Five Worst Inventions

Berlin Wall

A few days ago I was taking my (almost) daily walk along the beach, allowing the water to wash around my feet, ankles, and calves. I listened to the waves lapping upon the shore and the sound of gulls flying overhead. The sounds and sights were pleasant and calming.

As I continued walking and paddling I noticed a man coming towards me holding a mobile phone in front of him, peering at it. When we passed I waved and offered a cheery “good morning.” There was no reaction, he continued on, not seeming to notice his surroundings or my greeting.

I thought to myself, mobile phones have to be one of the worst inventions we humans have ever made. For the rest of my walk I thought about that, and wondered what would be my “top five” worst inventions? What criteria would I use to make such a judgment?

By the end of my walk I had come up with these three criteria for deciding on the “top five” worst inventions of humankind: 1. That the invention had a negative impact upon the earth and our relationship with nature, 2. That the invention served to increase the separation between us and exacerbate our intolerance of one another, and 3. That the invention worsened our mental health and/or our sense of well-being.

With these criteria in mind, here are my “top five” worst inventions. Please note that these are subjective and you may not agree, and may have a different “top five.” Also, each of these inventions may have their benefits, but, as I see it, the harms are greater. What are my “top five”? In no particular order they are:

Fences. The purpose of a fence is to either keep someone or something in or keep someone or something out. Their main purpose is to divide. Archaeological evidence shows that the first fences, often made of earth mounds, stones, or wood, appeared about 10,000 to 5,000 BCE. They arose in conjunction with sedentary agriculture and functioned to keep predators and scavengers out of crops, or to keep domesticated animals in.

Eventually, because of the transition from hunter/gathering to sedentary living, fences became walls around villages, towns, and cities. They were erected to provide security from opposing groups of humans. They also became markers of a new human feature – the privatisation of land. Take a walk in the countryside these days and how many times do you see a sign on a fence that reads, Keep Out, Private Property?

Walls (simply more elaborate fences) are used commonly to separate and divide. In the last 100 years two of the most well known walls have been erected: the Warsaw ghetto wall erected in November 1940 used to imprison 460,000 Jews in an area of just 3.4 km², and; the Berlin Wall, erected in August 1961, which divided the city of Berlin and separated families, friends, and lovers. Even today, walls exist in many cities of the world, and their purpose is to divide also. Most of us do not even think of them – they go under the rubric of gated communities.

Fences serve to separate us. They also serve to maintain our dominance over domesticated animals.

Ploughs. Ploughs are also linked to our domestication of plants and crops. Ploughs allow us to turn a diverse area of land into mono-agriculture, which is dependent upon the addition of pesticides, fungicides, and artificial fertilisers to ensure crop production.

The first ploughs seem to be hand-held plough-like devices used by early Egyptians to clear rocky soil. By the 6^th millennium BCE oxen were being used to pull early ploughs in Mesopotamia and the Indus Valley.

As time progressed, ploughs became mechanised and automated. Ploughs have enabled huge multinational agriculture companies to wreak havoc upon the land with mono-cultural cropping.

Ploughs and plowshares are often referred to as the goal of pacifist and peace movements worldwide. The phrase, ‘They shall beat their swords into plowshares’ comes from the Bible (Isaiah 2.4). A statue bearing this sentiment is on display in the United Nations Art Collection.

Yet, as Stephen Jenkinson caustically points out, ‘From the land’s point of view, there is no difference between swords and plows.’ ¹

Guns. The first guns were invented in China around 1000 AD, following the invention there of gunpowder in the ninth century. Guns spread throughout Eurasia during the 14^th century, with the word gun coming to us from the Old Norse word gunnidr meaning war-sword. Hence, guns have been associated with warfare and violence since their inception.

It would be hard to propose a more lethal means of killing another human being (or animal for that matter) than a gun. Since the 14^th century guns have morphed into; arquebuses, muskets, pistols, revolvers, machine guns, cannons, artillery, mortars, howitzers, tanks, and the modern-day drones that enable dissociated and anonymous killing.

The ultimate “gun” today is undoubtedly the nuclear warhead. There are well over 12,000 nuclear warheads in the world today, held by nine different countries. Russia and the USA hold the majority of these with more than 5,000 apiece.

Guns have worsened the divide between us.

Automobiles. I tossed up whether to identify this worst invention as the combustion engine or the automobile (utilising the combustion engine.) However, since there are now many vehicles that do not use the combustion engine as its automotive power, I opted for the automobile.

Whether the motive power is the combustion engine or an electric engine (or a combination of both) the automobile has had a terrible impact upon the environment of the Earth. Automobiles take up huge amounts of space in many of the cities of the world. The amount of land devoted to them (roads, streets, car parks) can be as much as 25% of the city’s area. The pollutants that automobiles emit are well known, but what may not be so well known is the weight of vehicles that contribute to the wear and tear of tyres. Some research suggests that tyre wear contributes 2,000 times more particulate pollution than the exhausts. EVs (electric vehicles) are not immune to this, indeed are worse, as the weight of an EV is significantly greater than that of a combustion engine vehicle.

In 2023 I coined the term autobesity to label the problems of automobiles. The blog is accessible here.

Mobile Phones. The mobile phone has only been available commercially since 1983 yet it has probably been responsible for an increase in social isolation, cyber bullying, teenage anxiety and depression, e-waste, environmental degradation, an increase in electricity usage, and a dumbing down of our cognitive abilities than any other such contraption.

When the inventor of the mobile phone, Martin Cooper, was testing out his invention he walked across a street whilst speaking on his phone. He later admitted to a friend that doing so was ‘probably the most dangerous thing I have ever done in my life.’ He is correct. A study in the US in 2009 found that 5,474 people had been killed because of the use of mobile phones in traffic. Repeated studies show that the use of mobile phones are responsible for 25% – 50% of all police-reported vehicle accidents.

I have covered this topic in greater depth in a blog available here.

The Worst Is Yet To Come

One invention that is currently underway could easily be the worst yet. Artificial Intelligence (A.I.) has the potential to exacerbate all other problems, making them worse than they already are (if that is conceivable.)

The godfather of A.I., Geoffrey Hinton, has been warning us for a few years now. In a recent interview Hinton cautioned that ‘If you want to know what life is like when you’re not the apex intelligence, ask a chicken.’ A short (2 min) excerpt from the interview is here, a longer (21 min) clip is here.

Even though he recognises benefits of AI, Hinton warns that ‘unless we do something soon, we’re near the end.’ A chilling thought. The lessons from the other five worst inventions would suggest there may not be much hope of us doing something soon.  

Note:

1. Stephen Jenkinson, Come The Romans, on the CD Dark Roads, Orphan Wisdom, 2020

Choosing To Make A Difference (Vale: Jane Goodall)

Dr. Jane Goodall, DBE, with orphan chimpanzee
at Tchimpounga Sanctuary.

Jane Goodall made a difference in the world. She also encouraged others to make a difference. Just six months before her death (on 1 October 2025), Jane Goodall was interviewed by Brad Falchuk for a Netflix series entitled ‘Famous Last Words.’ The premise of the series is to interview notable people and then publish the interview posthumously.

Jane Goodall is the interviewee in episode 1 of this series. In the interview Jane is asked about the message she would like to leave for those listening following her death. She responds clearly; ‘Every single day you live, you make a difference in the world, and you get to choose the difference that you make.’ A little later in the interview she reiterates this and adds, ‘You have the power within you to make a difference. Don’t give up.’

These words echo those she wrote in her acclaimed 2021 book The Book of Hope.

Jane Goodall did not just say these words – she lived them. She made a difference in the world with her life. Had it not been for Jane Goodall we possibly would not understand the world of chimpanzees and gorillas anywhere near as we do today. As a consequence of this understand it can be argued that we therefor understand more of ourselves, as Homo sapiens. Chimpanzees are, after all, our closest evolutionary cousins. We share about 98.8% of our DNA with chimpanzees, and bonobos.

Returning to Goodall’s encouragement to make a choice about the difference we make in the world. How do we make that choice, and what sort of choice should it be?

Earlier this year the world also lamented the passing of another notable woman with a similar message to those of Jane Goodall. Joanna Macy, like Jane Goodall, made a difference in the world. Her words address the question of what difference to make and how to choose.

‘You don’t need to do everything. Do what calls your heart. Effective action comes from love. It is unstoppable… We will never be able to build what we have not first cherished in our hearts.’

These two women, Jane and Joanna, are two of European culture’s true Elders. Both lived to reach their 90s, and both advised us to make a difference in the world. Furthermore, they both recommended what difference we make and how to make the choice.

For each of them, this advice can be encapsulated in just two words:

Love and Hope.

Find what is in your heart, they both advised, and then do not give up.

Let us not forget their words and their actions.

Agricultural Devolution [1]

The Agricultural Revolution, beginning about 10,000 – 12,000 years ago, is often considered to be one of the greatest inventions or innovations of human history. Where would we be today if it were not for the Agricultural Revolution?

Well, that is a very good question.

Most of us would probably answer that we would be a lot worse off without agriculture. We would still be having to forage for food and hunt out prey just to eat and survive, or so the thinking goes. We would still be living in caves or crude shelters the common understanding tells us.

The Agricultural Revolution has enabled us to progress and distinguishes us from a primitive and crude existence, doesn’t it?

At least that is the story that most of us have grown up with and learnt from history books, from our parents and teachers. Agriculture is what we see every time we enter a supermarket; walking the aisles  and reaching for items off the shelf confirms our belief in the superiority of an agriculturally based society.

It is a nice and comforting story. But, it is based more on fairytale than on reality.

Agriculture just may be the most unhealthy innovation in our history. How so, I hear you ask.

The science of paleopathology has been very helpful in enabling us to gain a greater understanding of the lives of our ancestors before the advent of agriculture. From the mid-20^th century onwards paleopathology (the study of ancient disease and injury) has vastly increased our knowledge of ancient societies and their health or unhealth.

At the end of the last Ice Age (roughly 11,700 years ago) the average height of a male hunter-gatherer in Europe was 1.78 metres and 1.68 metres for the average female hunter-gatherer. The Agricultural Revolution swept from the Fertile Crescent through Europe between about 10,000 years ago and 6,000 years ago (when it reached Britain.) In that period, the average height of human beings (now agriculturalists) dropped, respectively, down to 1.60 metres for men, and 1.55 metres for women.^2,3 That is a significant decrease.

The average height of men and women in Europe has only in the past century or so returned to that of pre-Agricultural Revolution times.

Dental health also showed a decline post-Agricultural Revolution. Cavities and enamel defects appear far more frequently in the population following the take up of agriculture.

The Agricultural Revolution included the domestication of animals for the first time (apart from a few animals kept as pets previously.) This domestication became a breeding ground for a number of diseases and plagues, such as smallpox, measles, tuberculosis, and cholera. These diseases entered humans from their domesticated farm animals, and were exacerbated by human and animal densities brought about by the rise of large settlements and cities.^2,3

How did this happen?

Whereas hunter-gatherers had previously enjoyed a wide variety of food sources, agriculture focussed very much on starchy crops, e.g. corn, rice, wheat. Jared Diamond refers to this as ‘the farmers gaining cheap calories at the cost of poor nutrition.’⁴

Not only was agriculture a poor substitute, it also was prone to drought, floods, fire, locusts, and other disasters likely to wipe out a whole year’s crop. Starvation became more likely following the Agricultural Revolution, not less.

Ah, but all that is behind us now, we have got over the worst of it, and now agriculture is of benefit in feeding us, isn’t it? We are now more healthy than we have ever been, we are living longer and better, are we not?

Yes, and no!

Those same three crops – corn, rice, wheat – still provide more than 50% of the calories consumed by humans.

Tuberculosis, cholera, and measles still curse the people in many countries of the world. It is sobering to note, too, that some diseases are now greater than ever before – especially those related to eating, food, and – agriculture. Obesity rates in most westernised nations have been trending upwards for many decades. Diabetes too, hardly heard of in hunter-gatherer societies, has been trending upwards – rising at a faster rate than many other chronic diseases.

But, we are living longer, are we not? Yes, we are. Life expectancy has been increasing. For many, life expectancy has doubled over the past couple of centuries. Is this longer than it was for our hunter-gatherer ancestors? Again, the answer is yes and no!

Paleopathology informs us that the life expectancy, at birth, for those living prior to the Agricultural Revolution was about 30 years – roughly the same as for Europeans two centuries ago. However, the life expectancy of hunter-gatherers is skewed towards the shorter end of the continuum because of high infant and childhood mortality. Once childhood had been surpassed, the average hunter-gatherer could expect to live for around 70 to 80 years – approximately that of today’s humans on average.

Two more questions need to be asked.

First, are we really living longer, or are we, in reality, dying longer? In other words, have we extended our life, or have we extended our death, as Stephen Jenkinson would claim.⁵ For many the last decade or two of life is actually a lengthy dying process.

Second, is it agriculture that has enabled us to live longer, or is it improvements and innovations in medical interventions? If we ponder this question, we must admit that most of our increased longevity has been because of innovations in medical knowledge and practice. Many diseases that once plagued us have declined, or been totally eradicated, not because of better nutrition and agriculture, but through medical knowledge.

Finally, let me quote Jared Diamond again. He claims that the ‘advent of agriculture…(was) the worst mistake in the history of the human race.’⁶

The history of agriculture suggests that he may be right.

Notes:

1. Devolution has two meanings. One is the transfer or delegation of power from a higher body to a lower one (e.g. from central government to local government). The second meaning is a descent to a worse state. It is the second of these meanings that is used here.

2. Jeremy Lent, The Patterning Instinct: A cultural history of humanity’s search for meaning, Prometheus Books, Maryland, USA, 2017

3. Jared Diamond, The Rise and Fall of the Third Chimpanzee, Vintage Books, London, 2002

4. Ibid. p169

5. Stephen Jenkinson, Die Wise, North Atlantic Books, Berkeley, California, 2015

6. https://www.discovermagazine.com/planet-earth/the-worst-mistake-in-the-history-of-the-human-race

Wave or Particle Are We?

In the 17^th century scientists debated, sometimes heatedly, whether light was a wave or consisted of particles. Advocating for the concept of light being a series of particles was the English polymath Isaac Newton, and on the side of a wave theory was the Dutchman, Christiaan Huygens.

Hundreds of experiments later (most famously the double-slit experiment) and the debate may now be more muted, but unresolved. Depending upon the experiment, and crucially, the observer, sometimes light behaved like a wave, and other times like particles. To accommodate this apparent paradox, the scientific community refers to this as the wave-particle duality.

Perhaps it is truer to say that light is both a wave and a particle, and also that it is neither. To many of us, if we think about it at all, light remains a mystery.

To those of us in the lay community our most common way of thinking of waves is as a series of ripples in a pond, with all parts of the ripple connected to all other parts. A particle we conceptualise as a single entity occupying a localised, unique space.

What are we?

Can we think of ourselves in the same way? Do we act as a wave, or do we act as particles? I do not wish to take the analogy too far, except to make the observation that we can detect both ideas in the way in which we act.

We act like a wave when we act collectively, with a cultural heritage and mannerisms.

We act like particles when we act as individuals, perhaps bucking the trend (ripple) of the collective.

Sometimes one way of acting is in our best interests, and other times the other way. Sometimes acting as an individual can result in unhealthy or damaging outcomes. For example, nowadays in a culture that understands the ill effects of smoking, continuing to smoke can often result in lung cancer and other debilitative outcomes.

Sometimes our wave-like behaviour can lead us to a horrible outcome. This is what happened in Germany during the Nazi regime, described so well in Wilhelm Reich’s Mass Psychology of Fascism. This was a highly illuminating book, given that it was published in 1933, prior to such atrocities as the holocaust and concentration camps.

Thus, we have the ability to act as both a wave and as a particle.

Again, as with light, we might conclude that we are both and we are neither.

If we are both, then we need to be mindful of the consequences of acting in one way or the other.

If we are neither, then we have an opportunity to explore something different; as sometimes has been claimed, a new, expanded form of human consciousness.

Something to think about next time you are sitting by a pond and watching the ripples upon the surface of the water. 

Decay Embraces Beauty

A couple of days ago on my morning walk I came across a decaying leaf on the ground (see photo.) I picked it up and thought to myself – what a beautiful leaf. The speckled and spotted pattern gives this leaf a lovely chaotic look. The broken tip and serrations on the edges tell me that this leaf has lived a full and productive life.

This leaf is a metaphor for our own lives, is it not?

This leaf reminds us that life is not simply about newness, freshness, or blossoming. Life is also about decay, dotage, and atrophy. It reminds us that everything is impermanent. Everything that is born will die.

Yet, this simple leaf shows us that at all stages of the life-death cycle there is beauty. Indeed, there are many cultures who consider that beauty increases with age, and that youth are too young to have grown into beauty yet. Whatever is believed, this leaf is a reminder that aging can be entered into with grace and beauty.

Decay too is a beautiful process. It is the process, whether a leaf or a human being, of giving back. The decaying process returns vital nutrients to the soil, and so contributes to the continuation of life, and to new births.

The eco-psychologist Bill Plotkin calls this the return to mystery. An apt naming, for we come from mystery, and we return to mystery.

The esteemed Catholic priest and student of earth history, Thomas Berry (who died at age 94) called this a time of fulfillment.

So, next time we look at a decaying leaf, or think of ourselves as slowly decaying, think again. There is profound beauty in that process.

Whether we be mottled and specked, and with bits missing around the edges, we are entering the time of fulfillment, mystery, and beauty.

Bow To A Rock

Kummakivi balancing rock
in Finland

The Thai monastery, Wat Suan Mok, was under the guidance of the abbot Ajahn Buddhadassa. He was approached by a rich man from Bangkok who offered to build a grand temple full of Buddha statues at the monastery. Ajahn Buddhadassa would not allow Buddha statues at the monastery and suggested to the rich man that the real Buddha was in the natural environment. He told the man that if he wanted to bow to something, he should bow to a rock.¹

This story is a reminder that Earth is not just where we live, but that we are nature and nature is us. We are not separate from nature; we are an intimate part of nature. Unfortunately, we have come to perceive ourselves as separate. This perception leads to human exceptionalism and the demeaning of all things.

This story, though, reminds us that all things are worthy of respect.

Many indigenous cultures acknowledge the sacred in animals when they are killed for food, clothing, shelter etc. This homage may be by way of a prayer, an offering, or a bow. Trees too, are acknowledged when they are felled for making canoes or homes.

The sacredness of all life, including what we perceive as inanimate, is respected and honoured. This honouring is a recognition of the cycles of life and death.

How could it be otherwise?

The elements that make up our bodies are found also in the rocks, plants, and animals all around us. It is even conceivable that the atoms in our bodies right now are the same atoms that existed in a rock many millions of years ago. That rock was crushed, moulded, and broken apart by huge geological events. Eventually the soil was enriched by those elements, in turn providing nutrients for plants to grow. The plants then in turn were eaten by animals, and we humans ate the animals and/or the plants.

So, when you next eat a meal consider that the atoms contained in your food were most likely part of a rock somewhere on Earth millions or billions of years ago.

Isn’t that worthy of contemplation?

For those of us from a European/westernised heritage much of this recognition is lost within our culture. But, not irretrievable.

Many musical groups are now exploring the antecedents of westernised culture, and remembering that nature is us, we are nature. One such group is Heilung, made up of musicians mostly from northern Europe and Scandinavia. At the beginning of all their performances (it might be more accurate to call them rituals) a prayer is recited, which includes the following lines,

‘Remember that we are all brothers (sic),

All people, beasts, trees, and stone and wind

We all descend from the one great being’

Ajahn Buddhadassa was correct. The rocks are worthy of respect and bowing to.

Notes,

1. Cited in Rodney Smith, Stepping Out of Self-deception, Shambhala, Boston & London, 2010

Three Psycho-Emotional Impediments to Degrowth

We live today in a world where socio-environmental collapse for some has already begun, and for others is imminent. One of the few social movements that understands this and attempts to respond is the Degrowth movement. It is one of the few movements that understands that collapse is because of overshoot, described in detail in William R. Catton’s groundbreaking book Overshoot in 1982 – more than 40 years ago!¹

On the cover of his book Catton defined overshoot as ‘growth beyond an area’s carrying capacity.’ The area now is the whole world.

Arguably, we have so vastly outgrown global carrying capacity that we can no longer prevent collapse. However, that is no reason for despair or surrender.

The Degrowth movement is one of the few movements that has not given up, nor lapsed into despair. But it faces three psycho-emotional impediments towards getting its message widely accepted and acted on. All three are inter-related, however, I will outline them separately.

I have no panacea for overcoming these impediments. I do know that there will be no one-size-fits-all solution. The three impediments are: Going Back, Progress, and Positivity.

Going Back

This is perhaps the greatest barrier because it is fuelled by one of our strongest emotions - fear. Degrowth is often thought to mean we must go back; back to a previous age, an age in which our modern comforts and conveniences no longer exist. For decades we have been told that previous ages were worse (sometimes a lot worse) than those of today. We get shown pictures of darkened streets, cold houses without electricity, inferior medical interventions, and poor working conditions. Going back to such times is a scary thought. We would rather shun such a move.

Yet, were we able to travel back in time to those earlier periods and talk with our great-grandparents we might be surprised to find that we are no happier now than they were. We might also find that rates of depression, anxiety, and addiction were less prevalent.

Yet, the idea that going back entails a worsening of the current situation persists. Degrowth is not synonymous with ‘going back’ but the two notions have become entwined within the minds of many leaders and other people. It will be an emotional obstacle that the Degrowth movement will have to overcome.

Progress

If fear drives the impediment of Going Back, then desire drives the impediment of the myth of Progress. The idea of progress energises our desire for a better life, a life of greater comfort and more convenience (as well as conveniences). The idea that we must progress has been with us for a long time, and gained momentum following WW1, WW2 and the Great Depression with what Catton terms the Age of Exuberance. This Age resulted in consumption on a grand scale, with the American Dream being beamed into the living rooms of not only Americans but also the residents of westernised nations throughout the world.

Progress became associated with betterment, improvement, comfort, and convenience. It told us to look forward, to see tomorrow (or at least next year) as being better than today. Yet again, paradoxically, although we have greater “comforts” in our lives than our grandparents did, and even more than we did in our youth (for those of us of advanced years) our lives are no better. Mental health issues are worse, depression, self-harm, and suicide (especially amongst young men) are at similar, if not worse, levels than they were half a century ago.

Progress also comes at a huge planetary cost. The air we breathe is smog-bound in many cities. The water we drink is polluted and, in some places, highly toxic. The ground in which our crops are grown is being leached away and contaminated with pesticides, fungicides, and insecticides.

Advocates of progress cannot abide the Degrowth movement, because for them progress is growth. And growth, for those advocates, is the means by which all those future improvements are supposed to come about. Advocates of growth will fill our screens, radios, and billboards with adverts promising a better life in the future if you buy this product. Millions of dollars each year are spent on these advertising campaigns, and millions of people buy into the advert, and buy the product.  

Progress as a myth is a means that has become an end, yet without an end in sight.

The Degrowth movement will have to address the myth of progress.

Positivity

How many exhortations every day to be positive do we get bombarded with?

Positivity when it becomes toxic is an unhealthy state. Toxic positivity ignores and negates emotions such as sadness, sorrow, anger, disappointment, and such. Positivity tells us to ignore the perils, dangers, and cruelty of the world.

For the Degrowth movement, positivity is an impediment, because it so easily leads to the belief that there is no need to change. Positivity maintains and promotes the Business-As-Usual economic model.

Positivity is also a strong feedback loop stimulating the Going Back myth. Going Back is suggestive of negativity and so becomes a powerful disincentive to considering Degrowth as an option, let alone an imperative.

It is important to recognise that positivity is not the same thing as contentment. Contentment is able to hold both positive and negative states of mind. A contented person could be happy one day and sad the next, and be fully accepting of both states. Similarly, a contented person is able to appreciate the beautiful aspects of life at the same time as recognising the ugly aspects. A contented person is able to understand that we have overshot our carrying capacity and is able to know that we must change course.

How is the Degrowth movement to address these three impediments? I have only answers for myself. What I do know, however, is that these three psychological-emotional impediments must be addressed.

I would appreciate any thoughts, ideas, or possibilities.

Notes:

1. William R.Catton, Jr., Overshoot, University of Illinois Press, Urbana & Chicago, 1982