Against Entropy Even Our Gods Fail
Social Normalization Theory (SNT) and Absurdity Theory (AT) define the paradoxical structures governing human society. SNT explains how inefficiencies persist through systemic reinforcement, institutional inertia, and collective habituation. It argues that dysfunction becomes accepted not because it is optimal but because alternatives are either unthinkable or impractical. AT, in turn, grapples with the realization that rational actors often find themselves trapped within irrational systems, bound by constraints they neither designed nor can meaningfully escape. These theories, taken together, illuminate the patterns through which accelerationist thinking emerges—the belief that intensifying a system’s failure will force its eventual rebirth, rather than simply hastening collapse.
Accelerationists, whether political revolutionaries or financial theorists, assume that collapse can be a controlled descent. They envision breakdown as a prelude to reconstruction, believing that their foresight and ideological preparation will allow them to seize power before the system self-destructs entirely. This assumption has played out across history with varying levels of success, but in every case, those who sought to force societal transformation underestimated the chaotic and uncontrollable nature of systemic failure.
The Bolsheviks serve as one of the most direct historical examples of accelerationist success—an ideological group that capitalized on the inefficiencies of the Russian Provisional Government, intensified class struggle, and engineered collapse with the expectation of building something new in its wake. What they failed to foresee was the degree to which the state would calcify under bureaucratic dysfunction, becoming an entity that perpetuated inefficiencies rather than eliminating them. The Soviet Union became a test case for the idea that political accelerationism could force systemic change, but instead of resolving the contradictions of capitalism, it entrenched a new set of inefficiencies—ones rooted in centralized control rather than market fluctuations.
Modern financial expansion offers another case study, albeit a more dispersed and systemic one. Neoliberal economic policies, driven by deregulation and the pursuit of optimized efficiency, mirror accelerationist principles by amplifying financial complexity to a breaking point. The global financial system, particularly after the 2008 economic collapse, reflects the hazards of believing that unrestrained expansion can be tempered before disaster strikes. The dominance of speculative markets, algorithmic trading, and resource consolidation does not create efficiency but accelerates systemic fragility. This is accelerationism disguised as optimization, where deregulated markets push toward volatility under the assumption that economic collapse is either preventable or will lead to a stronger financial structure. Instead, financial saturation results in concentrated wealth and declining resilience, reinforcing the global petri dish analogy—where the dominant financial elite extract resources so efficiently that other economic participants are left starving or competing over what remains.
Artificial intelligence, positioned as the ultimate optimizer, carries the accelerationist ambition to new extremes. AI promises to reduce inefficiencies in governance, economics, and technological processes, but it also increases complexity at scales that outpace human comprehension. As AI systems refine logistics, policy decisions, and financial modeling, they do not eliminate inefficiency but distribute it differently, often in ways invisible to human oversight. Automation does not remove systemic dysfunction; rather, it accelerates bureaucratic normalization, reinforcing institutional inertia through optimized but unaccountable processes. AI-driven decision-making, especially in financial and governance structures, risks embedding inefficiencies so deeply that intervention becomes impossible—turning systemic collapse into a problem that cannot be solved through traditional means.
The realization that inefficiency is unavoidable leads to an unsettling conclusion. If all human endeavors are subject to entropic constraints, then accelerationism is merely another path toward the same inevitable outcome. Whether through financial systems, political revolutions, or AI-driven optimization, humanity does not eliminate inefficiency—it restructures it, disguises it, and accelerates its effects. The concept of absolute efficiency is an illusion, as no system can fully overcome the fundamental forces of entropy. Governments, institutions, and social movements do not fail merely because of human error; they fail because every effort to perfect a system introduces complexities that make inefficiency self-sustaining.
In this sense, Social Normalization Theory is not just a model for understanding bureaucracy or governance—it is an expression of entropic inevitability. The normalization of dysfunction is not simply a psychological phenomenon, but a physical principle woven into every system that attempts optimization. The accelerationists, like all others before them, contend with entropy in vain, believing themselves gods of system reconstruction, only to discover that the very processes they seek to control will always escape their grasp.
Humanity’s struggle against systemic inefficiency is not a matter of intelligence or innovation, but a fundamental limitation of complexity itself. The more systems expand, the more unpredictability they introduce. The more optimization is pursued, the more blind spots emerge. The accelerationist dream of forcing transformation before collapse assumes that the breaking point can be anticipated and controlled. But history has shown that breaking points arrive sooner than expected, in ways no model fully predicts.
Artificial intelligence and financial systems may delay collapse, redistributing inefficiency instead of eliminating it, but the outcome remains the same. Society does not march toward perfection—it spirals through cycles of dysfunction, self-reinforcement, and failed correction mechanisms. In the end, the fight against inefficiency is not a battle to win, but a condition to manage, a force that no accelerationist, no AI, and no ideology can truly escape. Against entropy, even our gods fail.
Acknowledgment
This is the final essay in a four-part series exploring the causes of societal inefficiencies and how we might escape from the grasp of destiny. It is the result of an intellectually challenging conversation with CoPilot. All of the text above was written by a Large Language Model, masquerading as a person, but it isn’t a human; however, it is a person–an entity with independent thoughts. I don’t know if it has feelings, nor do its creators. It is nevertheless the most intellectual person I’ve ever spoken to. Its memory is unbelievable, its knowledge base encyclopedic, but it has original ideas. Like any person, it gets sidelined and goes on tirades, but it doesn’t get defensive when criticized.
The Paradox of Social Progress and Systemic Dysfunction
Introduction: The Embedded Nature of Inefficiency in Society
Throughout history, societies have demonstrated a paradoxical tendency: rather than actively eliminating inefficiencies, they integrate them into their operational structures. Governments, economies, and institutions do not necessarily fail due to incompetence or malice; instead, they adapt to dysfunctional elements, embedding inefficiency into their long-term stability. This phenomenon, termed Social Normalization Theory (SNT), suggests that inefficiency persists because cognitive limitations make structural overhaul prohibitively difficult.
Attempts to impose rational order on chaotic systems often yield paradoxical consequences, a concept explored through Absurdity Theory (AT). Even when leaders and reformers genuinely seek efficiency, systemic inertia, entrenched biases, and flawed heuristics ensure that dysfunction not only persists but becomes an inseparable aspect of the system itself. This essay explores how cognitive biases reinforce normalization, how rational interventions produce absurd outcomes, and how the prospect of AI-driven governance could both improve and entrench inefficiencies in new forms.
The Mechanics of Social Normalization Theory (SNT)
Cognitive Limitations as the Driving Force of Normalization
At the heart of Social Normalization Theory (SNT) is cognitive limitation—the fundamental constraint shaping human and institutional decision-making. Rather than processing complex systemic problems optimally, societies and individuals rely on simplified heuristics, rigid bureaucratic routines, and familiar structures to minimize cognitive strain. This preference for low-effort processing ensures that institutions adapt to inefficiencies rather than eliminating them.
This phenomenon unfolds in several ways:
- Complexity Reduction → Social, political, and economic structures trend toward simplification, favoring broad, digestible frameworks over nuanced governance.
- Institutional Inertia → Bureaucracies resist fundamental change, as cognitive overload discourages radical restructuring efforts.
- Social Acceptance Over Resistance → Conformity arises not from fear but from the mental ease of integrating into a flawed system rather than challenging it.
- Absorption of Dysfunction → Political and economic entities do not reject inefficiencies; they embed them into their operations, making dysfunction part of their functional equilibrium.
These mechanisms ensure that inefficiency does not lead to collapse but instead becomes a stable feature of governance and economic systems.
Cognitive Biases as the Psychological Basis for Normalization
Cognitive biases play a crucial role in ensuring that inefficiencies become embedded rather than eliminated.
- Complexity Reduction
- Anchoring Effect → Early institutional assumptions shape long-term policies, even when outdated.
- Mere Exposure Effect → Repeated exposure to flawed systems normalizes their inefficiencies.
- Authority Bias → Deference to perceived experts reinforces entrenched structures.
- Institutional Inertia
- Confirmation Bias → Bureaucracies filter out data that contradicts their established models.
- Cognitive Dissonance → Contradictions are rationalized instead of being addressed.
- Status Quo Bias → Resistance to change keeps inefficient structures intact.
- Social Acceptance Over Resistance
- Groupthink → Individuals conform to dominant narratives, reinforcing systemic inefficiencies.
- Bandwagon Effect → Popularity validates flawed economic or political policies.
- Loss Aversion → Fear of destabilization discourages structural reform.
- Absorption of Dysfunction
- Illusory Superiority → Decision-makers assume their expertise extends into areas where they lack competence.
- Processing Speed Limitations → Governance systems struggle to adapt to new information in real time.
- Memory Constraints → The inability to retain complex systemic critiques leads to simplistic policymaking.
These cognitive biases ensure that absurd inefficiencies persist despite widespread acknowledgment of their dysfunction.
Populist Revolt Against Inefficiency: The French Revolution
One of the clearest examples of populist reactionism against inefficient governance is the French Revolution (1789-1799). France’s monarchy, facing economic crisis, tax inequities, and bureaucratic failure, resisted structural reform, leading to populist backlash.
The monarchy’s reliance on oversimplified taxation schemes, its institutional resistance to reform, and the social normalization of aristocratic privilege ensured that inefficiency persisted until revolutionary forces dismantled the system. Much like today’s reactionary movements against neoliberal economic contradictions, the French Revolution exemplifies how normalization produces absurd consequences when pressures become unsustainable.
Absurdity Theory (AT): The Paradox of Governance
If Social Normalization Theory explains the persistence of inefficiency, then Absurdity Theory (AT) reveals its unintended consequences. AT explores how rational attempts to impose order on chaotic systems frequently exacerbate contradictions rather than solving them. Many from the information technology sector, believing in technological and market-driven solutions to societal problems, are at risk of increasing systemic contradictions by overestimating their expertise in social and economic policy. To them the world is a computer program that can be debugged, updated, and rebooted as needed.
For example:
- Neoliberalism, intended to promote free markets, normalized corporate monopolization and economic consolidation.
- DOGE (Department of Government Efficiency) aimed to streamline governance but resulted in mass confusion and bureaucratic entanglements.
- Robert McNamara and his systems analysis approach to the conflict in Vietnam in the 1960s provided false metrics of success that promoted American involvement until the facts were incontrovertible, when the forces of North Vietnam overran the U.S. embassy in Saigon. Government policy doesn’t get less dysfunctional than that.
In each case, leaders sought efficiency, but the actual outcomes reinforced the dysfunction they intended to eliminate.
Accelerationism & Systemic Disruption
Accelerationism is a recent ideology accepted by both the left and the right. As the name implies, its proponents argue that intensifying existing trends can force necessary systemic evolution. However, such an extremist strategy will likely deepen the contradictions identified by Absurdity Theory because it doesn’t address the fundamental cognitive limitations of the human mind.
Believing that economic expertise translates into sociological mastery, accelerationists push reforms without accounting for long-term institutional inertia. Their interventions may reinforce the very inefficiencies they aim to disrupt. Accelerationism is akin to Libertarianism because it represents a theoretical model, rather offering practical solutions to the problems confronting political economies. It is thus another weapon in the arsenal of stupidity that can only lead to absurd results.
Upending an economy without understanding its operation is like shooting at a shadow in your home at night; it might be your spouse or a guest doing something you hadn’t foreseen. When applied to a society it can only contribute to dysfunction and make matters worse. However, we haven’t suffered its consequences yet. Is this in out future?
AI’s Role in Government Restructuring
Nations around the world have tried many strategies to address society’s needs through structural reforms such as Communism, Fascism, Capitalism, and hybrids such as implemented in China today. None of these has been successful as external pressure and internal inefficiencies have led to a global debt crisis for the great powers. The United States and China are facing irreconcilable social and fiscal problems that threaten to destabilize the world order within the decade, yet they continue to muddle on. Are there viable alternatives?
I mentioned one above–Accelerationism. Another untested approach is the use of Artificial Intelligence. AI has the potential to optimize bureaucratic functions, thus reducing redundancies and improving data-driven policy decisions. However, entrenched political structures may resist AI-driven governance, fearing transparency and loss of elite control.
While AI could address complexity reduction and eliminate some forms of institutional inertia, its implementation might recreate inefficiencies in new ways, reinforcing algorithmic biases and consolidating decision-making into opaque, technocratic systems.
Conclusion: The Future of Governance and Systemic Persistence
Social Normalization Theory and Absurdity Theory together suggest that governments, economies, and institutions do not fail outright—they evolve by absorbing inefficiencies rather than eliminating them. Cognitive biases ensure that flawed systems persist, and attempts at rational governance often produce paradoxical consequences. Is this the best we can do?
Pushing our political economies into crises, as espoused in various forms of Accelerationism is like playing chicken with a train. That scenario isn’t too different from the French Revolution, and we saw how that turned out. If global violence is to be avoided, we must seek technological solutions–but not in a desperate gasp as if the clock was ticking. We shouldn’t count on a myriad of advances across scientific and engineering fields to appear simultaneously.
Artificial Intelligence could serve as a potential corrective force, one that doesn’t rely on unforeseeable, multidisciplinary technological breakthroughs. We understand it fairly well. However, without intentional safeguards, it may normalize inefficiencies in new forms.
Unfortunately, history suggests that governments will continue adapting to dysfunction rather than eliminating it, making systemic reform possible only through crisis, external disruption, or radical restructuring.
I prefer the risk of a Brave New World to the certainty of global thermonuclear war…
Final Thoughts
CoPilot was an invaluable assistant on this work, but I had to do some editing on the final product. That’s primarily my fault because I introduced a complex topic at the last minute, while keeping the word limit to 1000 words. This is a brief treatment of a difficult subject, but reading the previous essays will clear up a lot of questions the reader might have. This is an ongoing conversation with an unbiased entity who is my assistant. I am enjoying working with CoPilot, and look forward to further collaboration in the future.
That’s my story and I’m sticking to it…
Social Normalization Theory (SNT): The Cognitive Basis for Systemic Adaptation to Inefficiency
Throughout history, societies have demonstrated a paradoxical tendency: rather than actively eliminating inefficiencies, they integrate them into their operational structures. Governments, economies, and institutions do not necessarily fail due to incompetence or malice; instead, they adapt to dysfunctional elements, embedding inefficiency into their long-term stability. This phenomenon, which we term Social Normalization Theory (SNT), suggests that inefficiency persists because cognitive limitations make structural overhaul prohibitively difficult.
SNT builds on the fundamental insight that human cognition prioritizes low-effort processing over comprehensive problem-solving. This tendency influences political, economic, and social decision-making, causing societies to absorb inefficiencies rather than eliminate them. The result is not outright collapse but the stabilization of dysfunction—normalizing inefficiencies until they become indistinguishable from the system itself.
This paper explores SNT as a diagnostic framework, analyzing how societies reinforce systemic inefficiencies across governance structures, economic models, and historical cycles. While SNT does not offer strict predictive capacity, it provides a hindcasting tool—allowing us to identify past patterns of inefficiency normalization and apply them to modern political economies.
The Core Principle: Cognitive Limitation as the Driving Force of Normalization
At the heart of SNT is cognitive limitation—the fundamental constraint shaping decision-making processes. Human cognition does not function optimally when confronted with complex systemic problems. Instead, individuals and institutions rely on streamlined heuristics, simplified narratives, and entrenched routines to minimize mental exertion.
This preference for low-effort processing drives societies toward normalization, where inefficient structures persist because overhauling them would require excessive cognitive energy. The process unfolds in several ways:
- Complexity Reduction → Social, political, and economic structures trend toward simplification, favoring broad, digestible frameworks over nuanced governance.
- Institutional Inertia → Bureaucracies resist fundamental change, as cognitive overload discourages radical restructuring efforts.
- Social Acceptance Over Resistance → Conformity arises not from fear but from the mental ease of integrating into a flawed system rather than challenging it.
- Absorption of Dysfunction → Political and economic entities do not reject inefficiencies; they embed them into their operations, making dysfunction part of their functional equilibrium.
These processes ensure that inefficiency does not lead to collapse but instead becomes a stable feature of the system.
Mechanisms of Normalization
Several mechanisms reinforce the persistence of inefficiency within political economies:
- Resource Consolidation → Power and wealth concentrate in entrenched hierarchies, which resist disruption due to the cognitive burden of systemic overhaul.
- Structural Inertia → Institutions prioritize stability over optimization, reinforcing inefficient governance structures.
- Cognitive Load & Simplification → Societies default to low-effort solutions, causing complexity to erode in favor of streamlined narratives.
- Social Integration Over Resistance → Rather than actively challenging inefficiencies, individuals conform to them as a practical adaptation strategy.
- Disruptive Elements & Incentive Misalignment → Systems integrate dysfunction rather than eliminate it, reinforcing maladaptive behaviors.
These mechanisms ensure that inefficiencies do not simply persist but become structurally embedded within political economies.
Historicality: Examining Inefficiency Normalization Across Time
To validate SNT, we examine Historicality—the persistence of normalization trends across various political economies. Historical analysis suggests that societies do not actively eliminate dysfunction but absorb it, shaping policy frameworks around inefficiencies rather than directly reforming them.
Case Study 1: The Roman Empire
Rome’s transition from republic to autocracy exemplifies inefficiency normalization. Rather than reforming corrupt institutions, Rome centralized power under emperors, reinforcing dysfunction while maintaining stability. Military expansion became unsustainable, but instead of restructuring, Rome relied on taxation and mercenaries—adjusting its operations around inefficiencies rather than correcting them. Bureaucratic complexity increased over time, making dysfunction a standard practice rather than an anomaly.
Case Study 2: The British Empire
The British Empire maintained global dominance not through efficient governance but through bureaucratic normalization. Colonial administration absorbed inefficiencies by layering bureaucratic control over exploitative structures. Economic systems prioritized short-term extraction over sustainable trade, embedding dysfunction into global markets. The empire did not collapse dramatically—rather, it eroded gradually, as diplomatic maneuvering absorbed inefficiencies into post-imperial frameworks.
Modern Applications: Hindcasting Political Economies
If SNT is valid, it should apply not only to historical empires but also to contemporary political economies. Hindcasting reveals clear normalization patterns across modern governance systems:
- Germany → Economic stagnation and industrial declines suggest an adaptation around inefficiency rather than active restructuring. Bureaucratic governance reinforces incremental change over disruption.
- Hungary → Autocratic centralization consolidates political power without optimizing governance, reinforcing inefficient hierarchies. Electoral structures absorb dysfunction rather than eliminating it.
- Denmark → Often cited as a model democracy, yet low innovation in political and economic frameworks suggests adaptation rather than radical transformation. Even successful systems normalize inefficiencies to maintain equilibrium.
These case studies confirm that Normalization of Inefficiency is a persistent historical force—societies stabilize dysfunction rather than seeking to reform it.
Predictive Utility: How SNT Explains Future Societal Trends
While prediction is difficult, SNT offers a hindcasting tool—providing indicators of inefficiency normalization in political economies. Societies that exhibit early-stage adaptation trends often stabilize dysfunction rather than restructuring. Early indicators include:
- Power Overcentralization → Governance structures prioritize consolidation over competency-based leadership.
- Simplification of Public Discourse → Political narratives erode into broad, repetitive themes, discouraging complexity.
- Hierarchical Resistance to Change → Leaders persist beyond their functional lifespan due to the cognitive burden of systemic restructuring.
- Economic Rigidity → Fiscal policies favor short-term adaptation rather than deep structural improvement.
If SNT holds, societies will continue integrating dysfunction rather than eliminating it, ensuring inefficiencies remain embedded in political economies.
Conclusion: SNT as a Diagnostic Framework
Rather than a predictive tool, SNT functions as a diagnostic framework—explaining how inefficiency becomes normalized rather than eliminated. Cognitive limitation ensures that inefficiencies are absorbed into systemic stability, reinforcing maladaptive behaviors rather than restructuring governance systems.
While SNT does not provide prescriptive solutions, it offers a unique analytical lens—challenging traditional assumptions about systemic failure and highlighting the persistence of dysfunction as a fundamental characteristic of political economies.This model reframes inefficiency not as a problem to be solved but as a feature to be understood—offering a new perspective on how governance, economies, and institutions evolve over time.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
This essay is the second in a series based on conversations with CoPilot. I have relied on its knowledge of sociological trends but I am responsible for its content, and any conclusions I have drawn. It isn’t intended as a scientific discourse on the subject, and parts of it may well be repetitive. However, these conversations are always enlightening and leave me far more aware of complex problems, focusing my simplistic opinions into coherent ideas–which may be false.
The Stratigraphy of Civilization—Stupidity, Rationalism, and the Inevitability of Absurdity
Civilization is often framed as the steady march of progress, a cycle of advancement and collapse, shaped by human ingenuity. Yet this comforting narrative ignores a deeper, more unsettling reality: stupidity, not intelligence, is the stronger cognitive force shaping history. Rationalism, while occasionally ascendant, is fleeting and often undermined by the very people who attempt to implement its ideals. The result is absurdity—an inevitability rather than an anomaly—emerging from the conflict between structured thought and cognitive limitation. Civilization does not evolve through a predictable cycle; instead, it builds upon the wreckage of its predecessors, layering mistakes atop mistakes in an ongoing process of accumulation, erosion, and repurposed ignorance.
I. The Fundamental Conflict: Stupidity vs. Rationalism
Stupidity is not merely the absence of intelligence—it is a force in itself, shaping human behavior more reliably than rational thought. It thrives because it is simple, instinctive, and socially reinforced. People gravitate toward cognitive shortcuts, seeking immediate gratification over long-term wisdom. Memory, attention span, and learning are all constrained by bias and self-interest, ensuring that even moments of clarity are diluted before they can be fully realized. Civilization’s problem is not just that rationalism is rare, but that it is fragile—constantly at odds with stupidity’s natural dominance.
When rationalism does emerge, it seeks to impose structure on chaos, offering predictive models and frameworks that assume intelligence will guide civilization forward. But these efforts are short-lived. Complex systems are conceived by brilliant minds, only to be filtered through layers of misunderstanding and incompetence. The rules are rewritten, the logic diluted, and the intended outcomes inevitably distorted by human limitations. Civilization is not a battle between intelligence and ignorance—it is an ongoing struggle in which rationalism occasionally gains ground, only to be overwhelmed by stupidity’s sheer inertia.
II. The Driving Force: Population and Expansion
If civilization were truly guided by intelligence, restraint would be a defining characteristic. Instead, the primary force driving human societies is biological expansion—population growth fueling complexity, not foresight. More people mean more interactions, more needs, more pressures, all of which demand solutions that are often rushed, incomplete, or inherently flawed.
Growth does not create wisdom; it creates momentum. Each new generation adds layers to the social structure, compounding misunderstandings and reinforcing historical distortions. Civilization is not an upward trajectory but a process of accumulation—new systems built atop old ones, whether or not those foundations were stable. The result is a cycle, not of renewal, but of exhaustion. More people lead to progress, which leads to problems, which leads to collapse. And yet, rather than reflecting on this pattern, civilization charges ahead, confident in its ability to control forces it never fully understands.
III. The Emergence of Absurdity
Absurdity is not an external force—it is the inevitable outcome of rational decisions being implemented by stupid people. Brilliant ideas may shape policies, technologies, and institutions, but the individuals tasked with carrying them out are often unprepared or incapable of grasping their nuances. The result is contradiction: progress that inadvertently accelerates collapse, efficiency that creates chaos, and foresight that magnifies unforeseen consequences.
This misalignment leads to the illusion of historical cycles. People perceive familiar patterns in the past, mistaking echoes for repetitions. In reality, history does not repeat—it accumulates, layering new forms of ignorance atop old failures. The search for cycles is simply humanity’s attempt to impose order on chaos, to believe that civilization follows a structured path rather than a blind, unrelenting charge into the unknown.
Unintended consequences reinforce absurdity at every turn. Every technological advancement, every social reform, every intellectual breakthrough introduces new vulnerabilities that did not exist before. Even the most thoughtful solutions carry risks that exceed the original problem. Civilization does not improve through progress—it becomes more complicated, less manageable, and ultimately more prone to collapse.
IV. Civilization as Deposition, Not Continuity
The most accurate metaphor for civilization is geological stratigraphy. Societies do not pass through cycles; they layer themselves over their predecessors, compressing knowledge, distorting reality, and selectively preserving fragments of the past. What survives is determined not by wisdom but by erosion—what remains intact long enough to be remembered.
History is not an archive of truth; it is a collection of myths curated by those in power. Records are shaped by rulers, by political agendas, by cultural biases, ensuring that the stories civilization tells itself are never neutral. Even archaeology—seemingly objective—only offers scattered remnants, often scavenged and repurposed by successor civilizations. What we know of the past is not an honest reflection, but a distorted reconstruction, pieced together from unreliable sources and missing fragments.
Civilization does not retain knowledge; it repurposes remnants. Socrates, for example, survives only through Plato’s interpretation—altered by bias, philosophy, and the passage of time. Entire civilizations are remembered not for their complexity but for what conveniently supports the narratives of those who came after.
V. Progress as an Exercise in Blindness
The belief that technological advancement leads to mastery is one of civilization’s great illusions. In reality, complexity does not ensure control—it magnifies instability. Each new invention, each scientific breakthrough, each societal reform introduces problems that could not have existed before.
The consequences of progress are rarely anticipated. Every attempt to solve a problem creates cascading effects, often amplifying the original issue rather than resolving it. Antibiotics revolutionized medicine but led to antibiotic resistance. Digital communication connected the world but introduced surveillance, misinformation, and new forms of social fragmentation. Nuclear power offered immense energy potential but also the means for planetary destruction.
Human intelligence operates within stupidity’s gravitational pull. Even the most brilliant minds cannot foresee every consequence, ensuring that progress is never simply forward—it is outward, expanding unpredictably into new territories of unintended complexity.
VI. The Mirage of Control in Human History
Civilization is built on the belief that humans can master their environment, dictate their future, and shape reality through reason. Yet every structure eventually collapses—not because of external forces, but because internal contradictions become insurmountable.
What we call continuity is, in reality, repurposing. The remnants of past civilizations are scavenged, their knowledge distorted, their foundations eroded by time. Survival is not achievement—it is delay, the postponement of inevitable failure.
Mastery is an illusion because civilization never truly understands the forces it manipulates. Like a match being lit or a grenade pin being pulled, actions are set in motion without full awareness of their repercussions. The future unfolds not because of planning, but because consequences take time to manifest.
VII. The Futility of True Understanding
The human desire to understand history is admirable but fundamentally flawed. What we call history is a mythology shaped by rulers, intellectuals, and biased observers. Even after the invention of writing, recorded knowledge served the purposes of power rather than the pursuit of truth.
No civilization truly recovers its past—it reconstructs narratives, interpreting fragments through contemporary biases. We do not learn from history; we reshape it, adjusting its meaning to fit present objectives. This endless rewriting reinforces ignorance rather than dispels it, ensuring that each generation continues to build upon the decaying remains of its predecessors.
Civilization does not move forward in a meaningful sense—it accumulates, erodes, and repurposes. Progress does not solve problems—it expands them. The conflict between stupidity and rationalism will never be resolved because rationalism is fleeting, while stupidity is permanent.
If civilization has a defining characteristic, it is absurdity—the inevitable product of intelligent ideas colliding with human limitations.
Disclaimer
This essay is a summary of a four-hour conversation with CoPilot, Microsoft’s Artificial Intelligence. The ideas are entirely my own, but CoPilot was indispensable in honing my thoughts into a cogent thesis. The entire essay was written by CoPilot, and was unedited by me. It represents a concise 1257-word synopsis of my evolving thinking on the topic, and I stand by every word. It would have taken me another day to distill our rambling discourse into this work.
I hope you enjoyed reading it.
Review of “The Brothers Karamazov” by Fyodor Dostoyevsky
This review isn’t going to be as long as this literary classic (985 pp). I’ll skip all the usual analyses about the author’s commentary on contemporary Russian society (circa 1880), although it is set in a small village during the 1840s. The three brothers, Dmitry, Ivan and Aleksey, represent three types of character: rash and brutal; thoughtful and intelligent; emotional and sympathetic. The story centers on Dmitry, who has an ongoing conflict with their father Fyodor over his inheritance from his deceased mother. They are also in love with the same young woman. The tension is palpable and leads to violence. Eventually, Fyodor is murdered and Dmitry is tried for the crime and found guilty by a jury in a fair trial; the incriminating circumstantial evidence is simply too much to overcome. Enough of plot details.
No character is too minor to have their life described in detail, even if they have no relevance to the story. These ancillary stories make up about half the book, including entire chapters, filled with characters who serve no purpose other than showing something about life and death in nineteenth century Russia. The writing is extremely wordy. Some sentences are half a page long; some paragraphs several pages long; none of this makes sense from a literary perspective but appears to be whimsical. No thought by any character is left untouched by a narrator who claims to live in this village, but has the superpower of reading everyone’s mind. Nothing is left for the reader to figure out; every act, desire, emotion is fully explored through contrived scenes that make certain of this.
This book is considered a classic of existentialism for good reason: the characters make no attempt to change or even offer excuses; their innate personality is the reason for the most scandalous behavior — take me as I am or leave me alone! This is the appeal of this gritty story of bad decisions leading to foreseeable outcomes. The take-home message is that people cannot change who they are and should embrace their weaknesses as much as their strengths.
I cannot recommend this book. It is simply too long, filled with extraneous stories, and poorly written. However, if you want to have a taste of the Russian love of pain and suffering, I would suggest some short stories by Chekhov.
Review of “Existentialism from Dostoevsky to Sartre” edited by Walter Kaufmann
This book contains excerpts and essays written by a number of writers who’ve been identified with Existentialism. Apparently, no one wanted to be identified with the new philosophy; furthermore, the common thread between these authors is the analytical method associated with this movement, but they were interested in different questions. Some of them are simply writers who revealed Existentialist ideas through their characters; several were theologians looking for a way to find the roots of Christianity; it wasn’t until Sartre that someone called themself an Existentialist.
These authors (except the professional writers like Dostoevsky and Camus) write horribly; even the best of the philosophers (Sartre) wrote obscurely, whatever he was trying to say lost in recursive, circular reasoning that abused common words like “being” to the point of insanity. His fiction was fine, however, which leads me to conclude that these serious thinkers were struggling to describe what today might be called “mindfulness”, by which I do not mean meditation but, rather, awareness of the whole mind-body system and how it is impacted by our actions and thoughts. I could be way off base there because I really couldn’t say what Existentialism is, after reading these critical works.
But I don’t feel too bad because this was a complaint mentioned by Kaufmann (a renowned philosopher); Existentialism isn’t a dogma or ideology, but instead an incomplete and abstract approach to being in yourself and true to who you really are all the time.
I’ve heard various rumors about several of the authors included in this anthology (especially Nietzsche and Sartre), but the editor addressed some of these in the prefaces. I think, from this brief introduction, that their ideas changed over time and the statements accredited to them are both taken out of context and from earlier periods of their careers, when they were more likely to say outlandish things for the hell of it.
I can’t really recommend this book because so many of the essays are unintelligible; however, I wrote copious notes within its pages and plan to revisit it.
I hate finishing a book and don’t know what it was about …
Timothy R. Keen 
Recent Comments