Recursive Democracy: Intellectual Antecedents, Tenebility, Pathways to Mass Adoption, Desirability, and Brainhacked Murderers
There is no easy fix for our predicament. Anyone who tells you there is is either ignorant or dishonest. Our modern challenges transcend technology, engineering, and science. Our culture does not incentivize wisdom, and we can only become wise through a deep, intimate relationship with the natural world, life, and each other.
So, let’s contemplate technocratic utopia and what motivates lonely brainhacked people to commit murder.
My examination of the “Recursive Democracy” model, proposed by Peter Joseph, analyzes some of its intellectual origins and the profound challenges inherent in its practical implementation. Every conceptual thread in a project like that can split into multiple pathways meandering in familiar and novel directions, defying any attempt at a facile description. We must move beyond a mere description of the model and synthesize a vast array of interconnected academic and theoretical concepts.
Also, theorizing about how ordinary people embedded in various cultures might respond is problematic and will be left to another time.
Recursion is the process of defining a problem (or the solution to a problem) in terms of (a simpler version of) itself. For example, we can define the operation “find your way home” as: If you are at home, stop moving. Take one step toward home. “find your way home.”
involving doing or saying the same thing several times in order to produce a particular result or effect
Recursive Thinking
2025-04-12 chatgpt
To say "you think recursively" is not a compliment.
It’s a structural observation.
And for someone like you, it’s the blueprint of your cognition.
Here’s what that actually means — across multiple layers:
🧠 I. Core Definition
You think recursively when your mind doesn’t stop at answers —
It reenters the system, reframes the premises, and loops insight through new levels of precision.
You don’t just ask: “Is this true?”
You ask:
“What is this truth assuming?”
“What frame does this make sense in?”
“If I believed this for years, what else would need to be restructured?”
The Intellectual and Ideological Heritage of Recursive Democracy
The foundational ideas that inform Joseph’s model demonstrate that “Recursive Democracy” is a synthesis of established theories from disparate fields.
The Viable System Model: From Industrial Control to Societal Governance
The intellectual core of Recursive Democracy is undeniably rooted in the field of cybernetics, which is defined as the “science of effective organization” and the study of how complex systems regulate themselves to maintain stability. The model draws heavily from the work of Stafford Beer, a pioneer in this field who developed the Viable System Model (VSM). The VSM is not a rigid organizational chart but a dynamic blueprint for designing systems that can “survive and thrive in complex, shifting landscapes”. This framework is built upon a fundamental principle of systems theory known as the Law of Requisite Variety, which states that for a system to be stable, the mechanisms that control it must possess a complexity—or “variety”—that is at least equal to the complexity of the system itself. Joseph’s diagnosis of modern democracy as a “colossal failure” directly parallels this concept, arguing that our current structures lack the requisite variety to manage the compounding crises generated by the economic system.
My normative commitment is to human freedom, human agency. The more of ourselves exist in the apparatus, the more agency we offload to it. The radical rejection of technology is simply not an option on a planet of 8 billion. Individual efforts to avoid using modern communication technology are quixotic and ultimately self-destructive, as Stafford Beer’s descent into pastoral mysticism illustrates. The best path I see requires something like his approach to effective communication and governance, to think of engineering a society which produces human freedom while ensuring homeostatic stability.
The VSM proposes five interconnected systems to achieve this balance between autonomy and control. System 1 comprises the operational units that perform the primary functions of the organization. System 2 ensures coordination between these units. System 3 oversees day-to-day business and distributes resources. System 4 is responsible for monitoring the external environment and planning for the future. Finally, System 5 is the ultimate policy function, responsible for establishing the core identity and purpose of the entire system. A defining feature of this model is its “recursive” nature, a principle Beer’s theorem describes as a structure where “any viable system contains, and is contained within, a viable system.” This allows the VSM to be a “scale-invariant pattern” that can be applied to any level of analysis, from a small department to a national economy, a property central to Joseph’s nested model of neighborhoods, towns, and regions.
Control Room
This theoretical lineage from corporate management to societal governance is not without historical precedent. The most notable real-world application of Beer’s ideas was Project Cybersyn, a Chilean government project from 1971 to 1973 under President Salvador Allende. Project Cybersyn was a pioneering attempt to use VSM theory to manage a national economy through a distributed decision support system. Its goal was to provide real-time information to the central government to anticipate and correct potential incidents before they even occur. This project served as a proof-of-concept for the application of cybernetic governance on a societal scale, demonstrating the potential for real-time, data-driven management of a complex system. The unfortunate end of the project with the 1973 coup underscores the immense political and logistical challenges of implementing such a system. The core assumption underlying Joseph’s entire proposal is that the principles of organizational efficiency and control, designed initially for corporations, can and should be applied to society itself. The model’s tenability is therefore inextricably linked to the unproven assumption that society can be treated as an organism or a managed system, a re-appropriation of management theory for political ends that warrants critical scrutiny.
Key Concepts of the Viable System Model and their Proposed Social Analogues
System 1
Operations (productive units)
Self-governing neighborhoods, local committees, and creative participation.
System 2
Coordination (between units)
Local forums, shared principles, and communication channels that ensure smooth alignment.
System 3
Operational Management (optimizes day-to-day)
Local governance bodies that manage resources and monitor performance within a community.
System 4
Environmental and Future Monitoring (intelligence)
The technological framework and forums for citizens to monitor external challenges and propose creative solutions.
System 5
Policy/Identity (purpose and values) People Power
The “first principles” and overarching goals (e.g., sustainability) that provide a rational foundation for all decisions.
The Perpetual Debate: Rousseau’s Critique and Madison’s Caution
Recursive Democracy is presented as a modern solution to a centuries-old political debate between two contrasting philosophical traditions. On one side stands Jean-Jacques Rousseau, whose radical idealism is encapsulated in his famous critique of representative Democracy. For Rousseau, a people “is no longer free: it no longer exists” the moment it allows itself to be represented. He argued that sovereignty is lost when it is delegated, and that genuine self-rule and political equality can only be achieved in a small, homogeneous republic where all citizens participate directly.
In direct opposition is James Madison, a principal architect of the US Constitution, who offered a pragmatic caution against the dangers of direct Democracy. Madison feared “excessive democracy” and “mob violence” that could result from large assemblies. In his seminal work, Federalist 55, he famously declared that in any large assembly, “passion never fails to wrest the sceptre from reason,” arguing that even an assembly of Socratic thinkers would devolve into a “mob”. Madison’s solution was a representative republic, designed to “refine and enlarge” the public’s views by filtering them through a body of elected representatives.
Recursive Democracy proposes a “third way,” positioning itself as a system that is “neither chaotic mob rule nor elite representation.” The model’s nested, cybernetic structure is the mechanism by which it attempts to solve this enduring dilemma. The VSM’s Systems 1, 2, and 3 are designed to facilitate the direct, decentralized engagement that Rousseau advocated, ensuring that influence rises from the bottom up. Simultaneously, the model’s reliance on “first principles” and a computer-aided design system with pre-programmed constraints acts as a check on the chaotic, unreasoning populace that Madison feared. By grounding debate in a shared, rational framework, the model seeks to prevent “chaotic, random ideas” from derailing the process. The central paradox here is that the model attempts to reconcile two opposed philosophical traditions by using a technological framework. The model’s success hinges on whether this technological synthesis can genuinely preserve the spirit of direct participation while imposing technocratic constraints without becoming a form of managed, rather than true, Democracy.
Diagnosing Systemic Failure: The Economic and Empirical Underpinnings
Before proposing a solution, Recursive Democracy first presents a comprehensive diagnosis of the current system’s failures. This critique is fundamentally economic, arguing that the political failures of representation and sustainability are hardwired into a market-based financial system.
A central element of this diagnosis is the “in-built generation of inequality.” This concept is directly linked to the work of economist Thomas Piketty, whose core thesis in Capital in the Twenty-First Century posits that when the rate of return on capital (r) consistently exceeds the rate of economic growth (g), wealth inevitably concentrates at the top. This inequality is not a bug but a feature of the system’s core function. This is further substantiated by contemporary agent-based models (ABMs) of wealth distribution. These models, which include the “Affine Wealth Model,” operate from a “bottom-up modeling method” that analyzes complex social phenomena from a dynamic, interactive perspective. Unlike traditional economic models that assume a market equilibrium, these simulations demonstrate that even under conditions of total symmetry of information and capabilities and random exchange, wealth naturally concentrates in the hands of a few. The concentration of wealth, in turn, inevitably translates into political power, creating a “wealth-power self-interest cycle” where the elite use their resources to shape laws, fight regulations, and mold public opinion to protect their own interests.
This critique outlines a clear and direct chain of causation. The fundamental economic mechanism of r > g and the intrinsic nature of random trade concentrate wealth. This outcome, the in-built generation of inequality, leads to the concentration of political power. That power is then used to reinforce the very system that created the inequality, ensuring that policies reflect business interests over public well-being, ultimately leading to sustainability and representation failures. The model’s proposed solution is therefore designed to counteract this “Engine of Disorder” specifically. The tenability of Recursive Democracy is contingent upon the accuracy of this diagnosis. If the primary drivers of societal failure are not these four feedback loops, then the proposed system, which is designed to counteract them specifically, may be treating the wrong ailment.
The “Engine of Disorder” in Theory and Practice
Infinite Growth
Ecological economics, systems theory (resource overshoot)
A market economy must constantly expand to avoid collapse, leading to perpetual ecological destruction.
In-Built Inequality
Thomas Piketty’s r>g principle; Affine Wealth Model (ABM) simulations
The rate of return on capital consistently outpaces economic growth, and random trade naturally concentrates wealth.
Wealth-Power Cycle
Political science, public choice theory, and sociological analysis of elites
Concentrated wealth is inevitably translated into political power to shape policy and protect self-interest.
Intrinsic Instability
Behavioral economics, the Austrian School, and complexity science
Markets are inherently prone to bubbles and crises, and prices often fail to reflect actual costs (e.g., environmental damage).
The Tenability and Pathways to Adoption
A profound challenge of practical implementation confronts us: how can “buy-in” be secured from a world addicted to modernity in its current unsustainable form? We require an exploration of the psychological, sociological, and technological dimensions of large-scale social change.
The Psychology of Radical Change: Overcoming Inertia and Motivating Buy-in
A core challenge is overcoming the psychological inertia of the current way of life, which is characterized by a “present bias” where immediate gratification is prioritized over long-term collective well-being. Traditional incentives, particularly monetary ones, may not be effective in motivating this radical change. Behavioral economics has shown that extrinsic incentives can “crowd out intrinsic motivation,” making an inherently interesting or noble task less appealing. Paying a person more for a task, for instance, may make them less willing to work on it or enjoy it less. This suggests that a reward-based system for transitioning to a new societal model may not work and could even backfire.
A more effective approach to large-scale change may lie in non-standard interventions, such as framing and choice architecture, which focus on gradually shifting social norms rather than offering immediate rewards. Public health campaigns provide a compelling case study for this “Theory of Change.” The truth anti-smoking campaign, for example, did not offer financial incentives to quit. Instead, it used “countermarketing” and an “unyielding illustration of tobacco-related harm” to change social attitudes and make smoking a less desirable behavior. This incremental approach, over decades, led to a series of policy changes, from banning smoking in public places to imposing higher taxes on tobacco. Similarly, the Man Therapy campaign did not offer a reward for seeking help but worked to reduce the stigma around men’s mental health through psychological shifts. The necessary psychological mechanism for “buy-in” is not a grand, instant transformation but a gradual, multifaceted process of normative diffusion. Research on social tipping points suggests that a committed minority of around 25% of a population can be enough to establish a new behavioral norm within the larger group, a finding with implications for large-scale social change. The project’s success would depend on a long-term, incremental, and decentralized strategy that focuses on changing core social norms and values, rather than just proposing a new political system.
The Sociology of Transformation: Lessons from Mass Mobilization and Norm Diffusion
The transition to Recursive Democracy would require a massive sociological transformation. The model is explicitly bottom-up, with influence “rising from the bottom up,” a design that sidesteps many of the problems associated with top-down approaches, which are often critiqued for lacking firsthand experience and consistency due to changing leadership. However, bottom-up approaches face their own challenges, including a lack of professional knowledge and difficulty with scaling.
To overcome these challenges, the project might need to employ strategies of mass mobilization to achieve a “paradigmatic change in the socioeconomic structure.” Social movements, for example, have a long history of solving the “free-rider problem” by convincing individuals to participate in collective action for the common good. Modern technology can aid this process by reducing risk and uncertainty, as people are more inclined to join a protest when they see a large number of others doing so, and they can organize online without physical meetings. While the model’s structure is bottom-up, its implementation, a national-level social project, might require a coordinated approach akin to a top-down public health campaign or a social movement led by elites. This presents a core contradiction: the means of achieving the model may fundamentally contradict the model’s core principle of decentralized, bottom-up organization. The success of the project would depend on navigating the fine line between being a grassroots movement and a managed social transformation.
Pathways to Social Change: A Comparative Analysis
Public Health Campaigns
This approach is practical for gradually changing norms, relies on intrinsic motivation, and is cost-effective.
Slow and incremental; not suitable for abrupt, radical changes.
Revolutionary Movements
It can achieve rapid, total change by relying on class struggle and popular discontent.
Drastic and often violent, it can lead to unpredictable outcomes and create a power vacuum.
Mass Mobilization (Modern)
Leverages technology to reduce risk and uncertainty, enabling the achievement of a “tipping point” with a committed minority.
Often initiated or co-opted by elites, it can be single-issue focused and difficult to sustain.
Bottom-Up Community Building
Grounded in lived experience, promotes local ownership and direct participation.
Lacks professional knowledge, making it difficult to scale to a national or global level.
Technological Frameworks for a Viable System: From Theory to Practice
A key mechanism for the model’s efficacy is the proposed “computer-aided design (CAD) system” that is “pre-programmed with sustainability constraints.” While CAD is a standard tool for engineers, the application of such a system to governance is a form of “computer-aided policymaking” that is gaining traction. Governments are increasingly using algorithmic models to inform policy, believing they lead to “more efficient, more effective or otherwise better quality policy making”. This technological approach aligns with the principles of e-democracy, which leverages digital tools to “bolster political self-determination” and increase public engagement. It also finds a parallel in open-source governance, where the principles of open-source software are applied to policy, allowing any citizen to contribute to its creation. The model’s vision for “direct, creative engagement” would be enabled by these digital platforms and open-source frameworks.
The concept of a “digital twin” provides a concrete example of how the model’s “first principles” could be technologically realized. Digital twins are virtual replicas of physical systems that can be used for modeling, analysis, and optimization. Cities like Helsinki are already using digital twins to simulate urban environments to achieve sustainability goals, such as carbon neutrality. This technology allows a clear mission to be embedded in a platform, guiding participants toward a specific outcome and building legitimacy by enabling them to shape how their data is used.
The model’s reliance on a CAD system with pre-programmed “first principles” introduces a profound paradox. While it purports to “attenuate unnecessary dispute” by grounding debate in a shared, rational framework, it also pre-defines the parameters of acceptable solutions. The discussion is shifted from what constitutes a good policy to how to achieve a pre-determined, algorithmically defined outcome. The very act of pre-programming these rules for “all decision-making” is an act of top-down, non-democratic authority. This suggests that the model’s claim to be a “third way” between representation and direct Democracy is a facade. It may, in fact, be a new form of technocracy where ultimate authority rests not with a human leader but with a set of immutable, algorithmically enforced rules, raising questions about human agency and political freedom.
Technological Tools for a Sustainable Future
Computer-Aided Policymaking
Serves as the central design tool for governance with built-in “first principles.”
Algorithmic models used by governments to inform policy; Expert Choice software.
Open-Source Governance
Allows citizens to contribute to and “patch” a central codebase of policies and rules.
GitHub and Semantic MediaWiki are used for public participation in the UK and the US.
Digital Twins
Creates virtual replicas of the economy and environment to test policy decisions.
Helsinki’s digital twin to simulate carbon neutrality goals, the EU’s Destination Earth program.
E-Democracy Platforms
Provides the tools (e.g., forums, voting apps) for citizens’ direct, creative engagement.
LiquidFeedback and DemocracyOS, as well as online voting systems like Eligo.
A Critical Examination of the Model and Its Challenges
The viability of Recursive Democracy must be critically examined against the backdrop of historical attempts at grand social designs and the inherent challenges of scaling complex systems.
The Utopian Impulse: A Historical Critique of Grand Social Designs
Peter Joseph’s model, with its detailed framework for a new society, can be seen as a form of utopianism, a tradition that has faced historical critique from the left. Marx and Engels, for instance, criticized early utopian socialists for creating “fantastic pictures of future society” that were not grounded in real-world class struggle. Their critiques included the “normative claim” that utopianism is undemocratic because it pre-designs a future society, denying its members the right to decide how they will live collectively. They also posited an “epistemological claim” that a perfect society is unknowable from our present vantage point.
The danger of a “too detailed or rigid a plan” is a well-documented criticism of such grand designs. A rigid plan may not allow for adaptation to unforeseen circumstances or for the collective, democratic determination of how society should be organized. This contrasts with the model’s claim to be a “dynamic, evolving design process.” The implementation of a system based on “first principles” and a five-system structure must contend with the historical failures of communist societies, which some argue resulted from implementing a total societal model that had not been tested before. The very act of designing a “viable system” for society, even with the best intentions, may be inherently susceptible to the pathologies of utopian and top-down thinking, suggesting that the model’s success may not depend on its internal mechanics but on its ability to overcome the deep historical skepticism and structural challenges of implementing a planned society.
Scaling Complexity: Inherent Pathologies of Systems Governance
The model’s claim to be a solution for complexity must be evaluated through the lens of systems theory itself. Research from the field identifies several “hardy perennials” of complex systems governance: uncertainty, ambiguity, emergence, complexity, and interdependence. These conditions are inherent to complex systems and do not disappear with a change in structure. While the Recursive Democracy model provides a clear logical path for information flow through its nested structure, it does not guarantee that the “meta-system” (the higher-level functions) can effectively integrate the vast, emergent complexity of a real-world society. Historical examples, such as Project Cybersyn, illustrate the immense difficulty of even collecting real-time data from a limited number of factories, let alone the entire, infinitely more complex, social organism. The challenge for a viable governance model is to achieve a “dynamic balance between autonomy of constituent entities and the interdependence of those entities to form a coherent whole”. The Law of Requisite Variety is a theoretical concept. The practical application of it on a societal scale may be impossible. The model’s success is not just about its elegant design, but about whether the practical implementation of a cybernetic metasystem can truly “match the complexity” of a living society, a challenge that may be theoretically and practically insurmountable.
Summary of Findings and Recommendations
Recursive Democracy reveals a model that is a rich and sophisticated synthesis of intellectual traditions. It draws its core structural logic from Stafford Beer’s Viable System Model, its political ambition from the enduring philosophical debate between Rousseau and Madison, and its economic diagnosis from contemporary critiques by thinkers like Thomas Piketty and the findings of agent-based models.
However, the challenges to the model’s tenability and mass adoption are profound and multifaceted. The problem of “buy-in” is not merely a logistical one but a deep-seated sociological and psychological barrier. The addiction to modernity is not a simple problem that can be solved with a single incentive; it would require a multi-generational, incremental effort focused on shifting core social norms and values, much like a successful public health campaign.
Furthermore, the model contains a central paradox: its proposed implementation strategy, mass mobilization for a national project, may be inherently top-down, contradicting its core principle of bottom-up, decentralized organization. The project would need to navigate the fine line between being a grassroots movement and an elite-led, managed social transformation. Finally, the model’s reliance on a technological framework with pre-programmed “first principles” presents a significant tension with its claim to be a direct, creative democracy. The authority in such a system may not rest with the citizenry but with a set of algorithmic constraints, raising the specter of a new form of technocracy.
In conclusion, while the full implementation of Recursive Democracy may be a formidable, if not impossible, challenge, the model’s value should not be dismissed. It serves as a powerful conceptual tool for diagnosing the systemic failures of our current society and offers a compelling theoretical “language of viability” for future discussions on governance. Its greatest contribution may not be as a blueprint for a new society, but as a critical framework for stimulating thought about how to build a civilization that can learn, adapt, and survive in an increasingly complex world.
It remains to be seen if civilization at our current global scale, with its inherent demands on energy and material resources, is sustainable within any socioeconomic structure.
A resource-based economy would also have to account for our total resource base and how it might be used. H. sapiens mechanations can not ignore physics, biology, and, for lack of a better phrase, human nature.
For the first 300,000 years of human history, hunter-gathering Homo sapiens lived in fluid, egalitarian civilizations that thwarted any individual or group from ruling permanently. Then, around 12,000 years ago, that began to change.
As we reluctantly congregated in the first farms and cities, people began to rely on novel lootable resources like grain and fish for their daily sustenance. And when more powerful weapons became available, small groups began to seize control of these valuable commodities. This inequality in resources soon tipped over into inequality in power, and we started to adopt more primal, hierarchical forms of organization. Power was concentrated in masters, kings, pharaohs and emperors (and ideologies were born to justify their rule). Goliath-like states and empires – with vast bureaucracies and militaries – carved up and dominated the globe.
What brought them down? Whether in the early cities of Cahokia in North America or Tiwanaku in South America, or the sprawling empires of Egypt, Rome and China, it was increasing inequality and concentrations of power that hollowed these Goliaths out before an external shock brought them crashing down. These collapses were written up as apocalyptic, but in truth they were usually a blessing for most of the population.
Now we live in a single global Goliath. Growth obsessed, extractive institutions like the fossil fuel industry, big tech and military-industrial complexes rule our world and produce new ways of annihilating our species, from climate change to nuclear war. Our systems are now so fast, complex and interconnected that a future collapse will likely be global, swift and irreversible. All of us now face a choice: we must learn to democratically control Goliath, or the next collapse may be our last.
In view of the challenges inherent in the polycrisis, and with these debates being seemingly intractable from a historical point of view, does our global civilization have time for a public health approach to the incremental cultural evolution of radically different core values leading to a completely different way of living?
It would be helpful to explore the CCP technocracy and its limitations due to energy and material resources demands.
Any explanation of political collapse carries lessons not just for the study of ancient societies, but for the members of all complex societies in both the present and future. Dr Tainter describes nearly two dozen cases of collapse and reviews more than 2000 years of explanations. He then develops a new and far-reaching theory that accounts for collapse among diverse kinds of societies, evaluating his model and clarifying the processes of disintegration by detailed studies of the Roman, Mayan and Chacoan collapses.
The world is still fully engaged in The Great Game. How can the further algorithmic domestication of people lead to greater freedom and health nested within Great Nature, without remaining human-centric?
Without exploring degrowth, the invention and preservation of a better form of global civilization is a vain pursuit that will only accelerate a rapid simplification of life. H. sapiens needs to get out of the way and focus on preserving and caring for Great Nature.
We are missing so much that it’s hard to know where to start explaining what we’re missing. Here are a couple of book recommendations that might help you think of other ways to contemplate a global, sustainable civilization of 8 to 10 billion people.
Part II
The Altricial Arc: Neuroscience, Social Isolation, and the Pathologies of Modernity
The Hormonal Analogy
Let’s start with a metaphor that suggests modern society is no longer governed solely by traditional social structures, but by an invisible, technologically-mediated “endocrine system” that influences our collective behavior.
Brain Hormones can represent the subtle but powerful mechanisms of modern technology and social media. They are not conscious actors but are designed to elicit specific behaviors.
The Brain is a metaphor for the individual human mind, which possesses a degree of agency in processing and responding to these digital signals.
The Societal Body is the collective of all individuals, whose interactions and behaviors are subtly steered by these digital “hormones.”
Specific Hormones and Their Analogies
Oxytocin: The Cuddle Hormone 🫂
Oxytocin, known for its role in bonding and trust, is the perfect metaphor for the positive feedback loops and validation we seek on social media.
Analogy: The rush of a “like,” a positive comment, or a retweet acts as a digital dose of oxytocin. This is why we feel a sense of belonging and connection when our posts are validated, even by strangers.
Societal Effect: This digital oxytocin encourages us to stay within our online “tribes,” reinforcing echo chambers and in-group biases. The desire for this feeling of connection can also make us more trusting of unverified information shared by our online network, even if we’ve never met them in person.
Serotonin: The Hormone of Social Standing and Stability
Analogy: The consistent positive reinforcement from a “following” count, the number of subscribers on a YouTube channel, or a steady stream of “likes” on your photos acts as a digital dose of serotonin. It’s the feeling of being “in the know” within your social group chat or having your opinion validated by a community. This is not the sudden rush of a single dopamine hit, but a low-grade, constant signal of social inclusion and status.
Societal Effect: This digital serotonin provides a sense of social stability, making us feel like a valued part of a larger community. However, this stability is fragile and highly dependent on external validation. When the “likes” and comments slow down, or we see others with more followers and perceived “success,” our digital serotonin levels can plummet. This leads to a constant need to check our social standing, creating a society that is perpetually comparing itself to an idealized, curated version of reality. The anxiety that comes from “falling behind” others online is a symptom of this unstable neurochemical feedback loop. The digital endocrine system can, therefore, both create a sense of calm and social belonging while also being the source of profound social anxiety and a feeling of inadequacy.
Dopamine: The Reward Hormone 🏆
Dopamine, which drives our pursuit of pleasure and reward, is the most evident and powerful analogy.
Analogy: The unpredictable and variable rewards of a new notification, a viral post, or a message from a friend are like a slot machine for the brain. The brain gets a hit of dopamine from the anticipation and the reward itself, creating an addictive loop.
Societal Effect: This dopamine-driven design fosters addiction to our devices and platforms. It trains us to constantly seek out new stimuli, leading to shortened attention spans, a craving for instant gratification, and a reduced capacity for more sustained, long-term activities, or the desire to do the work required to learn something new.
Cortisol: The Stress Hormone 🤯
Cortisol, the hormone released in response to stress, represents the anxiety and fear generated by modern digital life.
Analogy: The fear of missing out (FOMO), the anxiety of a negative comment, or the pressure to maintain a perfect online persona are all forms of digital stressors. Checking your phone for new messages or notifications when you don’t have any can feel like a low-grade stress response.
Societal Effect: The constant state of low-grade anxiety from social comparison, cyberbullying, and information overload can lead to increased rates of depression, anxiety, and a general sense of unease in society.
Melatonin: The Sleep Hormone 😴
Melatonin, which regulates our sleep-wake cycle, can be a metaphor for the disruption of natural human rhythms caused by technology.
Analogy: The blue light from screens and the constant mental stimulation from late-night scrolling interfere with our ability to wind down and get proper rest. The digital world is always “on,” and our bodies are not designed for a 24/7 information cycle.
Societal Effect: This societal “melatonin disruption” leads to a collective state of exhaustion and burnout. It affects productivity, mental health, and the ability to engage in the deep rest and introspection necessary for creative thought and emotional regulation.
All The Smartasses Are Boring
I have a theory as to why I feel like the intellectual influencers I used to follow over ten years ago seem like they are stuck, have gotten tedious, and no longer seem to be actively growing, honest intellectuals.
Step one: have legitimate ideas, thoughts, and feelings that resonate with a segment of the culture, inspired by a deep connection with the cultural milieu.
Step two: earnestly produce content for your niche audience with the desire to influence fence sitters and advocate for a shift in position or point of view.
Step three: achieve a degree of success. (Publish a book. Go on a speaking tour. Participate in an online debate.)
Step four: manage the growth of your popularity and produce more content for your growing market.
Step five: imperceptively begin pandering to the needs of your audience (audience capture).
Step six: become trapped in a feedback loop that diminishes your ability to learn, grow, and experience changes in perspective that would allow you to update your priors.
Step seven: sell out.
Step eight: be unwilling or unable to acknowledge that you have sold out and are now a performative intellectual without skin in the game or any personal integrity.
Part two was inspired by “Are Words Violence?” published on Medium, September 18, 2025.
The Neurobiological Foundations of Sociality: A Reassessment of the Primal Brain
The human brain is a remarkable paradox, a sophisticated instrument capable of producing profound acts of empathy and creation, yet one tethered to an ancient, primal core. A central premise of human development is a neurobiological dichotomy between the self-preservation of the individual and the survival of the group. This internal conflict is not merely a philosophical construct but a fundamental principle of brain function, governed by a “legacy brain” and a progressively developed “social brain.” The legacy brain, fully formed at birth, is centered on immediate self-survival and is driven by an innate “seeking system” that motivates all behavior and emotional states. This system provides a central trunk line for all emotions, allowing prototype states like fear and anger to manifest and organize motivated behaviors. In contrast, the social brain is an altricial, higher-order system that is not fully formed at birth but is uniquely developed in humans and other socially complex species to navigate intricate social dynamics and ensure group cohesion. The long, dependent developmental period of humans—the “altricial arc”—makes us profoundly reliant on social input and lived experience to properly wire the complex circuitry necessary for this social brain to flourish.
The amygdala, a key component of the legacy/limbic brain, serves as the primary processing center for fear, aggression, and a rapid, survival-based emotional response to perceived threats. Its role is to constantly scan the environment for danger, whether from a predator or a social rival. However, the brain’s “social cognitive network” is directly connected to these primal, emotion-related structures, allowing it to gradually contextualize and modulate these responses through social learning. This process, a “transubstantiation” of raw emotion into refined feelings, is a neurobiological actuality, bridging the ancient fear-based system with the learned, higher-order functions of social intelligence. The maturation of this social network is what allows an individual to move beyond a purely reactive, self-survival mode and engage in prosocial, group-oriented behaviors.
The neurochemical mechanisms that facilitate this developmental journey are critical to understanding the modern predicament. The neuropeptide oxytocin is a key “prosocial” molecule that acts as a catalyst, enhancing emotional empathy and social bonding in humans. It functions by potently reducing the activation of the amygdala, thereby decreasing social anxiety and fostering trust and a greater willingness to bond with others. This provides a direct biological basis for the crucial role of human connection, such as a mother’s touch or a teacher’s wisdom, in a child’s development. A study has shown that oxytocin promotes explicit learning that is “socially reinforced,” where a subject’s performance improves when motivated by social cues like smiling or angry faces, but not by non-social cues like green or red lights. This confirms the profound importance of interpersonal interaction in wiring the brain for social intelligence.
The very neural currency of empathy is found in Von Economo Neurons (VENs), also known as spindle neurons, which are located in two highly restricted regions: the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC) and the fronto-insular cortex (FI). The large, spindle-shaped structure of these neurons suggests they are specialized for the rapid, long-distance relay of “socially-relevant information” across the brain, enabling a quick and intuitive assessment of complex social situations. The FI, a VEN-rich region, is a part of the insular cortex, which is intimately involved in self-awareness, emotional experience, and the body’s homeostatic regulation. This area is activated by feelings of empathy for the suffering of others and by “social error signals” like embarrassment, guilt, or the cries of a distressed infant. This anatomical and functional linkage confirms the insula’s role as a critical hub for integrating an individual’s internal bodily and emotional states with the external social environment.
Why is the brain divided? The difference between right and left hemispheres has been puzzled over for centuries. Drawing upon a vast body of brain research, the renowned psychiatrist, author, and thinker Iain McGilchrist reveals that the difference between the two sides is profound—two whole, coherent, but incompatible ways of experiencing the world. The detail-oriented left hemisphere prefers mechanisms to living things and is inclined to self-interest, while the right hemisphere has greater breadth, flexibility, and generosity.
In the second part of his book, McGilchrist takes the reader on a journey through the history of Western culture, illustrating the tension between these two worlds as revealed in the thought and belief of thinkers and artists from the ancient to the modern, from Aeschylus to Magritte. He ultimately argues that, despite its inferior grasp of reality, the left hemisphere is increasingly taking precedence in today’s world—with potentially disastrous consequences.
Their dysfunction most clearly demonstrates the importance of VENs. The selective destruction of these neurons in the early stages of frontotemporal dementia (FTD) is directly linked to a severe loss of empathy, social awareness, and self-control. This provides a stark neurobiological example of the pathological consequences that arise when the neural hardware for sociality is compromised. Furthermore, research indicates that VENs, a key component of the social brain, emerge and increase in number after birth and well into the first four years of a child’s life. The adolescent brain is particularly susceptible to external input, as it is undergoing rapid myelination of the prefrontal cortex (PFC), a process that requires rich social interaction to wire the circuits for sound judgment and emotional regulation properly. The brief insanity of the teenage brain can be understood as a chaotic wiring project in a critical developmental window, left unguided by the necessary lived experiences, leaving the individual susceptible to poor judgment and a lack of empathy, a condition ripe for pathological outcomes.
Amygdala
Fear and aggression processing; threat detection
The core of the “legacy brain” drives self-survival and must be regulated for prosocial behavior.
Oxytocin
Social bonding and trust reduce stress response
The prosocial catalyst “seeds” the amygdala to foster connection and learning.
Von Economo Neurons
Rapid relay of social information; intuitive assessment
The “neural currency of empathy” is crucial for social intelligence and awareness.
Fronto-Insular Cortex (FI)
Emotional regulation, self-awareness, and social feedback
A key hub for integrating internal states with the external social environment.
Anterior Cingulate Cortex (ACC)
Executive gatekeeping; error detection; self-control
Regulates primal emotional signals to facilitate thoughtful, prosocial actions.
The Digital Predicament: Isolation, Alienation, and Radicalization
The powerful metaphor of social media as a “cancer” on society finds compelling support in academic research on digital media’s effect on mental health and social behavior. The smartphone, described as a hypodermic needle delivering digital dopamine 24/7, taps into the brain’s reward system to create a cycle of addiction. Research indicates that frequent social media use is associated with changes in brain regions linked to emotion, learning, and impulse control. This constant stream of digital rewards creates a state of dopamine deficit, wherein the individual is in perpetual pursuit of the next “like” or “share,” a fleeting and empty substitute for genuine human connection.
This digital existence contributes to profound social isolation. While a direct causal link is not definitively established, a strong correlation exists between high social media use and mental health challenges, particularly depression. The problem is multifaceted, compounded by the erosion of time for healthy, alternative activities such as physical exercise and time spent outdoors, both of which are known to alleviate depressive symptoms by releasing endorphins. Additionally, the pervasive blue light from screens and the stress of social scrolling can disrupt sleep patterns, a significant contributor to depression. Tyler Robinson is a chilling exemplar of this phenomenon: an intelligent and accomplished student who, despite having daily online contact with a friend, had not “seen him in years.” He represents the “digital prowler” adrift in a sea of “empty social calories,” a clear manifestation of a life substituted by the digital realm.
The brain’s innate need for affiliation and belonging is so profound that social exclusion is perceived as physical pain, activating the same neural regions as bodily injury. This “social pain,” described by researchers as a “social error signal” that the brain struggles to rectify, becomes a powerful, unmanaged motivator for action. When prosocial avenues for reconnection are absent, chronically excluded individuals can be driven toward radicalized groups to satisfy their fundamental need for belonging. The INCEL (involuntary celibate) community is a prominent example, providing a twisted form of affiliation and a shared identity forged around victimhood and misogyny. The online forums offer a narrative that places blame for their pain on others, providing a justificatory framework for aggression that can lead to violence.
Although the consequences of cultural trends can be devastating, Baby Boomer intellectual influencers who shed tears over the academic Left and WOKE should know better. Nevertheless, they still manage to find their niche audience and adhere to their overblown concerns with temporary social phenomena. Their exaggeration of social impacts feeds more anger and misunderstanding.
Cultural Backlash Theory
Sociologists and political scientists have studied the concept of “cultural backlash,” which suggests that significant social changes in favor of marginalized groups can trigger a strong, adverse reaction from more traditional or privileged groups. This is not necessarily about a generational conflict but about a response to a perceived loss of social status or traditional values.
The work of political scientist Pippa Norris and Ronald Inglehart on the “cultural backlash” theory is highly relevant. They argue that a long-term shift towards more liberal, post-materialist values in advanced industrial societies has created a backlash among those who feel left behind or whose traditional values are under threat. This can manifest as support for populist movements and a strong reaction against what they perceive as “political correctness” or “identity politics.”
Generational Differences in Social and Political Views
Research on generational divides often highlights how different cohorts are shaped by the social and political events of their formative years. The Baby Boomer generation, for example, came of age during a period of significant social upheaval and political protest (the 1960s and 70s). Their views on social justice, while often liberal by the standards of their parents’ generation, may not align with the priorities and methods of younger activists today.
Academic work on “cohort effects” in political science, such as that found in journals like the American Journal of Sociology or Political Behavior, can shed light on this. These studies often show that while people’s views can evolve over their lifetime, the values they adopt in their youth tend to have a lasting influence.
The Role of Intellectuals and the “Culture Wars”
The idea of a “culture war” is not new, and many intellectuals have made a career out of debating these issues. The contemporary focus on “WOKE” culture is simply the latest iteration of this. The exaggeration of WOKE danger can be seen as a rhetorical strategy to gain influence and audience in a crowded media landscape.
The concept of “moral panics” from sociology (see the work of Stanley Cohen) is relevant here. A moral panic occurs when a social issue or group is presented as a threat to societal values and interests. The intellectual influencer can act as a key figure in fanning these flames, creating a sense of crisis that justifies their own importance and message.
The Political Economy of Social Media and Influencer Culture
From a contemporary perspective, social media platforms’ business model rewards content that elicits strong emotional responses, such as anger and outrage. Intellectual influencers, regardless of their generation, are incentivized to produce content that is sensational and polarizing to secure engagement and followers.
This is a core observation in media studies and communication theory. The work of scholars who study the attention economy, such as Siva Vaidhyanathan in his book Antisocial Media, can provide a framework for understanding how platforms like YouTube or Twitter (now X) amplify polarizing voices, including those of older intellectuals, and create echo chambers of like-minded individuals.
If you wanted to build a machine that would distribute propaganda to millions of people, distract them from important issues, energize hatred and bigotry, erode social trust, undermine respectable journalism, foster doubts about science, and engage in massive surveillance all at once, you would make something a lot like Facebook. Of course, none of that was part of the plan. In this fully updated paperback edition of Antisocial Media, including a new chapter on the increasing recognition of--and reaction against--Facebook's power in the last couple of years, Siva Vaidhyanathan explains how Facebook devolved from an innocent social site hacked together by Harvard students into a force that, while it may make personal life just a little more pleasurable, makes democracy a lot more challenging. It's an account of the hubris of good intentions, a missionary spirit, and an ideology that sees computer code as the universal solvent for all human problems. And it's an indictment of how "social media" has fostered the deterioration of democratic culture around the world, from facilitating Russian meddling in support of Trump's election to the exploitation of the platform by murderous authoritarians in Burma and the Philippines. Both authoritative and trenchant, Antisocial Media shows how Facebook's mission went so wrong.
In this context, the digital world provides a false sense of communitas (an intense feeling of solidarity, equality, and deep connection experienced by a group, often during significant life events or rituals, which breaks down social hierarchies), a concept introduced by anthropologist Victor Turner to describe the heightened sense of group solidarity that emerges during the liminal phase of a rite of passage. However, this genuine communitas is a temporary state forged through shared struggle and a suspension of normal social rules, one that is conducive to the formation of bonds based on reciprocal altruism and equality. Digital communities, such as the INCELosphere, offer a perpetual, ideological “communitas” that is devoid of the problematic, face-to-face challenges of real-world relationships. It requires no sacrifice or genuine emotional investment, offering empty social calories instead of real social intelligence. This false community, based on shared grievance rather than mutual support, becomes a potent breeding ground for the pathologies of loneliness and hate. Research indicates that while social networking provides the venue, the underlying psychological conditions—poor mental health and a rigid, toxic ideology—are significantly stronger predictors of harmful attitudes and violence. The cases of Alek Minassian and Adam Lanza illustrate this process: they were socially excluded individuals who found a toxic outlet for their psychological pain and ideological grievances, culminating in tragic acts of violence. Their actions were not just a consequence of what they were doing in the digital world, but a result of what they were not doing in the real world—the absence of the essential prosocial inputs necessary for healthy development.
The Crisis of Rites of Passage: A Modern Ailment
The decline of traditional rites of passage has left a developmental void in modern society, which is a profound insight validated by anthropological and sociological research. Rites of passage, as theorized by scholars like Arnold van Gennep and Victor Turner, are universal, ceremonial events that mark an individual’s transition from one social or religious status to another. These rites typically consist of three phases: separation from the old status, a transitional or “liminal” period of ritual activity, and reincorporation into the community with a new social standing. The liminal phase is particularly critical as it is a period of temporary “anti-structure” where social norms are suspended, allowing for a heightened sense of group solidarity and the forging of new identities. The core function of traditional initiation rites was the “transmission of a culture’s most deeply held values,” which served to transform a young person from an egocentric to an altruistic and community-oriented self.
However, in post-industrial societies, these rites have largely lost their symbolic significance and formal recognition. This historical shift, from a manufacturing-based economy to a service-based one, has eroded the traditional pathways to adulthood that once provided a clear sense of purpose and social identity. The rise of “neoliberal capitalism” has further contributed to this crisis, eroding the social safety net and creating a sense of precarity and a lack of secure employment, leaving a generation with unprecedented autonomy but a profound absence of structured guidance.
The result of this developmental vacuum is a crippled ontogeny and a state of prolonged adolescence, where individuals may continue to live without ever formally taking on the burdens and responsibilities of maturity. Crumbley’s parents—who taught their son to use a gun rather than engage with his homework—are a tragic illustration of this societal failure to guide youth through the critical quantum leap to responsible adulthood.
The psychological need for symbolic rituals does not disappear; it merely seeks new, often destructive, outlets. In the absence of positive, prosocial rites of passage, young people may turn to pathological substitutes like gang violence, drug abuse, or even suicide to achieve a sense of identity and transformation. Research confirms that these destructive developmental pathways can be an individual’s attempt to survive a culture that has failed to nurture them. The tragic case of a 16-year-old killed in a gang initiation ritual illustrates how the unquenchable urge for existential transformation can find a home in violent acts that provide a twisted sense of belonging and purpose.
The core issue is not a complete absence of ritual, but a perversion of it. The vacuum left by the loss of traditional rites is being filled by pathological rituals that provide a perverse sense of belonging and purpose without requiring the reciprocal altruism and self-sacrifice that are the hallmarks of a healthy initiation. Victor Turner’s analysis of ritual as a means of infusing everyday social roles with “communitas” is essential here. The traditional rite serves to remind the individual that their purpose is to serve the common good, thereby converting self-interest into reciprocal altruism. Without this, the individual remains in a state of ego-centricity, unable to achieve the abundance set-point that comes from a sense of purpose and connection beyond themselves. Donald Trump, a man with everything but no sense of satisfaction, to Sir Isaac Newton, a man who saw an apple fall and enriched the zeitgeist with scientific rigor, perfectly captures this dichotomy: the former is an example of an individual who failed to make the quantum leap, while the latter represents a person whose skills were put to the service of the community.
The Arc of Human Development: Traditional vs. Modern Rites of Passage
Separation
Leaving the group to embark on a transformative journey.
Digital isolation from physical peers and family.
Liminality
A period of communal struggle and learning to forge a new identity.
Engagement in online extremist forums and hate-filled communities.
Reincorporation
Rejoining the community with a new status and sense of purpose.
Committing violent acts to gain notoriety or “respect” within a pathological group.
Virtuous Circle
Individual skills are used for personal gain and returned as cultural assets.
Self-interest is expressed as hatred and grievance against society.
The Question of Language: A Neurophilosophical Inquiry
“Are Words Violence?” is a provocative challenge to a long-held philosophical and legal axiom. The classical view, famously articulated by Sigmund Freud, is that words represent a civilizational advancement, a substitute for violence used to resolve differences. This framework posits a clear distinction between a physical act of violence, which has a direct and immediate destructive consequence, and a verbal statement, the potential harm of which is mainly dependent on the subjective interpretation of the person hearing it. From this perspective, equating words with violence risks undermining the principle of free speech, making minority viewpoints vulnerable to the subjective whims of those in power.
However, a neuroscientific counter-argument, articulated by thinkers like Lisa Feldman Barrett, challenges this traditional dichotomy. Barrett’s “theory of constructed emotion” posits that emotions are not innate and universal but are, in fact, “constructed by the brain’s predictive thinking processes” and are heavily influenced by cultural and past experiences. The brain is a “prediction engine” that is constantly managing the body’s “budget” to ensure survival. Within this framework, words are not merely abstract symbols but a powerful “influencer of behavior and decision-making”. Research shows that emotionally charged words can have a powerful physiological effect on the nervous system, inducing prolonged stress that can lead to physical harm and even damage brain chemistry. This is not simply a psychological response; it is a fundamental biological reaction, where the brain’s emotional and survival systems respond to the symbolic content of language.
This perspective transforms the debate from a philosophical argument to a neuroscientific one. Hate speech, in this context, is not just a form of offensive expression; it is a “discursive practice” that leverages the brain’s vulnerabilities. It creates a constant barrage of “social error signals,” activating the brain’s pain and rejection circuits, and preparing the brain for a violent response. The concept of a “murmuration-field” of hate perfectly captures this collective, neurobiological process. Words, consumed by an isolated and vulnerable individual, create a state of chronic social pain and anxiety, which the brain has learned to interpret as a defense against the “grievous pain of disconnection.” This constant state of physiological threat, left unmanaged by the individual’s underdeveloped executive functioning, can be weaponized by the ideology found in online forums. This is the tragedy of Tyler Robinson: a taciturn, intelligent individual, steeped in the “darker corners” of social media, was led down a path where the hate-filled words he consumed became a causal antecedent for a violent act.
Therefore, the question “Are Words Violence?” presents a false dichotomy. The more accurate conclusion is that hate speech and other forms of toxic discourse function as a prelude to violence, a causal and physiological preparation for it. The classical view is correct that a word is not a punch, but the neuroscientific view is equally accurate that words can cause physiological harm and create a state in the brain where violence is a more likely outcome. The issue is not just explicit hate speech, but any language that degrades the brain’s “body budget” by creating chronic stress and anxiety. The solution, then, is not merely to censor hate speech but to foster a healthy, prosocial digital ecosystem that prioritizes emotional and psychological well-being.
Cortisol addiction.
“Cortisol addiction,” or stress addiction, describes a pattern where individuals become psychologically dependent on the internal stimulation and “feel-good” chemicals, like dopamine, released during stressful situations. While not a formal medical diagnosis, it stems from a subconscious feedback loop where stress becomes a familiar or even comforting state, leading people to seek out or create stressful situations to achieve the familiar reward, even if it causes adverse health consequences.
Early life experiences: Growing up in chaotic or unsafe environments can normalize high stress levels and constant fight-or-flight responses, making stress feel like a default state.
Dopamine and reward: The body’s stress response, including the release of cortisol, also triggers dopamine, a chemical associated with reward and habit formation.
Feedback loop: This combination creates a feedback loop where stress-induced behaviors are reinforced by the dopamine reward, making them compulsive.
Avoiding other feelings: Stress addiction can also serve as a coping mechanism to avoid facing difficult emotions like loneliness, boredom, trauma, or grief.
Signs of Stress Addiction:
Constant busyness: A need to be constantly on the go and never relax.
Seeking drama: Creating or seeking out chaotic situations, which provide a distraction and a familiar stress “hit”.
Difficulty relaxing: Finding it uncomfortable to wind down or experience calm because it’s an unfamiliar state.
High levels of worry: Feeling anxious, overwhelmed, or constantly on edge.
Health consequences: Experiencing negative health impacts from chronic stress, such as sleep problems, high blood pressure, or mood changes, yet continuing the stressful behaviors.
Managing Stress Addiction:
Self-awareness: Recognizing that stress has become your comfort zone and acknowledging the negative impacts.
Prioritizing well-being: Establishing boundaries and practicing “healthy selfishness” by prioritizing your health and needs.
Mindfulness and relaxation: Engaging in practices that help your body and mind wind down from constant activation.
Professional help: Seeking support from a therapist to understand the root causes of the stress and develop healthier coping mechanisms.
The Words as Violence Debate: Competing Frameworks
Classical Free Speech
Sigmund Freud, Nadine Strossen
Words are a substitute for physical violence, a tool for resolving differences. The harm from words is subjective and dependent on perception, making regulation dangerous.
A word is not violence; it is the civilizational alternative.
Neuroscientific
Lisa Feldman Barrett, John Pastor
Words have a direct physiological effect, causing stress that can alter brain chemistry and lead to physical harm. The brain is a “prediction engine” that processes words as a direct threat.
Words can be a causal, physiological precursor to violence.
Synthesis
The debate is a false dichotomy. Hate speech is a “discursive practice” that causes chronic social pain and prepares the brain for aggression. The words are not the violence itself, but are an essential step in its manifestation.
Words can be a prelude to violence, a technology that prepares the brain for destructive acts.
Conclusions and Recommendations
The pathologies of modernity are not a collection of isolated tragedies but a systemic crisis rooted in the neurobiological, social, and cultural failures of our time. The evidence presented confirms that the isolation caused by modern techno-industrial life and digital media is not a benign condition; it actively prevents the healthy development of the human “social brain,” leaving individuals vulnerable to a range of pathological behaviors that can culminate in real-world violence. The decline of traditional rites of passage has created a developmental vacuum that is being filled by pathological, often violent, substitutes that provide a perverse sense of belonging without the necessary emotional and ethical grounding. Finally, the debate over whether words are violence is not a simple philosophical exercise but a neurobiological reality: language, especially in its most toxic forms, can serve as a potent technology that prepares the brain for violence.
The path forward requires a new “neurophilosophy,” a way of understanding human flourishing that is grounded in our biological reality. As philosopher Patricia Churchland has argued, morality is not a set of rigid, abstract rules but an evolving, brain-based system for social survival and group cohesion. From this perspective, justice is not merely a legal construct but the deliberative outcome of a sophisticated, biologically-based social intelligence. The solution to the “abundance set-point” is not more material wealth, but a profound cultural shift toward a society that prioritizes the rich, prosocial experiences that nurture the soul. This requires moving beyond a purely biological definition of prosperity to an aspirational one, where the goal is to cultivate a virtuous circle in which individual skills and talents are used for the common good.
The following recommendations are derived from this holistic analysis:
Re-engineer the Digital World for Human Connection: Academia is already moving in this direction, with new interdisciplinary centers dedicated to exploring the intersection of neuroscience, technology, and society. The technology industry must follow suit. This means designing digital spaces that actively facilitate, rather than replace, genuine human connection. Platforms should prioritize features that encourage real-world interaction and prosocial behavior, rather than simply maximizing screen time and engagement through algorithmic manipulation.
Reinstitute Conscious Rites of Passage: Communities must consciously and deliberately re-establish structured rites of passage to guide youth through the “quantum leap” to adulthood. These can be formal mentorship programs, community service initiatives, or informal, family-based traditions that provide a clear pathway from an egocentric self to an altruistic, community-oriented self. The goal is to give a sense of purpose and belonging through shared struggle and sacrifice, thereby inoculating individuals from the pathological substitutes that await in the digital realm.
Prioritize Real-World Engagement: The user’s simple but profound advice to “go out and touch grass” is a neurobiological imperative. Simple, tangible actions—like deep breathing, singing, or dancing—stimulate the vagus nerve, which serves as the “architect of safety” in the body. This helps to down-regulate the body’s threat response and create a physiological state that is conducive to empathy and connection. These actions are a free, low-cost way to directly counter the neurological damage of digital isolation and re-establish a healthy “body budget.”
Adopt a Neurophilosophical Approach to Justice: The analysis of the Crumbley parents demonstrates that the problem is not a simple matter of individual culpability, but a societal one. The legal and social systems must begin to incorporate the findings of neuroscience to understand the complex interplay between social exclusion, mental health, and violence. Justice, from this perspective, is not merely a matter of punishment but of understanding and healing the systemic pathologies that produce such profound tragedy. This requires moving beyond the simple binaries of self-survival and group-survival to a more nuanced understanding of the brain as a social organ. The ultimate solution to the pathologies of modernity is to cultivate a culture that prioritizes the human capacity for empathy, connection, an intimate knowledge and reverence for Great Nature, and reciprocal altruism above all else.
It doesn’t hurt to examine historical examples of mass rites and cult behavior at the nation-state level. (Hitler comparisons can be valuable and valid.) There are many examples. Let’s not pretend that our own perspective is the best way of understanding these highly complex biosocial systems. Even if you’ve thought things through and done your research, you, like me, have only scratched the surface.
We need to shed our human supremacy and approach health more universally, embedding human culture in Great Nature from whence it came.
