Prediction, Prophecy, or Probability

Nostradamus

This blog begins with a supposition that globally we are in a mess; although predicament might be a more technical term than mess. The mess is made up of environmental, social, personal, and familial elements.

Can we get out of this mess? The answer to that seems to clearly be “no!” The reasons for this answer are many, and a later blogpiece may address those reasons. One of the compelling reasons for answering “no” however is that collectively we do not appear to realise that we are in a mess.

If we are unable to get out of the mess, can we get through it? By that I mean can we pass through a bottleneck and emerge, as a living species, on the other side of the bottleneck. We have been through a bottleneck before, although most of us won’t remember doing so; after all, it happened almost one million years ago. At that time 98% of the Earth’s hominid population failed to survive, leaving only approximately 1,280 reproductive individuals to make it through.¹

So, it has been done before. Could it happen again? Could we get through this mess and pass through a bottleneck to a future in which Homo sapiens is one of the surviving species on the planet?

There are at least three major techniques by which we might answer that. We could predict the future, based on previous trends, and using a logical approach to analysis. We might approach a soothsayer or someone with special authority from a divine being to prophesise the future. Or, thirdly, we could assign probabilities to a range of scenarios.

As the Latin etymology of the word implies, prediction literally means to say before. Prediction usually implies one prescribed outcome. To say something will happen before it has happened is a recipe for being accused, at best of being wrong, at worst of lying.

In the current situation (in the midst of a mess) there are some who take the techno-optimist view that our future technological expertise will enable us to get through the mess. Others proclaim that this is the end of the road for humans. The Sixth Mass Extinction that is upon us, they say, includes Homo sapiens as one of the species that will go extinct. Then, there are many others who take a number of different positions between these two extremes.

All of them make a prediction that excludes all other possibilities.

What about prophecy? Can we reliably seek the announcement of a prophet to foretell the future. Some do. Etymologically, prophecy derives from the Old French word profete meaning a prophet or soothsayer. Prior to the Old French the word goes back to the Greek word propheteia which meant to have the gift of being able to interpret the will of God. Hence, prophecy has a spiritual or divine factor in its meaning, and a prophecy is passed on to a human prophet via some supernatural being.

For many early prophets the purpose of their prophecy was to warn of impending consequences should changes in behaviour not occur. For later prophets (e.g. the well-known Nostradamus) the prophecies were less about warnings and more about outlying future events. Some prophesies succeeded, but many (perhaps most) did not.

Prophecy too, is not a reliable foretelling of the future.

Finally, we could assign probabilities to a range of future scenarios. This is what most futurists do. Probability also has an interesting etymological history. During the 16^th century it meant that something was likely to be true. By the early 18^th century the word had taken on the statistical meaning of the frequency with which a proposition is true measured against experience. Hence, absolute certainty would have a probability of 100% and complete uncertainty would be 0%. The probability of something being true, in the statistical sense, lies somewhere between 0% - 100%, rarely being set at either of the extremes.

Thus, a number of future scenarios could be described and assigned a probability of accurately depicting what actually happens in the future.

Coming back now to the earlier question. Can we get through the mess? Furthermore, if we can get through, will those who do so emerge with a more healthy and sustainable culture?

I am extremely reluctant to predict the future, as being certain of what the future will bring is impossible for me to predict (if you’ll excuse the circular argument.) I do not have access to any divine or supernatural message and so I am unable to prophesy anything about the future.

It is, however, possible for me to assign probabilities towards differing future scenarios. Some of those possible scenarios hopefully will include societies and cultures that are wise enough to not make the mistakes we have made in getting ourselves into this mess. Hopefully too, those future societies will be able to inhabit the Earth in a sustainable and cooperative manner, respecting all the Earth’s creatures.  

For us now, on the edge of this mess and peering into the bottleneck we might ask ourselves: How can we skew the probabilities towards a higher chance of betterment in a post-collapse future?

The answer to this is not what we do in the future.

The answer lies in what we do here and now.

The answer exists in what seeds we sow today that may bear fruit tomorrow. The answer rests on our ability to plant the seeds, knowing that we will not be fortunate enough to eat the fruits thereof.

And that enterprise involves giving up the paradigms we have been living with and adopting new paradigms.

How we do that is the subject of another blogpiece.

Notes

1. Juliet Dubois, Daily Galaxy, 5 June 2025, Only 1,280 Survived: The Near-Extinction Event That Nearly Wiped Out Humanity 1 Million Years Ago

Paradox of Individualism

The "Lone Ranger"

An overly zealous focus on individualism is one of the mechanisms furthering the disconnection between people. Individualism, especially toxic individualism, also plays a role in aiding the disconnection from our own selves. It would seem paradoxical that individualism would do so, as we might intuitively expect that greater attention to the individual would bring us closer to our selves. However, when we explore this in greater depth, we find that individualism, in the way it is expressed in westernised cultures, dislodges us from who we really are.

Individualism, particularly toxic individualism, seems to be more associated with men than with women. Although the term rugged individual is of fairly recent origin, coined by US President Herbert Hoover, stories and myths of this archetype stretch back at least as far as Greek and Roman mythology. Many of us will have heard of, or read of, the exploits of heroes such as Jason, Odysseus, Perseus, Hercules, Romulus, and Remus. Within Norse mythology we know of Odin, Thor, and Hodr. In English mythology we have the rugged individual myths of Beowulf, King Arthur, and Robin Hood. All men. There have been female heroines, although many of us would be hard pressed to name many of them.

More latterly the myth of the rugged individual has been portrayed in Hollywood style Westerns. Butch Cassidy, Wild Bill Hickock, Buffalo Bill, Davy Crockett, the Lone Ranger, and others have all etched their rugged individual heroism onto the minds of young boys growing up in the first half of the 20^th century. Those growing up in the latter half of that century were habituated by male heroes such as James Bond, Indiana Jones, Magnum, Rambo, Jason Bourne, and Neo (hero of the blockbuster movie The Matrix.)

These rugged individuals do not need others to fulfill their destiny, they are highly resilient, and can withstand a hail of bullets, leap from burning buildings, and of course, save the threatened damsel in distress. The hero rises above his pain, is always in control, and never vulnerable. It is one of the most toxic archetypes young men can be exposed to. It is an absurd and unattainable self.

The educator, writer, scholar, and one of the western world’s true Elders, Joanna Macy answered a question during a 1999 interview by saying, ‘The myth of the rugged individual, riding as the Lone Ranger to save our society, is a sure recipe for going crazy.’ The word crazy here may have been used hyperbolically by Macy, yet she was also stating something quite literal. Rugged individualism is often statistically correlated with mental attributes we might label as crazy.

Rugged individualism (akin to toxic individualism) promotes an outlook that views other people as competitors rather than as peers. Accordingly, such an outlook fosters self-promotion and, in its extreme form, narcissism. Furthermore, rugged individualism cultivates a belief that one can, and should, solve one’s own problems, even if the solving involves addictive behaviours, such as alcohol and drug misuse, or gambling. A person entrenched in the mythology of the rugged individual is unlikely to be able to reach out for help, further aggravating the likelihood of resorting to unhealthy behaviours.

The psychologist and grief counsellor, Francis Weller, likens the rugged individual archetype to a prison and says, ‘We are imprisoned by this (hero) image, forced into a fiction of false independence that severs our kinship with the earth, with sensuous reality, and with the myriad wonders of the world. This is a source of grief for many of us.’¹

Sadly, when individuals come to this grief, and crash headfirst into recognising that individualism does not benefit them, the illusion is so firmly entrenched that it becomes extremely difficult to break away from the addictions, habits, and obsessions that have arisen to shore up the false sense of invulnerability.

In a strange twist of ironic proportions, the self-improvement, self-development, and human potential movements of the 1960s and 1970s intensified the myth of individualism. These movements thought that social change would come from individuals improving themselves and this in turn would usher in a new era of improved social conditions. Sadly however, with their emphasis upon the individual these movements inadvertently became the crucible for intensifying the shift towards an individualistic viewpoint. One of the tools utilised in these movements was personal affirmations, which on first glance, look and sound innocuous enough. However, the first item in a recent google search identified a list of 99 affirmations.² Significantly, 67 of these affirmations began with the first-person singular pronoun I and another 10 with the pronoun My. Of the 99 affirmations listed, all but 7 of them included the first-person singular pronouns I, me, mine, and/or myself. That is; 93% of the affirmations were about the individual. What is wrong with this, the reader may ask?

Some researchers at German Universities have the answer to that question. In 2015 they found that their ‘present study unravelled some important insights into the link between first-person singular pronoun use and symptoms of depression and anxiety.’³ Furthermore, such pronoun use ‘is positively related to brooding.’ The researchers defined brooding as referring to the ‘(unceasing) passive comparison of one’s current state with desired but unreached states.’ They were quick to point out that brooding is qualitatively different from reflection which they characterised as a ‘purposeful turning inward to engage in cognitive problem solving to alleviate one’s depressive symptoms.’ The two states are qualitatively different, with reflection being beneficial, whereas brooding is harmful. It may be tempting to claim that the affirmations referred to above are examples of reflection. Sadly, however, those advocating the use of affirmations are often aiming their attention at people ‘who need a little extra daily encouragement.’ Continuing to focus on the use of personal pronouns is akin to attempting to put out a fire by continuing to stoke it with wood.

Of course, as any self-respecting statistician will tell you, correlation is not the same thing as causation. Yet, if we trace the incidence of usage of first-person singular pronouns over time, and the incidence of depression over similar periods of time, the correlation is strong.

The word I in the English language was used approximately 4,000 – 5,000 times in every one million words used between 1800 and 1870. After 1870 the usage of this first-person singular pronoun began to decline to less than 2,500 times per million in the early 1980s. Since then, it’s use has climbed rapidly to around 7,000 times in every one million words today. That is, the word I is used 280% more often today than it was less than 50 years ago. Quite some rise!

Similar increases can be noted in the use of me, myself, and my. All since the early 1980s. Me, for example, is now used four times more often today than it was 50 years ago.

If we track rates of depression over a similar time period, we note a steady increase in depressive symptoms, especially amongst young people.

A focus on me, myself, and I is helping to make us more depressed and anxious. Those 99 affirmations seem in radical need of overhaul.

A further noteworthy word is the word narcissism. Many point to a rise in narcissism in recent decades. Indeed, the word narcissist is now used eight times more often in 2025 than it was in 1980. Eight times!

Hence, although the personal-development and human-potential movements began with worthy intentions they were ultimately flawed because they tended to view the world in a dualistic way – the individual as separate from the wider culture.

The rabbit hole of intense self-absorption was opened up, and many of us have followed the rabbit.

 

Notes:

1. Weller, Francis, The Wild Edge Of Sorrow, North Atlantic Books, Berkeley, CA, 2015

2. 99 Positive Morning Affirmations You Can Use Daily - The Good Trade accessed 12 May 2026

3. Brockmeyer et al., Me, Myself, and I: self-referent word use as an indicator of self-focused attention in relation to depression and anxiety, Frontiers in Psychology, October 2015, Vol 6, article 1564

Arrogant Ape – Book Review

Arrogant! Who? Us (humans)? Never! 

Christine Webb, in The Arrogant Ape,¹ claims that we (Homo sapiens) are indeed arrogant, and this is based on our (often unstated and hidden) belief in human exceptionalism. On page 3 of her book, Webb clearly expresses the tenet of her book. It is ‘that human exceptionalism – a.k.a. anthropocentricism or human supremacy – is at the root of the ecological crisis.’

That is a provocative assertion, yet Webb tackles it with rigour, extensive research, and often with wit and humour.

On the very first page of the book, Webb notes that ‘we’re not the biggest, fastest, or strongest’ beings on the planet. She has countless stories and evidence to back this up. We are not exceptional! We are arrogant to think that we are. In thinking that we are exceptional we have exploited, damaged, and plundered the earth and all her creatures so much that now we, ourselves, are also being harmed. Polluted water, noxious air, climate change, poisoned food sources, and more are all impacting our well-being.

This is no surprise says Webb. It is the natural (sic) outcome of our belief in our supremacy.

Before continuing it is worth pointing out that Webb recognises and acknowledges that not all peoples and cultures of the world share the belief in human exceptionalism. Sadly, however, the culture from within which human exceptionalism arose, has come to dominate the entire world. Additionally, Webb recognises that within this (westernised) culture the drivers of this belief have ‘…long been the dogma of a dominant minority.’

If those of us outside of this dominant minority have been afflicted by the belief in human exceptionalism and internalised it as our own, then The Arrogant Ape is surely one of the best books available to disavow us of this mistaken view. Drawing from her own research and that of many others in her field of primatology, Webb introduces us to many long-held beliefs that once were thought to pertain to humans only, including inter alia, the manufacture and use of tools, language, empathy, and possibly most controversial of all, that of consciousness.

Webb traverses the subject of consciousness from many angles and admits that there remains a lot of dispute and conjecture. Could it be that the belief in human exceptionalism is the reason for doubting, or even refuting, the possibility of consciousness in other-than-human animals? Webb adroitly concludes by asking, ‘Why should we doubt, downplay, or deny something in other species that we barely understand in ourselves?’

One aspect of Webb’s writing that I appreciated was being introduced to a number of concepts I had not previously come across. Many of these concepts are compressed into just one or two words. I will mention just four of them here:

The first word is quite a mouthful – anthropofabulation. Webb does not say where this word originated, but personal research suggests that you won’t find it listed in any dictionary published prior to 2013. Anthropofabulation Webb defines as the ‘tendency to define certain psychological processes by an exaggerated account of typical human performance in order to deny them to other species.’ We humans, via this approach, define standard psychology from a human standpoint, and then measure and judge all other species according to that standard. The flaw in this reasoning should be apparent, yet it is only recently recognised. Thank you, Christine Webb, for pointing out what is right in front of our noses.

The second word from The Arrogant Ape that I have chosen to highlight is a corollary to the belief in human exceptionalism. Human exemptionalism asserts that humans are exempt from the constraints, limits, and boundaries of nature. Our belief in human exceptionalism drives this belief, and results in crazy techno-fixes and other overly optimistic and cornucopian ideas, such as colonising Mars, or placing giant mirrors in space to reflect sunlight away from the earth (known as Solar Radiation Modification – SRM).

Christine Webb, as we might guess, is not a fan of SRM and warns us that ‘…solar geoengineering exacerbates human dominance over Nature precisely when we urgently need to curtail it.’ It is a warning that needs heeding.

The next word is Umwelt. This word and concept, Webb tells us, was coined in the early 1900s by the German biologist Jakob von Uexküll. Umwelt is the world as experienced by a particular organism. For each organism the umwelt is different. I was reminded of the concept of multiverses. Organisms experience the world (whether through sight, hearing, smell, touch, echo-radar, or other non-human sense) in such hugely different ways that we could say that the single world we think it is, is in fact, a plurality of worlds that different creatures experience. Thus ultimately no single world exists, but rather multi-worlds all here on Earth.

The final word I have chosen to highlight is Involution, a term proposed by two anthropologists, Carla Hustak and Natasha Myers. Involution is the flipside of evolution (which literally means to roll outwards), whereas involution means to roll, or curl, inwards. The term recognises how all species intertwine and that symbiosis and co-emergence are important aspects of evolution and the inter-dependence of all phenomena.

Four words, with four profound concepts embedded within them. Two of them indicate how human exceptionalism in the arrogant ape limits our understanding of the complexity and wholeness of the world as well as compelling us towards foolish endeavours. The other two offer us means by which we might better understand the world we are a part of and our unique, but not exceptional, role in it.

The Arrogant Ape is a valuable contribution to not only the environmental movement, but also to understanding our collective psychology. The two are linked, and Webb makes this clear close to the end of her book. She quotes Einstein’s reply² when asked what he would do if he had one hour to save the world, and then follows that reply with this crucial observation:

‘…grappling with the ecological crisis means dismantling not only systems of exploitation and destruction but also the very worldview that makes them possible.’

The Arrogant Ape helps us to recognise the worldview and thus how we can begin dismantling it.

Notes:

1. Christine Webb, The Arrogant Ape: The Myth of Human Exceptionalism and Why It Matters, Avery, New York, 2025

2. Albert Einstein replied to this question that he would spend fifty-five minutes defining the problem and then five minutes solving it.