Dumbest Idea Yet

Eärendil

There have been some weird, crazy, and stupid ideas originating in the minds of humans over the years. The latest I have heard of has to be the dumbest yet.

The California based company, Reflect Orbital, has come up with the idea of putting arrays of mirrors into orbit around Earth to reflect sunlight back upon Earth at nighttime. The company claims that these mirrors will 1. enable lighting after dark and 2. increase the amount of sunlight available for solar panels.

The company’s stated aim is to launch and have operating 50,000 reflector satellites by 2035.

Reflect Orbital was founded in 2021 by an aerospace engineer and a mechanical engineer. In July 2026 the Federal Communications Commission (FCC, an independent agency of the US Federal government) granted the company a license to launch a proof-of-concept satellite to be launched as rideshare with a SpaceX mission sometime this year.

This satellite is to be named Eärendil, a character from Tolkien’s The Silmarillon. Eärendil sails across the heavens with a sparkling jewel bound to his brow. The jewel shines down it’s light and becomes the Morning Star. I wonder what Tolkien would make of Reflect Orbital’s first satellite, let alone 49,999 more of them?

In its decision to grant the license, FCC declared that the project is groundbreaking technology and that testing it is in the public interest. Somehow, the public does not agree. More than 1,800 public comments have been made about the project, with most of these opposed to the idea.

The founders of the company (both engineers) are obviously intelligent beings, yet their idea has to be one of the dumbest yet.

Humans may be intelligent, yet incapable of wisdom. Intelligence might enable us to make or do something. Wisdom enables us to determine whether it is a good or advisable thing to do. This idea of reflector satellites is proof that wisdom does not derive from intelligence.

Let me briefly outline three reasons for this assertion.

1. Earth-based astronomy would be placed at risk. Astronomers have predicted that 50,000 reflector satellites would make the night sky 3-4 times brighter than present. Large, professional, telescopes may be immune in some way, as the company has said that it can mitigate this risk for these telescopes. But that does not allay the fears of amateur back-yard stargazers and children and youngsters wishing to focus their telescopes on the planets, moons, and comets of the night sky. The sense of wonder inspired by gazing at the night sky will be severely diminished.
2. It is estimated that 50%-70% of animal species are nocturnal or exhibit some form of nocturnal behaviour. These reflector satellites will hamper their feeding, mating, and sleeping patterns. For some, it will seriously impede their navigational abilities.
3. The circadian rhythms of humans are likely to be gravely disrupted. Circadian rhythm sleep disorder (CRSD) has been shown to be a factor in bipolar disease,¹ depressive disorders in young people,² and in fatigue, insomnia, appetite loss, irritability, headaches, and other health issues. Long term disruption to circadian rhythms impinges severely the underlying metabolic functions of our makeup. In turn, this can translate into illnesses such as Multiple Sclerosis³ and cardiovascular diseases.⁴

The day/night cycle has been a naturally occurring one for millions of years. Animal and plant species have adapted to this rhythmic cycle (some have even adapted to rhythms as long as five months or more).

Interfering with this rhythm is asking for disaster.

Reflecting light upon Earth during what is normally nighttime is the dumbest idea yet.

Notes:

1. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6812517/  accessed 7 September 2026

2. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpsy/article/PIIS2215-0366(21)00034-1/abstract  accessed 7 September 2026

3. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0149763414000104?via%3Dihub  accessed 7 September 2026

4. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2657421/  accessed 7 September 2026

We Are Neanderthals

In 1856 the first recognised fossil belonging to the species Homo neanderthalensis (aka the Neanderthals) was discovered in the Neander Valley, Germany. Neanderthals inhabited Europe, Western and Central Asia during the Middle and Late Pleistocene epochs (approximately 800,000 to 12,000 years ago.) They became extinct approximately 40,000 years ago, although some may have survived a few thousand years longer in the Gibraltar region.

Another species, the Denisovans, were only recently identified, in 2010. The Denisovans inhabited Asia from about 200,000 to 32,000 years ago.

DNA studies of Neanderthals has been possible since the late 1990s, and their full sequence was published in 2010. Denisovans too, have had their DNA analysed.

One of the offshoots of these genetic analyses has been to discover that Europeans and Eurasians contain, on average, 1-4% Neanderthal DNA. People living in Asia, SE Asia, Melanesia, and Australian first nations people contain 4-6% Denisovan DNA.

Initially it was thought that the only people without any DNA from either of these species were sub-Saharan Africans. However, recently, it has been discovered that here too, Neanderthal DNA represents approximately 0.5% of their DNA. This has been cited as evidence for back-migration following the migration of Homo sapiens out of Africa.

These genetic discoveries show that inter-breeding occurred between Homo sapiens, Homo neanderthalensis, and Denisovans.

We modern humans (Homo sapiens) contain 1-4% Neanderthal DNA, or 4-6% Denisovan DNA.

We are humans with Neanderthal or Denisovan DNA.

That’s one way to look at it. But wait!

What if we took an oblique perspective?

What if instead of thinking that Homo sapiens contain Neanderthal DNA, we took the perspective that we are Neanderthal with between 96% and 99% Sapiens?

Ridiculous, I hear some scream.

Yet, we think this sort of thought many times. For example, I was born in New Zealand, as were my parents and all my grandparents. Yet, I can still identify myself as having Scottish, German, and English ancestry. I could, if I wanted, say I am Scottish, or German.

So, why not think of ourselves as Neanderthal, or Denisovan?

It is not as stupid as it may seem. It may even overcome some of the prejudice about Neanderthals that can be heard. It may also challenge the snide comments of “knuckle-dragger,” “ape,” or “caveman” that sometimes get levelled at those we think are stupid or inferior to ourselves.

Furthermore, thinking this way may help us recognise the benefits Neanderthal DNA offers us. Our immune system was given a boost, enabling us to ward off pathogens common in Europe and Eurasia and enabled us to survive in new territories. Our skin and hair were modified, supporting our ability to adapt to colder climates and differing levels of sunlight. It seems too, that our metabolism may have been influenced by Neanderthal DNA, allowing for adaptation to differing food availability.

Yes, it is possible to call ourselves Neanderthals, with Sapiens DNA.

Conjubilant and Confelicitous

In lastweek’s blog I proposed that the English language needed an antonym for the word schadenfreude. The Pali language from 2,500 years ago had a word meaning to delight in the happiness of another person. That word is muditā. However, I stated, the English language did not and suggested that English needs to find one.

Since that post I have had a couple of conversations with friends about this lack in the English language. Those conversations came up with a couple of candidates to fill the gap.

The first is the word conjubilant, which was suggested by one friend. As we know, to be jubilant is to be happy, joyful, or pleased. Jubilation is often expressed openly. Adding the prefix con attaches the meaning of with to the adjective jubilant. Thus, we get a word that means to be happy with, or joyful together.

Then, we did a search and discovered that the word conjubilant already exists in the English language. It entered the English language in the 17^th century and reached its peak usage (albeit limited) in the late 19^th and early 20^th century. Today, it is considered a rare and archaic word.

Conjubilant though, does not quite encompass the meaning of delighting in the happiness of another (or others.) It means to be joyful with others, perhaps in celebration of a common success or triumph, rather than being joyful for others.

The other word came through a more intensive search. We discovered (or, more accurately, re-discovered) the word confelicity. This word more accurately describes the feeling of pleasure in someone else’s joy or happiness.

As with the previous word, confelicity is also rarely used and has faded into disuse. Confelicity was coined during the (European) Enlightenment by scholars keen to derive an antonym to the word schadenfreude. If the history and experience of living in Enlightenment times is recalled, it is understandable why scholars and others would seek such a word.

However, confelicity remained embedded within the vocabulary of high-status and academic circles. It did not enter common parlance and has rarely to this day done so.

We could help it do so.

The words we use both describe the world about us as well as shaping our understanding of the world. The best-known formulation of this idea is the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis, named after two early 20^th century linguists, Edward Sapir and Benjamin Lee Whorf.

The hypothesis recognises that some concepts in one culture do not exist in another. One of the reasons for this may be that the concept does not have a word that names it. The hypothesis suggests that if a language does not have a word for a particular concept then the concept will, at best, be poorly defined, and, at worst, remain unrecognised. The most famous example of this is that of the Inuit language with more than 100 words for “snow” as the linguist Whorf (of Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis fame) announced.

The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis has two forms, a strong form and a weak form. The strong form submits that language determines thought and therefore our perception of the world. The weak form says that language influences thought. Modern linguistic scholarship accepts the weak form, with the strong form having fallen out of favour since World War 2.

Because words influence the way in which we perceive the world and ourselves, we could use words in a more thoughtful, considered, and encouraging manner.

Let us consider the two words, schadenfreude and confelicity.

Schadenfreude has increased tenfold in usage in the last forty years. In contrast, confelicity has hardly registered in usage.

When we look around the world we can see instances of schadenfreude most everywhere we look. We see it politically, we see it economically, we see it in our education systems, we can sometimes even see it in our health and welfare systems.

Confelicity, on the other hand, is not so often witnessed.

Might that be because we do not use the word?

As the famous aphorism goes: if you don’t use it, you lose it.

If we don’t use the word, we lose not just the word, we lose the concept it describes.

Let’s start using the word confelicity.

Let’s start being confelicitous.

English Needs An Antonym For Schadenfreude

In the mid-1800s the English language adopted the German word schadenfreude. In German schadenfreude means damage-joy. Dictionaries define it as malicious joy in witnessing the misfortune of others.

During the first century after adoption the word hardly entered common parlance. It began to be used more often from the mid-20^th century onward and by the mid-1980s was being used once in every 100 million words used.

However, since then its use has skyrocketed to being used once in every ten million words by 2020. A massive tenfold upsurge in less than forty years!

Prior to schadenfreude English had the word gloat from the 16^th century. Originally it meant to look at furtively and has a common root with the familiar glower. Parallel with the use of schadenfreude, gloat has also become more frequently used since the 1980s, having quadrupled in use in the same forty years.

What does this say about our culture? Are we becoming further and further disconnected from one another to the extent that we talk more often about finding joy in someone else’s lack of joy?

The words we use have an influence upon our worldview and our cultural psyche, and vice versa. Hence, a word such as schadenfreude both describes our worldview and shapes it at the same time.

Certainly, when we look around, and listen to some of the conversations around us, we hear examples of this often. The game of “us” versus “them” is frequently played out. Racism, sexism, and other forms of prejudice play this game. One of the prizes in this game is when the “us” team defeats the “them” team and “we” are able to gloat over the misfortune of “them.” That is schadenfreude.

An Antonym

Does English have an antonym to schadenfreude?

It appears not. English has words that come close to the meaning of being unhappy at someone else’s misfortune: e.g. sympathy, pity, compassion. But English does not have a specific word meaning to be happy at someone else’s happiness, joy, or good fortune.

Other languages do. The Pali language, for example, has the word muditā, meaning the joyfulness that comes from delighting in the joy of others. The word is used in Hindu texts that are at least two thousand years old, and was used by the Buddha even earlier.

Muditā has been in use in the Pali language, and others in India and surrounding areas, for well over two millennia. It has made a significant contribution to the worldview of cultures in that part of the world.

English, and German, it would seem have not been influenced by any similar words.

It’s time we found one.

An attempt was made by a commune in the Haight-Ashbury neighbourhood of San Francisco in the early 1980s. The Kerista Commune was an intentional grouping of people who believed in and practiced polyamory. In an effort to reject sentiments such as jealousy and envy the commune members fashioned the word compersion, from the French word compère (partner) and the English suffix sion. The meaning attributed to the word however was limited. It signified the happiness one felt for the happiness of a partner. Compersion was not extended to others outside the polyamorous community.

So, the English language is still looking for a word that means to take delight in the joy, happiness, or good fortune of others, whether of one’s immediate grouping or outside that grouping.

At a time when we English speakers are using words associated with finding joy in others discomfort more frequently, the search for an antonym for schadenfreude and gloat is vital.

The other approach we could use is to regularly appreciate, applaud, and find joy in the happiness of others. Out of such a milieu an antonym for schadenfreude might emerge.

Being Weird Is No Excuse

At a personal level there are signs that many of us are showing signs of disconnection from our own selves. There are many historical and psychological origins of this disconnection. Amongst these are: lack of community, individualism (especially toxic individualism), a flawed understanding of our basic nature, and identification with an isolated, autonomous, self.

When these are combined in a toxic cauldron it is easy to understand how we have come to be tragically disconnected from our own selves. The psychohistorian, Jay Gonen, notes that many suffering from this disconnection respond with the ‘hyper-vigilance of the haunted, the alert scanning of the insecure, and the continuous suspiciousness of the vulnerable.’¹ Could a better description of disconnection be spoken? The sadness of this condition is that the disconnection is primarily culturally induced, not the natural condition of humanity.

Moreover, extrapolating the worldviews, belief systems, and behaviours of those of us of a European heritage onto the rest of humanity is untenable, inappropriate, and leads to erroneous conclusions. Much of our so-called knowledge of human psychology and behaviour patterns come to us via studies in the behavioural science fields.

Yet, the majority of these studies are inherently flawed and biased. It is only recently that researchers in the behavioural sciences have thought to question the potential bias in these studies. Researchers in the Department of Psychology at the University of British Columbia did just that only as recently as 2010.² What they found is staggering, although probably not surprising. They found that in an analysis of the top journals in six sub-disciplines of psychology between 2003-2007 ‘…a full 96% of subjects were from Western industrialised countries, specifically North America, Europe, Australia, and Israel.’ Staggeringly, this analysis revealed that, ‘…a randomly selected American undergraduate is more than 4,000 times more likely to be a research participant than is a randomly selected person from outside the West.’

When these researchers compared the results of these westernised and Eurocentric studies with those from other parts of the world they were led to conclude that westernised, Eurocentric culture is weird. In fact, they were so stunned by this conclusion that they coined the acronym WEIRD as a label – Western, Educated, Industrialised, Rich, and Democratic. It is an apt tag, as weird also identifies those of us from these cultures as outliers, statistically speaking, in the expanse of humanity as a whole. In the Abstract to this research the authors warn that, ‘Overall, these empirical patterns suggest that we need to be less cavalier in addressing questions of human nature on the basis of data drawn from this particularly thin, and rather unusual, slice of humanity.’

The writer, political theorist, and researcher, Sarah Stein Lubrano was interviewed by Rachel Donald (creator of the podcast Planet: Critical) early in 2024.³ Lubrano cited the research mentioned above and took the next step. It’s ‘a weird fascination of our weird culture that we think the self is there and it’s the best and most likely explanation for human behaviour.’ Whereas, she went on, ‘…people in other cultures do not think this and that suggests that our sense of self is largely culturally constructed.’

Where does this leave our understanding of human psychology and behaviour? Certainly, we have to conclude that our (weird) ideas of humanity as a whole are flawed and may even be of little use. Where too, does this leave those of us who do trace our heritage in this (weird) way?

Somewhere along our ancestral path we began to disconnect from our selves, and we are continuing to suffer the consequences. Ominously, if Sarah Stein Lubrano is correct, then our Western, Educated, Industrialised, Rich, and Democratic sense of self is suspect and at variance with most of the rest of the world. Certainly, our weird construction of the self differs significantly from that of indigenous and nature-based cultures. Some self-appraisal and self-assessment would seem to be in order for those of us living in Western, Eurocentric cultures.

Any self-reflection of this sort must surely begin with a rejection of our notions of inherent evil, ill-will, nastiness, brutality, and selfishness at the heart of all humanity. Such notions are blatant errors.

Holding onto this falsity has saturated our culture with an enormous array of mental health issues, social behavioural problems, and sociological harms. The Hungarian-Canadian physician, researcher, and writer, Gabor Maté, has devoted an entire 500-page book to this topic. The Myth of Normal,⁴ according to Maté, is that ‘…what passes for normal in our society is neither healthy nor natural, and that to meet modern society’s criteria for normality is, in many ways, to conform to requirements that are profoundly abnormal in regard to our Nature-given needs – which is to say, unhealthy and harmful on the physiological, mental, and even spiritual levels.’ (emphasis in the original)

Writing almost 100 years before Maté, Sigmund Freud noted this same abnormality. Although Freud also subscribed to a base nastiness in humans, he did recognise that 1) it is civilisation itself, not the individual psyche, that disrupts the true nature of people, and 2) the social ills of the world are symptoms of this. Distressingly, Freud noted that, given the first two observations, ‘the psychoanalytic approach, or any individualised approach to psychological healing, may in the larger scheme of things offer no more than superficial relief.’⁵

No doubt this, and our weirdness, is why the Jungian psychologist James Hillman and the novelist Michael Ventura were able to provocatively title their co-authored book We’ve Had a Hundred Years of Psychotherapy and the World’s Getting Worse.

Notes:

1. Cited in Shepard, Paul. Nature and Madness

2. Joseph Henrich, Steven J Heine, and Ara Norenzayan, The Weirdest People in the World? Working Paper 139, University of British Columbia, 2010

3. Planet:Critical, interview with Sarah Stein Lubrano, The Cognitive Dissonance Crisis, Feb 1, 2024. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYPBzHLjgw4

4. Gabor Maté with Daniel Maté, The Myth of Normal, 2022

5. Cited in Chellis Glendinning, My Name is Chellis & I’m in Recovery from Western Civilisation. p 66

Mind Your Ps and Cs

Amongst all the conversations and papers relating to environmental and social collapse we will come across some P terms: problem, predicament, and (wicked) problem being the most prominent. As well as collapse itself, we will also come across some other C terms: complicated, complex, and chaos to name the most common.

Let us try to sort these out. What does each term mean, and how are they similar or different from each other.

Beginning with the Ps:

A Problem can be thought of as a difficulty or puzzle that has a solution. This does not imply that the solution is always obvious.

Problems normally have clearly defined (although some may be ill-defined) components, parameters, and boundaries. The links between these are also usually able to be defined and enumerated. Logic and reason can be applied to solving a problem.

(Wicked) Problems can be thought of similarly. The main difference however is that any solution is likely to create further problems. Solutions to wicked problems have a ripple effect. Sometimes the ripples can be unforeseen in advance. Thus, although the original problem may have been solved, the solution has left us with further (wicked) problems to contend with.

Predicaments are worse. A predicament has no solution. The word predicament is related to being able to make a prediction which seems to suggest that a solution is possible. However, somewhere in the 16^th century it took on the now familiar sense of predicating an unpleasant outcome. In that century it may have derived from the Middle English word lurken (or lorken) meaning to lie in wait, to remain hidden, and to ambush.

This Middle English etymology makes its present day meaning apparent. Predicaments lie in wait and hidden ready to ambush us. Just when we think we may have a solution, a predicament jumps out from its place of hiding and surprises us. Predicaments rob us of any thought of being able to solve anything. We are left stranded and bereft.

A predicament, however, may have an outcome. But that outcome is one that we cannot predict, cannot plan, and certainly cannot control. This is why the environmental and social collapse is referred to as a predicament.

Now for the Cs

If something is Complicated then it consists of many parts, often linked in linear, predictable ways. Each component can be recognised. An analogy could be an engine. An engine is a complicated piece of machinery, and all the parts interact in an intelligible and purposive manner. If the engine stops working, a mechanic can determine which part is at fault and thus make the engine run again.

A Complex system also has many parts, but unlike a complicated system, not all the parts are identifiable, and the links between them are immeasurable. A complex system is non-linear and is also self-organising. Being self-organising means that if one part of the system is interfered with then the rest of the system will attempt to redress the harm by altering other parts of the system. The changes made by this self-organisation are often unforeseen, unpredictable, and have consequences that may be unintended.

Chaos Theory is a branch of mathematics that attempts to analyse systems that are dynamic in nature. The most widely known aspect of Chaos Theory is the Butterfly Effect which is stated in various analogous ways. The most common is that Chaos Theory tells us that a butterfly flapping its wings over Tokyo can cause a thunderstorm in the Amazon. This is known in the Chaos Theory jargon as ‘sensitive dependence on initial conditions’; a small change in initial conditions can have an enormous impact on the final outcome.

Implications

It is important to note that when we attempt to explain, and then intervene, in the environmental and social context of today we need to understand what sort of system we are dealing with.

The systems we face today are not simple complicated problems; they are not even complicated (wicked) problems.

The systems we face today are complex predicaments and are chaotic in nature.

Hence, we cannot solve our way out of this predicament. Furthermore, none of the individual problems that we might identify can be solved without, at the same time, causing other problems to arise.

Our thinking then must be systemic, rather than piecemeal. Homelessness, for example, cannot be solved by housing alone. Warfare cannot ceased simply by reducing the armaments. The environmental crisis cannot be solved by focussing exclusively on carbon emissions.

Even with a systems analysis, our interference in the complex system that is the Earth, may not result in the outcome we would choose.

That being the case, the best way we can approach the future is to learn (Radical) Acceptance. But that topic is for another blog.

Meantime, we can try to mind our Ps and Cs.

It’s Urgent: We’d Better Slow Down

Slow down enough to see the
simple beauty in a small leaf.

Things are getting urgent, aren’t they? The average global temperature is getting dangerously close to the 1.5 deg C limit signed in the Paris Agreement. The closing of the Strait of Hormuz has shown just how unstable the world’s oil supply is. The divide in political polarisation is growing precariously wide. The Arms Race has not abated. Geopolitical tensions are on the up.

In our own personal spheres, levels of anxiety, depression, and isolation are rising. The mental health of people is deteriorating, sometimes at an alarming rate.

We’ve got to do something.

The train known as humanity is rushing headlong, and with great urgency, toward a precipice. For some members of the human race, the train they were on has already tipped into the chasm.

The urge to do something may be the very factor that impels us closer towards disaster.

The words urgent and urge contain within them the dubious assumptions leading towards the abyss. The Latin word from which the words originate – urgere – means to press hard, push forward, force, drive, compel…

Yet, it is this pushing forward, characterised imprudently as progress, which has been one of the major features driving us to this point.

Thus, urgent as it is, we must slow down.

That’s a contradiction, isn’t it? Surely, if it’s urgent, we have to hurry up and do something about it.

Contradiction – no. Paradox – yes.

Paradox is ubiquitous. Our own lives attest to it. We see paradox almost everywhere we look. At the macro level of the multi-level crises alluded to above it is no less prevalent.

Yet, we do not seem to be capable of recognising the paradox that we should be awake to.

Simply put: Everything is Urgent: We Must Slow Down.

When we examine the various crises, we can see that one of the drivers of most, if not all, these crises is speed. Getting somewhere quicker. Obtaining material objects at a faster and faster rate. Speeding here, speeding there. Rush to work, speed through the in-box, get things achieved quickly (there’s a deadline to be met – urgently!) Rush home, maybe pick up the kids from school on the way. Buy fast-food for dinner, or a pre-cooked meal that can be prepared quickly. Take the dog for a quick walk around the block. Switch through channels on the TV or surf the internet. Head to bed and turn on the alarm; no time to sleep-in. Do it all again. Faster, faster, faster.

At an industrial level the same patterns get repeated. Make more and more stuff, at a quicker, more efficient, speed so that more money can be accrued. Exploit the earth and extract so-called “resources” to get ahead of the opposition and position the company at the head of the pack. Pay no attention to “externalities” (such as the birdlife, water quality, air quality, or soil erosion), so long as the “fuel” for continuous growth of the economy is ever present.

What if we slowed down enough to recognise and acknowledge the beauty in the world? Slowing down we would notice more beauty, like the beauty in a small dying leaf as shown in the illustration accompanying this blogpiece. What if we slowed down enough to feel love and empathy for our human and non-human co-inhabitants of this planet? What if we slowed down enough to listen to our children? What if we slowed down enough to sit quietly with an elderly relative? What if we slowed down enough to feel the beat of our own heart?

If we did these things, would we continue to exploit, destroy, and degrade the natural world?

I somehow don’t think so.

We would probably also enjoy our lives a lot more.

We would probably also allow many others around the world to enjoy their lives a lot more also.

Slowing down would also slow down, and in same cases halt, the crises that surround us.

If this all sounds too much, perhaps start with just one day a week. Make one day a Slow Day.