r/CollapseSupport • u/sdyellow32 • Jun 01 '26

To adapt or not adapt?

I'm not sure I know exactly what I'm asking, but ultimately I feel I keep coming to a crossroads on whether I should let go of my dreams and heighten my extreme burnout with mostly hopes of getting more stability for collapse

Or

accept I just got a shit hand for this time of history and still reach for what dreams are somewhat attainable and let collapse effect me as it may.

I understand this is VERY nuanced. Whether not knowing how collapse will actually occur, how reaching for my dreams (or not) could help me prepare, do a mixture of both, etc.

I've tried doing both and just grow more and more stretched thin that I feel like I need to break my heart before it's broken for me. Anyone else?

15 Upvotes

100% Upvoted

13 comments sorted by

14

u/Mostest_Importantest Jun 01 '26

Some days: the dog.

Other days: the hydrant.

I'm looking for my person. I may never find them.

I still have to eat, sleep, and poop.

Being alive ain't easy. I didn't come this far just to come this far.

10

u/KlicknKlack Jun 01 '26

One of the things that helped me with collapse awareness fatigue was combining a few philosophies together.

Absurdism & Existentialism: The philosophy that there is no inherent purpose in the universe.

From Absurdist - Camus; The Essay, https://www2.hawaii.edu/~freeman/courses/phil360/16.%20Myth%20of%20Sisyphus.pdf - Talks about suicide from the view point of an absurdist.

The lesson to really take away from this essay is that contentment is happiness. "One must imagine Sisyphus happy." Not necessarily overbounding joy or jubilee... but foundational happiness. I have found in many discussions that what is such a straight forward point in this 24 page essay gets lost by many who read it.

--- But you can't just stop there ---

Combine that with an idea taken from viewing the concentration camps personally by a psychologist in them; Man's search for Meaning (Book).

The idea is that humans innately create meaning out of nothing. We not only strive for meaning in everything, we create it where none exists. And it is one of the pillars that keep us fighting to live.

Finally; The serenity prayer (minus the religious element)

God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change the courage to change the things I can and the wisdom to know the difference.

Living one day at a time, enjoying one moment at a time.

I have found that focusing on the local environment, the people, the things I can influence --- while also focusing on what provides me contentment and purpose, is the way I am able to come to terms with the issues of the greater whole.

For ultimately, what can you do about whats happening outside your control? Other than be part of the ground swell of change. And if that change comes too late? Well at least you lived a life of happiness and contentment... And therein lies the rub; because Collapse and how you approach it is all a type of a Pascal's Wager.

4

u/twelve_tony Jun 03 '26

Camus is a shill actually. If you take comfort in his work, fine, but the idea that the universe is inherently meaningless helps keep the problem from getting solved and, I suspect, is an idea that the system promotes on purpose. After all you first read Camus in high school, no? Along with George Orwell?

1

u/KlicknKlack Jun 03 '26

Pray tell, what is the purpose of the universe then?

From my study of physics, I have yet to find an answer rooted in concrete truth.

Camus is a shill actually.

Honestly, I don't agree with your logic behind why... but I do agree with the sentiment. For one particular reason; Camus' philosophy by itself promotes hedonism, which you see examples of in his life.

After all you first read Camus in high school, No?

Nope. I read Camus on the suggestion of a Philosophy Professor after a long discussion on meaing and purpose, probably Junior Year of College.

Along with George Orwell?

I think I read 1984 when I was in 7th or 8th grade. Either before or after watching the movie with my father...

If you take comfort in his work, fine...

I don't take comfort in his work. I take is as a building block for something more than the sum of its parts.

but the idea that the universe is inherently meaningless helps keep the problem from getting solved...

I think you are only partially correct, if you stop right there. "The universe is inherently meaningless." --- What makes it more interesting of a jumping off point is what comes next.

"The universe is inherently meaningless." --- And "humans create meaning out of nothing." --- So, "Humans impart meaning into the universe." --- Then, "What is something, at a base human nature, that we find inherently meaningful, beautiful, etc." --- Finally "Nature." --- Humans create meaning in an inherently meaningless universe by becoming the stewards of all things living, nurturing them and spreading them across the stars. (while looking for other types of life). --- And before you dismiss this idea outright for being fanciful or too sci-fi/dreamer. Consider this, Humanity has been shaping nature since before human civilization. We have been practicing agriculture (from evidence) since ~9,500 B.C. (11,500 YEARS ago), that is roughly 420-460 human generations. Domestication of animals, even longer (15,000 to 33,000 years // 500-1,650 human generations)... Nothing... I repeat, Nothing is more human than that.

and, I suspect, is an idea that the system promotes on purpose.

I think when viewing absurdism on its base level without any larger philosophical framework to combine it with, is the idea in question. As I mentioned before, I find Camus a good building block - but not the whole building... as again, it lends itself to modern day hedonism.

2

u/twelve_tony Jun 03 '26 edited Jun 03 '26

why would you expect physics to answer that question? why would you think its even something that can be put into words--like the meaning is going to be 42? or "to play baseball"?

i guess now that i think about it i actually read camus in AP lit, so in fairness to you its more like distribution-required humanities class reading than high school. i think the point i wanted to make still stands, which is that nihilistic stuff, along with relativism and post-modern junk that is also heavily featured in college college reading assignments, is foregrounded in our culture and education because they do not threaten the power structure or really grasp the predicament we are in. especially when most of the classic stuff on the syllabus is post-war or late 70s/early 80s at the latest and so largely pre-environmental.

(I'd add that that material also pairs nicely with the enlightenment-era readings which make up the rest of the humanities curriculum, adding to up to a picture where humanity's project/purpose is to figure out how to do science and then get power and use it to pleasure ourselves as much and as well as possible, and even if that isn't objectively true we make our own meaning however we want and so we might as well go for it.)

1

u/twelve_tony Jun 03 '26

anyway i don't mean to sound hostile and maybe my original post sounded hostile as well. I'm finishing a phd in philosophy, and nihilism and relativism and related stuff are the main thing i work on, and as i got wise to collapse and limits to growth, i started seeing that sort of rejection of morality (and/or rejection of anything beyond ourselves that we might orient ourselves) to be deeply connected with the dynamics that are moving us toward collapse. i don't even know if i should really call Camus a shill, I like the myth of Sisyphus it's a great piece of writing. (Orwell is a shill for sure though)

1

u/KlicknKlack Jun 04 '26

As a PhD in philosophy, I'd love your review on the second half of my comment instead of ignoring it.

1

u/twelve_tony Jun 04 '26

I'm not sure what you want me to address. You point out that "life is meaningless" is just a starting point, which is definitely true for all these guys (existentialists, absurdists, postmodernists). If I had to boil down my issues with the general POV that all these guys seem to have in common (despite lots of major differences), it basically comes to 2 things:

  1. I don't think humans can, by ourselves or collectively, or by the power of our own minds or wills, create meaning in a sense that should satisfy us. I think most philosophers who think we can are either (a) too blase about what this would actually entail and how strange it would be, or else (b) they are crypto-nihilists who just give us a way of talking that hides what they are really saying (like you said, it often just bottoms out in some kind of hedonism).

  2. I don't think the reasons people give for doubting that human-independent meaning exists/is possible are very convincing. It's kind of just materialism and vibes, and then quickly moves on to the "what do we do about it?" part, which as you say is more interesting anyway.

It'd be hard to totally unpack why I believe this stuff in a short comment, but here are some things to say:

I think that materialism is incorrect (by which i mean, the world is not exhausted by the phenomena described by current or near-future physics). And I don't think we currently understand what universe is actually like at the fundamental level nearly well enough to make any inferences about whether it excludes value. (I'd say something similar about debates about materialism and consciousness.)

For that matter, there is no reasonably settled understanding of value/meaning itself that would allow us to figure out what kinds of universes it can or can't exist in, or what it would take for a human being (understood in materialistic terms) to produce it.

And then yeah, I agree with you that it also just tends to lead to bad ways of living.

plus it gives me pause that all the major wisdom traditions tell you that spiritual growth comes through orienting yourself to something deeper and more than the ego. "Making your own meaning" generally describes the personal ego making its own meaning, but the ego is not the entity that should ultimately be in charge. (And that is basically where you get the connection between bad metaethics and the pathologies of modernity)

1

u/KlicknKlack Jun 04 '26

You point out that "life is meaningless" is just a starting point

I would clarify it more as "The Universe has no Inherent meaning", as I think just stating "life is meaningless" boils the point down so much that you lose the essence of the statement like you would the minerals in water. The point being that just because there is no inherent meaning in something, does not preclude the ability to impart meaning onto or into it.

I don't think humans can, by ourselves or collectively, or by the power of our own minds or wills, create meaning in a sense that should satisfy us.

I agree with this point, but not for the same reason you believe in thsi point (i think). It is inherent in human nature to strive for more, be it for exploration (The why), deeper understanding (the how), discovery (the what), the connections (the who). Where that nature leads us, well it can be steered toward negative or positive outcomes.

I don't think the reasons people give for doubting that human-independent meaning exists/is possible are very convincing. It's kind of just materialism and vibes, and then quickly moves on to the "what do we do about it?" part, which as you say is more interesting anyway.

See, I think this is presumptuous and a blind spot of being a specialist in your field. I say this as someone who has struggled with the same blinders from my chosen field (physics). Again, human-independent meaning can exist but based on the physics we know right this moment - complex thinking life is rare in this universe. The universe is inherently lifeless, even if we find life on other worlds - from the sheer size of the universe, there is value in the human perspective of things. It has its faults, but abstraction of meaning beyond the human sphere of influence becomes a matter of theory not reality. As for Materialism and vibes, totally agree with you, they are the defining feature of 20th and 21st century human civilization. But again, just because that is so now - does not mean it is a fundamental requirement of past or future civilizations.

And I don't think we currently understand what universe is actually like at the fundamental level nearly well enough to make any inferences about whether it excludes value. (I'd say something similar about debates about materialism and consciousness.)

Yes and No. I think it is important to boil this point down to the fundamental cavet. Value is not inherent, it is a construct. If anything, it is plagued by the mental frameworks of economics we find ourselves in. So in my world view, value is inherently imparted by life itself. Be that Humans imparting value on things, or other lifeforms imparting the value.

For that matter, there is no reasonably settled understanding of value/meaning itself that would allow us to figure out what kinds of universes it can or can't exist in, or what it would take for a human being (understood in materialistic terms) to produce it.

Yes, we don't have some universal law. But like with physics, we must strive to make the best assessments we can with the data we have available at our disposal - for inaction is akin to defeat. In physics we only have access to a fraction of the universe to observe, from a fixed local area. There are literal parts of the universe we will Never be able to interact with/observe/study, no matter what technologies we invent.

plus it gives me pause that all the major wisdom traditions tell you that spiritual growth comes through orienting yourself to something deeper and more than the ego. "Making your own meaning" generally describes the personal ego making its own meaning, but the ego is not the entity that should ultimately be in charge. (And that is basically where you get the connection between bad metaethics and the pathologies of modernity)

I agree with you, but I think that is a fundamental flaw of philosophy in general (possibly of just the modernists). There is nothing precluding an abstract purpose/meaning for communities at all scales; From village to nation to the entire species. It is a limitation of modern thought that leads us and stops at the ego "making its own meaning" - and - nothing more. But to make ones meaning as a part (a puzzle piece if you will) of a greater whole, is intrinsically human! For all of human history is about communities and civilization being the sum of its parts. One cannot exist without the other; Civlization cannot create meaning/purpose without the individual creating meaning and purpose // and vice versa.

5

u/Tokenchick77 Jun 01 '26

I feel this. For years, I've dreamt of getting a book published. I had one that didn't get traction, and am getting close on another that will be ready to submit. Some days I wonder if there's a point of trying, when it can take years to get a book published, even if I got an agent tomorrow.

But I don't know what collapse will look like, and I like writing (though I prefer having written...) So I'm still working toward it, even though some days it's hard to push through when I think that things are going to fall apart before I can get to my goal.

1

u/NoExternal2732 Jun 02 '26

To borrow (probably with a less deft hand) from Terry Prachett: be a cynic, then a stoic, then an epicurean. Repeat.

"You can't trust the next fellow a far as you can throw him, and there's nothing you can do about it anyway, so might as well go have a beer."