.
Here's one example, there are others: https://www.dancingrabbit.org
Thanks for sharing! I had no idea this place existed - good to know!
In my opinion Paul does (naively and unconsciously) belong in that bucket.
In one way or another he gives the aura of his now popular authority as a presumed prophetic voice to the kind of applied politics promoted by the 72 or so deep-pocket outfits promoting the outfit in the reference below. An outfit, which if it gains the necessary political power to do so intends to reshape every aspect of America's culture - religious, cultural, political, and environmental too. It has a very detailed manifesto/planet describing what it intends to do. The election of Donald Trump will give them the almost unlimited power so to do.
Many/most of these outfits are in one way or another closely connected to or associated with First Things. Paul is lined up to give their next prestigious Erasmus Lecture.
http://www.project2025.org
I have looked at Project 2025 and I agree, it is concerning. And I have a vague but alarming sense of the level of right-wing religious nationalism that has been on the rise for some time now. So, I think that I get what you're saying and agree that there is a lot that's worrisome (to say the least) there.
It's tough, though, because there are a lot of hot-button issues that I agree with the moderate right on, and not the progressive left: e.g., I think DEI bureucracies are bad, I don't support open borders, and I don't believe that confused teenagers should be blithely encouraged to take puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones. Then, on tope of that, there are also more general philosophical orientations I share with a much more philosophical type of conservativism: e.g., I think that there is such a thing as "human nature" and that the human condition is often inescapably tragic.
It's been true for years now that the progressive left ruthlessly attacks and excommunicates anyone who disagrees with their party line even in the slightest. I find today's progressivism extremely authoritarian and conformist. And I hate it.
But we have only two parties in the U.S. Both choices on offer are bad. Both sides are disingenuous and undermining democracy. Both find it most convenient to demonize the other 100%, all the time, no exceptions. Neither represents the majority of the population, which is more reasonable and willing to see nuance and compromise.
This level of polarization leaves anyone who's thoughtful with no good place to go, at least in terms of something that's big and established and can pay the bills. And if you are a professional writer and speaker like Kingsnorth who has a family to support, you naturally go where you can make a living. He used to be considered "on the left," but got cancelled for writing about how he liked some historical film about the English agrarian past and countryside. He also became religious (although not in a politicized way). Regardless, I have no doubt that no progressive outfit would never pay him a dime. Hence, he goes to the right.
Many other people I like are in the same boat: Matt Taibbi, Glenn Greenwald, Bari Weiss. Reading the comment sections in their publications reveals a disproportionate number of right-wing zealots and I don't like what they're saying. Nor do I agree with the original content in every single case. But on the whole, it's not only good but infinitely better than the one-dimensional party line served up by the likes of NPR and the rest of the establishment progressive media.
Thank you for the post. I always enjoy reading your thoughts. Interesting that you cite Lasch as an inspiration for your critique of Progress. I was a grad student of his while he was writing "A True and Only Heaven." Unfortunately, he died just a couple of weeks before I was going be his TA for a class on the "History of Love." I still wonder what he would have covered in that class ...
TBH, however, I wasn't convinced by his thesis in True and Only Heaven. I wrote about some of the people that discussed in that book (Henry George for example) and I think that he got some things wrong. But it has been a long time. Maybe, I need to go back and reread Lasch from a post-2016 perspective.
I also doubt that I can follow you into Ecohumanism. A couple of objections that occurred to me:
1. I don't think that you need to abandon Liberalism to get some of the values that you are looking for in ecohumanism. Amongst some historians, there has been an interesting re-evaluation of Liberalism in response to the crisis that you describe -- their idea is that our post-WWII version of Liberalism is a impoverished form of it, and that its history offers richer resources for responding to critiques from people like Deneen. A couple of books to consider: "Lost History of Liberalism" by Rosenblatt or "Liberalism Against Itself: Cold War Intellectuals and the Making of Our Times" by Moyn.
2. Maybe this is a bigger disagreement between us, but as part of my re-evaluation of my liberal politics after 2016, I have become more skeptical of the doom and gloom view our our relationship to nature offered by the environmental movement. I think that part of our political crisis may actually be due to less to a misplaced faith in Progress than to the pessimism (bordering on fatalism) engendered by environmentalism. A book I recommend is "Factfulness: Ten Reasons We're Wrong About the World--and Why Things Are Better Than You Think" by Hans Rosling. You probably will be put off by the fact Bill Gates is plugging it on Amazon (I was too ...) But it really did make me re-think a lot of things ...
Thanks for a great comment! And also the book recommendations. Some thoughts in response:
Full disclosure: I never read "A True and Only Heaven" in its entirety; I just read around and skimmed. The reason I started with that quote that I think it's worth noting that someone as smart as Lasch thought that faith in Progress was both misguided and worth writing a 600-page book explaining why it has nonetheless been so culturally tenacious.
As an aside, when it comes to Lasch, the book I always recommend is "Revolt of the Elites," which I have read cover to cover more than once. It's also what I was thinking of specifically when I said that he was at times "eerily prophetic." That said, in general, I am a fan.
When it comes to liberalism, I think we're in agreement that we don't want to jettison many or even most core liberal values. Rather, a (in my opinion, radical) reframing is need. Given that acutally existing liberalism is what it is, though (it's certainly true that some much more attractive alternative paths were not taken), my suggestion is that thinking in terms of a clear-cut paradigm shift (ecohumanism) is both warranted and helpful.
Re environmentalism, I agree that there is an apocalyptic, extremist current out there that's inaccurate and unhelpful. That said, I think we're already in a terrible place right now on the environmental front, even bracketing the climate change issue completely (which I don't think we should do, but just to make the point that it's not only about that).
I'm particularly concerned and outraged by our industrial "food" system, which is sending billions of taxpayer dollars annually to 1) subsidize megafarms that keep working farmers in debt while enriching a few giant landowners; 2) degrade the soil to the point that it literally blows or washes away; 3) pump countless amounts of dangerous chemicals into the soil and water supply; 4) produce low-nutrient, genetically altered, and chemically treated crops; 5) treat animals horrifically; 6) underwrite the junk food and fast food industries that deliberately try to addict consumers; 7) make the bulk of our people fat, depressed, and prone to all sorts of diseases and disorders; and 8) funnel them into a "health care" system that is medicalizing the bulk of the population while enriching giant pharaceutical companies. (And then there is also the impact on climate change, which is also horrific.)
Also, just to clarify, I don't think that our political crises are caused by faith in Progress. My point is rather that this belief system enables progressives who resonate with being on "the right side of history" (most likely without even realizing how much they're relying on that faith to interpret the world) from asking the sorts of hard questions that I think they should be (about the obvious madness on their own side) and, beyond that, engaging with today's issues in a serious and potentially helpful way.