Solid essay. I am with you on most of the points. But I don't understand your casual dismissal of climate change related concerns. There are many models that project mass migration and civil unrest due to a decline in food production and extreme weather. And it is blatantly not true that we are doing everything we can when we don't have basic policies like pricing in carbon pollution implemented globally or the necessary level of investment in clean tech. To react to that with "the planet has been warmer before" seems a bit reckless? Especially when considering the impact on developing nations who are going to be hit far harder because of their geography
Not to mention that electricity is just about 20% of global energy consumption. Hopefully, we will be able to electrify everything or move to hydrogen or something eventually, but we are a long way from that right now.
Not to mention that we don't have enough raw materials for the green transition? Are you familiar with the work of Simon Michaux on this front? If not, please check out- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pwmygkdoGgc
Familiar with all that, and the metacrisis is not a good frame, and ignores history. We can't use energy that does not exist. That constraint will force the correct behavior. Look up Theory of Constraints.
Can you elaborate on what part of history Metacrisis ignores? A lot of the discourse in the Metacrisis circles specifically points towards how civilizations that ignored the warning signs we see today collapsed.
I am also confused by your comment on not being able to use energy that doesn’t exist. Your previous comment seemed to point towards renewables providing us sufficient clean energy. Now you seem to be indicating that there isn’t enough energy but that will force people into the correct behaviour?
If energy becomes a constraint then why would people not try to start conflicts/invasions in order to capture energy sources so as to not compromise on their living standards? Why would it automatically force the correct behaviour? This also assumes that everyone is correctly assessing all the constraints in the first place
The primary problem with metacrisis is that it ignores the fact that catastrophes have a blast radius. Metacrisis theory suggests that the entire world is constructed of a house of cards built on top of a series of dominoes, and that it will all just implode. But failure domains exist, diminishing returns exist, and so on. Metacrisis fabricates an entirely new model of calamity that has never been demonstrated in reality. Yes, many systems overlap and share boundaries, but that doesn't mean that every system is wholly dependent upon every other system.
As far as "we can't spend energy that doesn't exist" this is just basic physics. And yes, if you run out of energy, you are forced to adapt. There are several ways to adapt:
1) spend less energy
2) innovate and make more energy
3) steal energy (as you posited, though there are plenty of reasons this won't happen at scale).
In systems theory, we call this a "forcing function"
Metacrisis theory itself was never positioned to be prescriptive, or even accurately descriptive. Merely a "lens" or "frame" by which to "make decisions" in other words, it is not peer reviewed, not accepted by consensus, and is not a useful instrument. It is totally untested. It falls into the same camp as instrumental convergence and other doomer narratives.
The onus is on Daniel to provide evidence of any of his claims (which he hasn't, won't, and can't provide)
"You guys are just addicted to outrage and scaremongering, and as a competent writer, holy shit you have no idea how easy it is to manipulate you."
I needed to read this today, and I’ve seen other well-known Substackers say similar things. I'm newish here, and committed to trying to write as thoughtfully as I can about solutions and creativity and positivity. But I am also pretty sure that if I wrote something negative, dark, snarky and grim (ideally about feminism/redpill/politics/AI/sex/Adolescence, it would be noticed far more readily. To my own gain (perhaps, plenty of people overrate their writing abilities) but with no positive addition to humanity's discourse.
I agree that negativity bias is a problem we need to face. I am also optimistic, now, about AI and don't have much patience for the negativity-driven doom machine around it.
I agree with the broader message here, but the devil is lurking in the details.
Let's take this chart of changing sentiment in America, for example. There is a classic blunder being made here: surface area does not vote. People vote. And the majority of people tend to live in very small areas, geographically. When you look at the actual numbers, the shift in the last election was a niggle, not a quantum leap. Who benefits, by the way, from this misinterpretation?
Then let's talk about the climate science. And let's apply David Shapiro's recommended advice to use AI to research things. I asked Perplexity whether or not previous warming periods mean we shouldn't worry about the climate now. Guess what 30 seconds of deep research revealed?
"The evidence provided by paleoclimate research actually strengthens rather than diminishes concerns about current climate change. While Earth has certainly been warmer before, those conditions developed over much longer timeframes, allowing ecosystems and species time to adapt. Additionally, past warming events occurred before human civilization existed, so they posed no threat to agricultural systems, infrastructure, or populations concentrated in vulnerable coastal areas."
There's a difference between negativity bias and a calm, rational concern based in evidence. If someone is standing in front of a train, shouting at them to get out of the way isn't fear mongering, it's sound advice. Climate concerns are well justified, as anyone with Perplexity and a desire to know the truth can easily discover.
In the interest of not succumbing to negativity bias myself, I'm going to stop here, because it gets worse. All I'll say is that David gave me hope when he said that everyone should get their news from AI, or at least to fact-check it.
I can only hope that he chooses to follow that advice.
The exact same thing happened to me. Woke up the day after the election and actually woke up! (Not in a woke way mind you). I am so tired of the hypocricy and bias that people show and refuse to own! I agree, it is somehow much worse on the left and I have been a leftie my whole life. I like to see myself as a realist now and I am enjoying being "Woke" enough to be able to see more than one perspective! You keep on keeping on Dave, I love your posts!
On the contrary I know you care a great deal.I have been studying teaching with storytelling and read your article. It made me think about how storytelling shapes emotions and why people are drawn to negative narratives. It seems like doom-laden stories hook readers because of our natural negativity bias, but what keeps them engaged isn’t necessarily the fear—it’s the fight against it. Stories like The Walking Dead show apocalyptic chaos, but what really resonates is the resilience and hope of the survivors.
Maybe the challenge isn’t just pointing out that people are choosing doom, but figuring out how to make optimism and problem-solving just as compelling. What if we structured narratives to start with fear but end with resilience—acknowledging the threat while leading people to a sense of agency and hope?
Curious what you think:
"How can doom narratives be reframed to be just as gripping while leading to empowerment?"
Holy cow, I was right! I totally thought you were doing an experiment with the tone of your posts 😂
Neoliberalism is a velvet gloved system that silently consolidates power through economic violence, weaponizing market freedom to entrench systemic inequality.
Neoliberalism is driven by the fear of elites who feel they just don’t have enough capital and power. As these consolidate at the top, our collective insecurities and low self esteem make us easy to manipulate.
Recognize the blatant pyramid scheme, quit the rat race, focus on health and community. Come on in, the water is fine!
Keep pumping out the thoughtful, well researched optimism, fuck the doomscrollers and fear mongers!
I think this has to be a cultural shift. And your articles pave the way ;). I just think Nihilism wont be the answer. People will figure … but it probably takes more than 150 years…
Its a negative assessment. Its an investment technique in risk management. Since were little temporary meat sticks that go broke so easily some are wise enough to run both + AND - signs before their experiments. The - is more defensive, the + more offensive. It takes both to pkay the game. And yes - get more because of human frailty.
Solid essay. I am with you on most of the points. But I don't understand your casual dismissal of climate change related concerns. There are many models that project mass migration and civil unrest due to a decline in food production and extreme weather. And it is blatantly not true that we are doing everything we can when we don't have basic policies like pricing in carbon pollution implemented globally or the necessary level of investment in clean tech. To react to that with "the planet has been warmer before" seems a bit reckless? Especially when considering the impact on developing nations who are going to be hit far harder because of their geography
What am I missing?
Look up solar and renewable targets. They're all ahead of schedule.
I have. I worked in climate tech from 2017 till 2024 and now I write about the Metacrisis. The fact is that our energy consumption is increasing faster than we are increasing renewables. Our fossil fuel use continues to grow instead of being replaced by renewables. See- https://www.artberman.com/blog/energy-aware-1-there-is-no-energy-transition-away-from-fossil-fuels/
Not to mention that electricity is just about 20% of global energy consumption. Hopefully, we will be able to electrify everything or move to hydrogen or something eventually, but we are a long way from that right now.
Not to mention that we don't have enough raw materials for the green transition? Are you familiar with the work of Simon Michaux on this front? If not, please check out- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pwmygkdoGgc
Familiar with all that, and the metacrisis is not a good frame, and ignores history. We can't use energy that does not exist. That constraint will force the correct behavior. Look up Theory of Constraints.
Can you elaborate on what part of history Metacrisis ignores? A lot of the discourse in the Metacrisis circles specifically points towards how civilizations that ignored the warning signs we see today collapsed.
I am also confused by your comment on not being able to use energy that doesn’t exist. Your previous comment seemed to point towards renewables providing us sufficient clean energy. Now you seem to be indicating that there isn’t enough energy but that will force people into the correct behaviour?
If energy becomes a constraint then why would people not try to start conflicts/invasions in order to capture energy sources so as to not compromise on their living standards? Why would it automatically force the correct behaviour? This also assumes that everyone is correctly assessing all the constraints in the first place
The primary problem with metacrisis is that it ignores the fact that catastrophes have a blast radius. Metacrisis theory suggests that the entire world is constructed of a house of cards built on top of a series of dominoes, and that it will all just implode. But failure domains exist, diminishing returns exist, and so on. Metacrisis fabricates an entirely new model of calamity that has never been demonstrated in reality. Yes, many systems overlap and share boundaries, but that doesn't mean that every system is wholly dependent upon every other system.
As far as "we can't spend energy that doesn't exist" this is just basic physics. And yes, if you run out of energy, you are forced to adapt. There are several ways to adapt:
1) spend less energy
2) innovate and make more energy
3) steal energy (as you posited, though there are plenty of reasons this won't happen at scale).
In systems theory, we call this a "forcing function"
Metacrisis theory itself was never positioned to be prescriptive, or even accurately descriptive. Merely a "lens" or "frame" by which to "make decisions" in other words, it is not peer reviewed, not accepted by consensus, and is not a useful instrument. It is totally untested. It falls into the same camp as instrumental convergence and other doomer narratives.
The onus is on Daniel to provide evidence of any of his claims (which he hasn't, won't, and can't provide)
https://open.substack.com/pub/newamp/p/the-new-american-perspective?r=1fplc5&utm_medium=ios
"You guys are just addicted to outrage and scaremongering, and as a competent writer, holy shit you have no idea how easy it is to manipulate you."
I needed to read this today, and I’ve seen other well-known Substackers say similar things. I'm newish here, and committed to trying to write as thoughtfully as I can about solutions and creativity and positivity. But I am also pretty sure that if I wrote something negative, dark, snarky and grim (ideally about feminism/redpill/politics/AI/sex/Adolescence, it would be noticed far more readily. To my own gain (perhaps, plenty of people overrate their writing abilities) but with no positive addition to humanity's discourse.
Outrage is a billion-dollar, profitable 'non-profit' industry!
Wonderful call out for personal ownership and critical thinking vs pablum reactivity. Ellul and others approve.
It's like I'm looking in a mirror.
CGP Grey did a video on memes and how rage was the absolute most effective and virulent meme there is...next to cats in boxes.
Thats pretty much all there is now, amplification of victimization and outrage. People get so wrapped up in it, it robs them of their agency.
It was a good read. Thanks.
We like doom as long as it's not our doom
I think I'm on a different beat here.
I agree that negativity bias is a problem we need to face. I am also optimistic, now, about AI and don't have much patience for the negativity-driven doom machine around it.
I agree with the broader message here, but the devil is lurking in the details.
Let's take this chart of changing sentiment in America, for example. There is a classic blunder being made here: surface area does not vote. People vote. And the majority of people tend to live in very small areas, geographically. When you look at the actual numbers, the shift in the last election was a niggle, not a quantum leap. Who benefits, by the way, from this misinterpretation?
Then let's talk about the climate science. And let's apply David Shapiro's recommended advice to use AI to research things. I asked Perplexity whether or not previous warming periods mean we shouldn't worry about the climate now. Guess what 30 seconds of deep research revealed?
"The evidence provided by paleoclimate research actually strengthens rather than diminishes concerns about current climate change. While Earth has certainly been warmer before, those conditions developed over much longer timeframes, allowing ecosystems and species time to adapt. Additionally, past warming events occurred before human civilization existed, so they posed no threat to agricultural systems, infrastructure, or populations concentrated in vulnerable coastal areas."
There's a difference between negativity bias and a calm, rational concern based in evidence. If someone is standing in front of a train, shouting at them to get out of the way isn't fear mongering, it's sound advice. Climate concerns are well justified, as anyone with Perplexity and a desire to know the truth can easily discover.
In the interest of not succumbing to negativity bias myself, I'm going to stop here, because it gets worse. All I'll say is that David gave me hope when he said that everyone should get their news from AI, or at least to fact-check it.
I can only hope that he chooses to follow that advice.
Dude! I completely agree with you 💯 you nailed it!
Excellent! 🎯 (BTW: I read all your posts ... good stuff!)
The exact same thing happened to me. Woke up the day after the election and actually woke up! (Not in a woke way mind you). I am so tired of the hypocricy and bias that people show and refuse to own! I agree, it is somehow much worse on the left and I have been a leftie my whole life. I like to see myself as a realist now and I am enjoying being "Woke" enough to be able to see more than one perspective! You keep on keeping on Dave, I love your posts!
On the contrary I know you care a great deal.I have been studying teaching with storytelling and read your article. It made me think about how storytelling shapes emotions and why people are drawn to negative narratives. It seems like doom-laden stories hook readers because of our natural negativity bias, but what keeps them engaged isn’t necessarily the fear—it’s the fight against it. Stories like The Walking Dead show apocalyptic chaos, but what really resonates is the resilience and hope of the survivors.
Maybe the challenge isn’t just pointing out that people are choosing doom, but figuring out how to make optimism and problem-solving just as compelling. What if we structured narratives to start with fear but end with resilience—acknowledging the threat while leading people to a sense of agency and hope?
Curious what you think:
"How can doom narratives be reframed to be just as gripping while leading to empowerment?"
Holy cow, I was right! I totally thought you were doing an experiment with the tone of your posts 😂
Neoliberalism is a velvet gloved system that silently consolidates power through economic violence, weaponizing market freedom to entrench systemic inequality.
Neoliberalism is driven by the fear of elites who feel they just don’t have enough capital and power. As these consolidate at the top, our collective insecurities and low self esteem make us easy to manipulate.
Recognize the blatant pyramid scheme, quit the rat race, focus on health and community. Come on in, the water is fine!
Keep pumping out the thoughtful, well researched optimism, fuck the doomscrollers and fear mongers!
I think this has to be a cultural shift. And your articles pave the way ;). I just think Nihilism wont be the answer. People will figure … but it probably takes more than 150 years…
Its a negative assessment. Its an investment technique in risk management. Since were little temporary meat sticks that go broke so easily some are wise enough to run both + AND - signs before their experiments. The - is more defensive, the + more offensive. It takes both to pkay the game. And yes - get more because of human frailty.
This is the first Substack I’ve gotten from you, David. I migrated over from YouTube. And “catastrophe porn” describes it well. Thank you!