← New Books Network
New Books Network
Jon Mills, "End of the World: Civilization and Its Fate" (Rowman & Littlefield, 2024)
00:41:46
Loading summary
Transcript45 lines
- [00:00]
Atblinds.com Announcer
Atblinds.com it's not just about window treatments. It's about you. Your style, your space, your way. Whether you DIY or want the pros to handle it all, you'll have the confidence of knowing it's done right. From free expert design help to our 100% satisfaction guarantee, everything we do is made to fit your life and your windows. Because@blinds.com the only thing we treat better than windows is you. Visit blinds.com now for up to 40% off site wide, plus a professional measure at no cost. Rules and restrictions apply.
- [00:30]
Marshall Poe
Hello everybody, this is Marshall Po. I'm the founder and editor of the New Books Network. And if you're listening to this, you know that the NBN is the largest academic podcast network in the world. We reach a worldwide audience of 2 million people. You may have a podcast or you may be thinking about starting a podcast. As you probably know, there are challenges basically of two kinds. One is technical. There are things you have to know in order to get your podcast produced and distributed. And the second is, and this is the biggest problem, you need to get an audience. Building an audience in podcasting is the hardest thing to do today. With this in mind, we, we at the NBM have started a service called NBN Productions. What we do is help you create a podcast, produce your podcast, distribute your podcast, and we host your podcast. Most importantly, what we do is we distribute your podcast to the NBN audience. We've done this many times with many academic podcasts and we would like to help you. If you would be interested in talking to us about how we can help you with your podcast, please contact us. Just go to the front page of the New Books Network and you will see a link to NBN Productions. Click that, fill out the form and we can talk. Welcome to the New Books Network.
- [01:37]
Michael Simpson
Hello, I'm Michael Simpson and I'm pleased to welcome John Mills so we can discuss his recently released book, the End of the World Civilization and its fate. Now, Dr. Mills has had an impressive career as practicing professional, a researcher, an educator and writer in the psychology and psychoanalytic fields. His work bounds the world of philosophy and psychology, focusing upon both individual human behavior and the manifestation of the collective behavior in the social context. He is the author and or editor of over 30 books in psychoanalysis, philosophy, psychology and cultural studies. He is an emeritus professor of psychology and psychoanalysts at the Adler Graduate Professional School in Toronto, Canada. And John has received numerous awards for a scholarship, including for Godiva awards for his work that advances the field of psychoanalysts. And in 2015 he was given the Otto Waninger Memorial Award for lifetime achievement by the Canadian Psychological Association. Welcome, John.
- [02:48]
John Mills
Well, thank you so much for having me on.
- [02:51]
Michael Simpson
I'm looking forward to this discussion. So throughout the book you referenced the psychoanalyst Sigmund Freud, which is not necessarily surprising considering your professional background. But you also bring in the views of the German philosopher George Hegel, who lived in the late 18th century. Now why does his writings resonate with you?
- [03:12]
John Mills
Well, Hegel was the subject of my dissertation in philosophy at Vanderbilt. And so I was very much drawn to the German idealist tradition. Before that I was, you know, a Freud scholar. And so the two of them kind of married each other, so to speak, in my scholarly world. So I, I'm quite fascinated in a number of different topics in, in the history of philosophy. And so when I discovered the metaphysics of, of Hegel, I tried to expand my, my thinking to find ways of engaging psychoanalytic discourse.
- [04:00]
Michael Simpson
Okay. Now my undergraduate degree in biology focused on animal behavior. So I was pleased to see that you summarized a classic animal behavior study in Rat Aggressive Behavior, which conducted by, you know, John Calhoun. Now for our listeners, rats are put in a confined space. All the rats biological needs were provided by the researcher. And it was seen that eventually the rat society collapsed due to what may be characterized as a metaphor for the human psychodynamic between a human strive to love and biologically speaking, to procreate and human aggressive tendencies. As such, I infer that this is the path we are on with the world's population which will reach 10 billion by 2050. And I feel you have the same outlook. Have I misinterpreted your thesis here?
- [04:59]
John Mills
No, not at all. Yeah, I'm quite worried about what's going to happen when, you know, when the, when the world population reaches that number. I know there's a lot of talk these days about a decline in population growth and that that might be more of a, a longer term concern for the, you know, the fate of the human species. But I'm more concerned about what's going to happen before we hit that peak. Because, you know, given, given human nature, the, the more people there are, the more tendencies for human aggression to flourish. And when that happens, we could easily see a future scenario that leads to some type of societal decline, if not collapse on some level.
- [05:54]
Michael Simpson
Okay, so along these lines you introduced the doomsday argument, if I remember right. So for our listeners, can you encapsulate what this is but avoid getting deep into the Mathematical calculations you highlight.
- [06:12]
John Mills
Well, yes, basically it said if we, if we as human beings fall on a random timeline within the history of more or less the universe, then given the number of people that there are today, we're probably less or more close to our demise than not. So like think, think about that. The world population has doubled since I believe, was it 1980? We had 4 billion at the, at the turn of the millennium, at 2000, you know, here we had six and now we have eight. So the, the trajectory is that if we, if we continue on that pace, the, the existential risks and all these other elements that, that come into play are going to compound the, the notion that we're, we're closer to doom than we are, than we're not.
- [07:21]
Michael Simpson
Okay, so as a follow up, you, you know, the 18th century philosopher and economist Thomas Malthus, he posited the population growth being exponential, will outstrip growth in agricultural production, which was considered arithmetic growth. Both Malthus and a fellow economist, David Ricardo predicted widespread famine and human suffering is unavoidable. But now, two centuries later, the world's population has exhibited exponential growth. In just over two decades, the world population has grown from 1 billion, I mean two centuries, from 1 billion to 8 billion, as you mentioned. But thus far, agricultural production has kept apace through technological innovation and agricultural production. So how do you feel about the human capacity for innovation and technological advancement which can avoid the negative exponential trends one sees in the natural systems that support human society?
- [08:29]
John Mills
Well, that's a good example of why there may be hope that through, you know, through the promise of some type of technological advancement that we can find some viable solutions to these potential doomsday scenarios. However, we're seeing a lot more anxiety about, about AI these days that may, you know, draw into question whether or not technology might turn on us. Now I'm not necessarily paranoid in that way and I, I personally don't think I, I mean it's not, I'm not going to eliminate the possibility, but I personally don't think machines are going to acquire anything close to what we call as human consciousness, let alone emotions, let alone self reflexivity. But yeah, I mean, I'm going to leave it to the experts who, who do this for a living every day to come up with viable technological solutions like yourself.
- [09:42]
Michael Simpson
Okay, well, you mentioned the consciousness, which sort of triggers for me that you stated that we have unconscious tendencies for our self eradication. So for our listeners as a psychoanalyst, can you first define for them how you define the unconscious?
- [10:03]
John Mills
Well, let's, let's suppose that we, we accept the proposition that most of what goes through our minds we're not fully aware of, let alone fully self reflective on, on their source or content. We often just are, are just not processing these deeper experiential aspects of our embodiment of our cognition, of our decision making, of our moods. And they remain kind of underneath the surface. One can draw oneself attention to, let's say a certain emotional state or a thought or fantasy if one, one focuses their attention on it. But the premise that, that there are many aspects of our desires, of conflicts that are internally experientially felt that lead to anxieties and certain types of discomforts. And we have to try to find ways of ameliorating that internally. And we often do that through various defenses that help protect the self. So I believe that largely the, the mind operates on, on unconscious levels that then infiltrate consciousness in very disguised ways.
- [11:40]
Michael Simpson
Okay, thank you for that. So let's move on to saying that unconscious tendencies for our self eradication that you say we have. What do you mean by that?
- [11:55]
John Mills
Well, for, for people who haven't really studied, you know, psychoanalytic thought or haven't, let's say, been that, you know, knowledgeable or been in their own therapy that, that quickly when, when people start to look at themselves honestly and authentically, they invariably have to face very uncomfortable aspects of their life. Whether it be their past, whether it be how people have impacted on them, on their development, on their sense of self, on their self esteem and how the psyche is affected. So you know, one has to, to come to terms with, with all kinds of internal competing processes. And, and the mind is so complex is that we have, you know, myriad desires and wishes that are constantly being frustrated, that are constantly threatened and, and that we're also threatened by, by very aspects of who we are or, or potentially can become. And one thing has to do with, with our unconscious fantasies. And so what I mean by that is that most people don't walk around, you know, trying to apologize for all the negative aspects of, of who they are. If they're aware of them. They tend to keep them to themselves. They try to process it, they try to be mindful of how they come across to others. But then there, and I would argue the majority of people have no capacity to really, you know, self reflect in that way and they act out. They just allow various, you know, aggressive and desirous impulses to, to be released or projected upon other people. They'll find themselves constantly in, in, in interpersonal conflicts with people, they don't understand why they're not happy. And so, so basically there's a, you know, tempestuousness to the psyche that we cannot deny. And one of the things that I think is coming out here when we look at all the various, you know, dangers that are looming around us, such as like the climate change crisis, the, the threat of, of nuclear engagement, of, of war, of some, you know, inhuman aggressions, flourishing, is that, you know, we, we have a death drive and, and there, and it's, it's just spewing out in all these different ways and it's very self destructive. So on a collective scale, why is it that we're not intervening when we know that the world is on fire? Why is it that people still are living in, you know, this denial or what they call a hoax of climate change? Why is it that we're willing to, the leaders, in particular world leaders, are willing to play dice with politics that could lead to serious geopolitical consequences such as someone engaging in a nuclear attack on another country. So these are the, some of the things that I try to address in the book. And even though that people are, you know, let's say, either unaware of or they feel ambivalent about, nevertheless it's hard to deny the, the reality of, you know, of what we're experiencing as a planet.
- [16:18]
Michael Simpson
So let me stay on this unconscious tendencies for self, or self eradication for just for a second. Are these tendencies hardwired in us through evolution or is it the result of external socialization drivers?
- [16:36]
John Mills
Well, that's often a question that's posed as a, you know, in a binary way. And yeah, this is a pretty typical way that the public tends to think in terms of. Either it's innate and evolutionarily driven or it's due to cultural influences. When we think about mind and philosophy of culture, we really have to accept the fact that both are, you know, ontologically dependent upon one another and, or they're, they're mutually implicative forces. So I would certainly say both are operative. Whether or not we give more of an emphasis on, on environmental tendencies versus internal pressures is certainly up for debate. But, but yes, one would have to have certain evolutionary forces that are responsible for, you know, for survival and for, and certainly human aggression is poised in ways to help us survive. But you know, we're also complex, you know, creatures. We have certain degrees of freedom, certain degrees of freedom of will and choices. And that doesn't mean that we're hardwired just to go out and kill people. There's certain. Has to be certain contexts. Just like we're not hardwired to kill ourselves because that would go against evolutionary currents as well. But nevertheless, people do bring about their own destructions in very unconscious ways.
- [18:25]
Michael Simpson
Okay, well, thank you. Let me change. Change directions. Can you define what you mean by evil? Because the word shows up in your book quite a bit.
- [18:37]
John Mills
Well, I know that's a loaded term. And it, it typically, you know, evokes a certain theological, you know, or, or supernatural belief that there are metaphysical forces in, in. In the world that, that, that govern the universe, in particular our lives, and that's between good and evil. Actually, the term is a transliteration, I believe, of the Greek notion of. Of. And so mainly it's things that are bad. And so whatever is bad, we have all kinds of, you know, different ways of labeling it. So in, in essence, you know, evil doesn't necessarily have to appeal to, let's say, a, you know, a satanic force in the universe. It very much is instantiated in the way we act and relate to one another in our social environments. And in that way one can say that we're. We're all evil. It's just a matter of degree. I think it'd be hard press. We'd be hard pressed to find someone who would not want to admit that there's aspects of themselves that they would say is flawed or negative or, you know, even. Even immoral. The question becomes whether or not we are going to act on these thoughts or fantasies is another issue.
- [20:25]
Michael Simpson
So in your chapter, the Evil that Men do, you focus on the psychological pathology, dare I say, the dysfunction of the human species, whether individually or as a collective. And there you stress the concept of institutionalized evil, but you do not broach the antithetical, the good that is, is there a counterpoint and institutional lies Good?
- [20:52]
John Mills
Well, yeah, I mean, of course I was, you know, preoccupied in that chapter on, on the bad. But there are certainly good and goodness elements to us. All the, the most positive aspects of, of human life and flourishing would be falling into that, that realm of what we all cherish and desire. So whether or not we can con. We can live in a constant state of bliss is another question. There are certain tendencies, there are certain proclivities and possibilities for us to actualize, you know, the good things of life. Many people are encumbered by that in, in various ways. And even though they, some are, they can still go on to experience happiness and fulfillment. But there are also certain structural forces, institutionalized forces that can, you know, Inhibit, hinder, prevent, or even exacerbate current states of suffering. And, and when that happens, it can, it can unleash certain evil tendencies in people or whatever you want to call it, if you, if you want to tone down the language. It can bring out the worst of us, put it that way. And when it has to do with, you know, government or social structures or institutions or organizations that we just take for granted every day, let's say the economy, think about how, you know, the tariffs have, that the Trump administration's introduced, has had an immediate impact on people in the world. Some would, some would probably call that institutionalized evil. And yet I'd like to be careful and, and qualify that term to, to be a, you know, a meant for a human interpretation, not, not a, not a superhuman one.
- [23:25]
Michael Simpson
Okay. Well, you know, John, I ask these questions because you seem not to address the emotions that allowed societies to develop, including empathy, compassion, care, altruism. Many anthropologists, such as Margaret Me or Franz de Wall have written about this. Do you discount these positive emotions as possible counterpoints to what you seem to state as the unavoidable destructive human tendencies you highlight?
- [23:58]
John Mills
No, not at all. I very much appreciate that dialectical dimension to, to human nature. And another context is in other writings, particularly in my, my clinical work. I emphasize the very thing that you're talking about, you know, having, you know, humanistic attitudes of compassion and empathy and love for, for our fellow human people. So the notion here, though, is that again, the context is, is meditating on my, my concerns about what's going to happen to the future of the human species. And in the, in one chapter on, On Dysrecognition, this is something that I highlighted. It does seem like if you just turn on the news, if you, if you are, you know, reading any of the news sources that you might get legitimate ones, but not even that. If you just look at social media, I mean, there's nothing but an acting out of rage, of, you know, displacement of anger, of a lack of compassion, a lack of empathy that is like a microcosm of the, of, of the worst things. So it's not to say that of course, we would not be here if it wasn't for all these positive aspects of the human psyche and our, our need for attachment, for love, for social bonding, for community and for the larger conscious identifications with what we value and what we even idealize. That's the good aspect of who we are. I'm just a bit worried about people who don't, who can't Recognize others. And not only that, I mean, they can't because there's all kinds of, you know, developmental traumas that they have been exposed to that's affected their, their personality development and their psychic development that they fundamentally have the inability to, to really feel for other people's feelings, to feel compassion for others suffering because of these deficits. And, and then when you have people who willfully disrecognize others, meaning need to devalue, need to, you know, psychologically decimate them, it leads to societies where people are constantly feeling stale, they constantly feel invalidated, not, you know, not confirmed in their personhood. And it just leaves a ripple effect of, of all this psychic debris. And that's when people's desperations come out. This is when their frustrations come out. This is, this is when they, you know, they start to, to act out in various ways. And I'm not talking about, I'm not even talking about those who are mentally ill or psychologically disordered. I'm just talking about the average folk.
- [27:33]
Michael Simpson
Okay, so let me return to the rat analysis for a moment. Now there is classic research focusing on rats behavior making decisions with future rewards in mind, especially in tasks that involve delayed gratification. Corvids such as ravens and crows exhibit some of the same behavior. And animal behaviorists have also concluded elephants seem to exhibit strong cognitive abilities, including long term memory and problem solving skills. And there is direct evidence that they plan for the future, particularly in the context of social dynamics, food availability and migration. Cetaceans like dolphins and whales also show similar traits. But humans are arguably the most advanced species when it comes to planning for the future. We can set long term goals, consider multiple future outcomes, plan for contingencies, and make decisions based on abstract reasoning and foresight. Do you agree with this characterization about human evolutionary traits? And if so, why do you feel such human attributes? That this evolutionary human trait falls short in regards to dealing with the trends that are destroying our world that you highlight in your first chapter.
- [28:57]
Mint Mobile Announcer
Mint is still $15 a month for premium wireless. And if you haven't made the switch yet, here are 15 reasons why you should. One, it's $15 a month. Two, seriously, it's $15 a month. Three, no big contract. Four, I use it. Five, my mom uses it. Are you, Are you playing me off? That's what's happening, right? Okay, give it a try@mintmobile.com Switch upfront.
- [29:20]
Liquid IV Announcer
Payment of $45 per three month plan. 15 per month equivalent required new customer offer first three months only. Then Full price plan options available. Taxes and fees extra. See mintmobile.com Imagine fast hydration combined with balanced energy. Perfect flavored with zero artificial sweeteners. Introducing Liquid Ivy's new energy multiplier.
- [29:40]
New York Times User 1
Sugar free.
- [29:42]
Liquid IV Announcer
Unlike other energy drinks, you know the ones that make you feel like you're glitching. It's made with natural caffeine and electrolytes so you get the boost without the burnout. Liquid IV's new energy multiplier Sugar free hydrating energy. Tap the banner to learn more.
- [29:58]
New York Times User 2
Recently we asked some people about sharing their New York Times accounts.
- [30:01]
New York Times User 1
I would be very interested in having separate logins for for a shared subscription. I'm 35 years old. I still share my parents New York Times subscription.
- [30:11]
John Mills
I think if my teenagers were to have their own logins we could share articles. It doesn't let us play the same games as each other. I do the crossword. I do the spelling bee. I do the wordle. Please help.
- [30:23]
New York Times User 1
Having our own accounts would be amazing. My mom could save her own recipes. My friends could save their recipes. I want to get the weekly newsletter letter, but they seem to always go to my husband and then he doesn't forward them to me. We both love cooking. I'm a 30 minute and under dinner girly. My boyfriend is very elaborate. I think him having his own profile would be great. We love the New York Times and we would love to love it individually.
- [30:47]
New York Times User 2
We heard you introducing the New York Times Family subscription one subscription, up to four separate logins for anyone in your life. Find out more@nytimes.com family well, I certainly.
- [30:59]
John Mills
Have a great deal of respect for the biological sciences and evolutionary sciences. Who can deny that? I mean the fact that we're embodied or as you know, Aristotle would say we're ensouled, we're en. Mattered. So I mean it'd be hard to imagine you have a detached kojito that's floating around in the universe without having our embodied, affective and sentient existence. So having said that, though I do think there's a big difference between an animal. I mean in the sense that we're talking you've introduced the animal world to the human animal. And I think what really differentiates us in many ways is that we become self conscious of who we are. And, and like you said, we, we can meditate on, on the future and the future possibilities and, and there we have certain elements of freedom, degrees of, of calculating how we want to approach our futures. And this is, you know, also a major thrust behind existential philosophy. So it's anticipating and having some direct impact on the future.
- [32:31]
Michael Simpson
Okay, so if we have that ability, why are we destroying our world?
- [32:39]
John Mills
Yeah, well, that's, that's the, the big question. And I don't pretend here to have any pretentious answer. I, I'm certainly open to, to seeing things change, seeing interventions that may help us become more conscious of the fact that we're, you know, we're, we're contributing to our possible future demise. This is where the big, you know, the big ontological questions of what governs collective social life come into being. And, and you know, given that my background is mainly with the individual understanding, you know, the psychology of people who would, you know, come into my, my clinical practice or my consulting room, you know, answering this, these bigger questions is not, not have been that easy for me. And this is why this book took such a long time. But I, I certainly am struck by what I call a collective bystander fact that, that we, we don't seem to be stepping up our game to deal with the climate crisis despite all the legitimate sources, at least in my book, the legitimate sources, all these scientists who've devoted their careers and the empirical evidence that, you know, is before our very eyes, the threat of our, our world ecosystems collapsing. Well, what, what, what explains that? Well, there's so many different possibilities. You know, most people would say it's, you know, it's just too big of an issue for me to think about to fix. I, I don't know, it's overwhelming and one, one person really can't do it. It's going to take a collective or a collection of, you know, communities that come together so other forces that are going against this is completely self interest. You know, people don't want to give up their, their capital, their power. And you know, politicians often are, are only thinking about their, their next reelection campaign, not the long term, you know, goals in terms of what is best for the planet. So there's a variety of different reasons that, that committed, mitigate against more of a collective intervention, but I, I'm, I'm kind of left with others. It's, it's a big, it's a big problem to solve.
- [35:39]
Michael Simpson
So now we're both scientists, albeit in different fields. But there was a statement in your book that resonated with me and it said that there are various political and economic prejudice, prejudices that drive scientists and mathematicians to devise methodologies and equation models in an attempt to derive valid conclusions. So what did you mean like by that?
- [36:14]
John Mills
Well, I mean anyone who's been in the publishing world and particularly in, in social sciences, let's say, where it's easy to manipulate data. I mean, I've actually in my career worked with people who wanted to suppress certain data that we collected so they could maximize their, their ability to get, you know, statistically relevant, you know, results. So it's publishable. So there are many different kind of motivations that go into why, you know, why people want to create a certain, you know, or construct a certain scenario or a narrative that they want others to validate or buy into. Let's say the scholar just wants to advance their own theoretical agenda. And, you know, we're all guilty of that. It's just the whether or not we can provide convincing arguments and do we have, you know, data to, to back that up. The, some of the problem though, I mean, I can go into a critique of, of scientific methodology, but we are dealing with different kind of worlds. I mean, your discipline is different mine. And there are certain conventions that have been adopted and it's not so easy to step outside of those conventions. And when you do, you're often suppressed. You know, you're, they don't want your, your research to be released. They're trying to suppress your, your particular point of view. There might be extreme biases that are in, you know, from, from editors and from peer reviewers. And, you know, the politics of, of academia and publishing is its own, you know, its own, you know, show, so to speak.
- [38:20]
Michael Simpson
So you see, I interpreted that as the bigger politic and the bigger economy, you know, and the pressures there versus what it sounds like you is the sort of the, the politics and economics of the individual in place inside a discipline.
- [38:37]
John Mills
Well, yeah, I forgot the exact context that I was writing that it was probably, you know, thinking about capital and thinking about disparities in our societies, economic and so forth, but on a grant, on a grand greater scale, it would be our, you know, own self interests that come to the fore, whether it be on, on a large scale, such as a certain nation state to a particular political party that wants to advance their own agenda. You can easily manipulate truth and reality as we can see in the United States.
- [39:28]
Michael Simpson
Okay, so. So what do you want your, our listeners to take away after reading the book?
- [39:35]
John Mills
Well, I guess I'm hoping that it, it wakes people up. It. I'd be happy with, with not even having any grandiose outcome, but I'd be happy if people started to think about the systemic threats that, and particularly existential threats that face us. What can they do to contribute to thinking about ways of ameliorating these problems. And it really comes down to what individual consciousness is like for each person. I, I'm, as you know, I, I'm not advocating for a certain thing, necessarily a certain outcome. I'm just trying to explain and describe what, what I'm witnessing. But, but if people say, you know, say, I, I, I want to vote for who place my values above other self interests, and they want to get involved in their own way through organizations, through scholarship, through, through like, what, whether we it be through academic or grassroots kind of interventions, that it's better than sitting back and watching the world burn.
- [41:07]
Michael Simpson
Okay. Thank you. The book is the End of the World, Civilization and Its Fate, published by Rowan and Littlefield. Thank you.
- [41:17]
John Mills
John, thank you so much for having me on.