The Demon Haunted World – A Survivalist Counterfactual
I found myself watching survivalist videos last night. I had just completed a blog post and was
working on another (that is becoming a thesis rather than a blog) and decided
to take a break. I have dabbled in that
literature on and off over the past 30 years and found that it does not add
much. The end games are typically played out in popular movies and fiction. You
either find yourself in an impregnable underground shelter or wandering semi-aimlessly
over a barren and hostile landscape.
Both scenarios have their problems.
In the impregnable fortress there are the inevitable power
struggles, equipment breakdowns, outside attacks, functional and dysfunctional
alliances, and lack of planning. Good
recent examples include The Silo and Fallout. In the wandering scenario there seem to be a
plethora of hazards including violent psychopaths, cannibals, various zombies,
diseases, natural disasters, and the ever-present lack of food and water. Examples include The Road, The
Walking Dead, and The Last of Us.
Survivalists are more realistically focused. The brief
series that I watched emphasized escaping detection by any means. The implication was that you were in a secure
remote location with adequate food and water.
The assumption is that there are many people who were not prepared for when
the shit hits the fan or WTSHTF for short. Four days of starvation is enough to make
most people desperate and at that point they cannot be trusted. A corollary is that once they get skilled at
taking what they need from others – you may be the next target.
The first video discussed the importance of smoke. A
poorly constructed fire can lead to a smoke signal for people to see for
miles. That signal translates to
shelter, warmth, food, and resources to any desperate person who sees it. The author emphasized methods to minimize
smoke production. Elaborate underground survival shelters not only minimize
smoke but also heat signatures to avoid infrared detectors and missiles.
The second avoidable
signal to the post-apocalyptic miscreants is gunfire. You might be
thinking hunting, but the emphasis was on interpersonal conflict rather than
hunting. There may be better ways to
resolve a dispute and secondarily gunfire WTSHTF is not necessarily a red flag.
It is a sign out there that somebody has food and resources they want to
protect. The zombie mindset is “even if you do not have
a gun – you might be able to hang around in the darkness long enough to get
what you want.” No other ways were
discussed about how to avoid gunfire.
The final avoidable signal was light. Even as little as a candle represents
somebody with enough resources that they can and want to see in the dark. It
represents the last vestige of civilization.
For that reason, it must be blocked at all costs. Curtains were
emphasized as a practical measure but black out screens were preferable. It reminded me of the subtitle to Carl
Sagan’s classic book The Demon Haunted World (TDHW). That subtitle is: Science as a candle in
the dark. It seemed like a perfect metaphor
for what is currently happening in the world. To anyone who has not read the
book – the subtitle is from Thomas Ayd’s 1655 treatise on witchcraft A
Candle In the Dark where he described witchhunts as a way to delude the
people about what was otherwise unexplainable.
Sagan sums up the progress against witchmongering this way:
“Microbiology and meteorology now explain what only a few
centuries ago was considered sufficient cause to burn women to death.” (p.
26).
The title is a metaphor for reason and truth in the context
of dire superstition and this is captured by Sagan’s summation.
Many reviews of TDHW suggest that Sagan’s views are
formulaic – a few rules about how to assess facts and be skeptical along with
listing logical fallacies. That minimizes the context he provides about the
founding fathers and how they were impacted by The Enlightenment and science.
Sagan’s thesis is more complex. He is the first to acknowledge that science is
not perfect but that the method of science encourages and produces
self-correction. To capture reasoning that is strictly outside of formal
science, Sagan suggests that all matter of human endeavor like politics,
economics, and even specific policies can be subjected to scientific reasoning
and scrutiny and it will result in better results and prevent primitive biases.
Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic there has been
an almost continuous attack on science and scientific experts. The first Trump administration attacked
public health officials, physicians, scientists, and anyone affiliated with
them. They promoted ineffective and
potentially harmful treatments for COVID, suggested vaccines were problematic, said
that COVID-19 was no
worse than the flu, and that case and death rates were overstated. Several conspiracy theories were promoted
suggesting that HIV was a planned bioweapon, that NIH officials were corrupt,
and that the “planned” HIV epidemic was paralleled by the “planned” COVID
epidemic. If the COVID epidemic was not
planned it was supposed to have originated from a lab
leak in China despite all the evidence pointing against that. The problem is not merely a lack of training
in science and the scientific method.
The problem is that we have a large segment of the population that
really does not care about their ignorance of science and a large segment who
seem to happily take advantage of that on social media.
Sagan has a famous quote that is considered prophetic by
many:
“…Science is more than a body of knowledge; it is a way
of thinking. I have a foreboding of an
America in my children’s or grandchildren’s time – when the United States is a
service and information economy; when nearly all the key manufacturing
industries have slipped away to other countries; when awesome technological
powers are in the hands of a few, and no one representing the public interest can
even grasp the issues; when the people have lost the ability to set their own
agendas or knowledgeably question those in authority; when, clutching our
crystals and nervously consulting our horoscopes, our critical faculties in
decline, unable to distinguish between what feels good and what’s true, we
slide almost without noticing, back into darkness and superstition.” (p.
25).
Much has been made about manufacturing in the US and there
is an active debate. Specifically – is
it a feasible solution for whatever economic problems you claim it will
solve? I have seen business experts
interviewed who say it is not and others who have their own specialized supply
chains within the country as being a solution. How will it be compounded by
tariffs and an attempt to resuscitate the coal industry? The technological
power is concentrated at the monopoly level according to several court decisions. And what about artificial intelligence? There
are daily predictions that AI will replace not only truck drivers and assembly
line works but also doctors and teachers. There are grandiose claims that AI will "cure all diseases" in less than the time I have been writing this blog. Those aspects of Sagan’s prediction seem too uncertain to be useful.
The lack of knowledge in both the general population and at
the highest levels of government is also on display. Scientific knowledge and thinking is lacking
and that it is not enough. Any
reasonable analysis of population wide policies needs to include a scientific
dimension, a rational thinking dimension, and a moral/ethical dimension. This is the real current failure. As an example, the divisive rhetoric used around
the COVID-19 issue. There was a lot of uncertainty
about the best way to stop the pandemic. As physicians and public health
officials were learning about this and saving lives – the counter response was
that no measures were necessary including vaccinations. In the end public health officials were being
blamed for lockdowns and school closings that could only have been done by
local elected officials. That rapidly evolved to conspiracy theories that led to
threats of physical harm and legal action against some of the top
scientists. The culmination of this rhetoric
was recently evident when the Trump administration replaced a government webpage providing scientific information on COVID-19 with one that presents a
combination of conspiracy theories and pseudoscience. None of this sequence of activity included
science, rationality, or ethics.
This is what Sagan is referring to in his quote. The current
web page on COVID is emblematic of sliding into the modern version of darkness
and superstition. Like the old version the new one is as out in the open and accepted
by many. There is an army of celebrities, podcasters, media networks, social
media bots, and writers supporting it. Some of the wealthiest people in the
country claim they were “censored” because they opposed some suggested COVID
measures or supported anti-science rhetoric – even though there was no formal censoring. The dark narrative is
very present and it continues to take its toll in terms of cabinet appointees who
promote it and some who seek vindication against scientists and officials who
were making a good faith effort.
As far as science goes, whether that is hard science or the
dismal science of economics – we have a choice to stay in darkness and
superstition or move toward the light of science and facts. Not
caring about the smoke is the difference between surviving and living.
George Dawson, MD, DFAPA
Graphics Credit:
Campfire in the forest by Crusier, CC license BY-SA 3.0
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0>
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Campfire_in_forest.jpg
References:
1: Sagan Carl. The Demon-Haunted World – Science as a Candle
In The Dark. Ballantine Books 1997.
2: Ayd Thomas. A Candle in the Dark. Smithfield, London. 1655.