Our World Is in Jeopardy. So What Do We Do?

Because writing and consuming Dystopian Porn, then bathing ourselves in its poisonous aura, won’t help anyone!

One of my trademarks amidst my social commentary is how I’m tireless when criticizing “Dystopian Porn.” Also known by the generic shorthand of “doom porn,” this brand of defeatism and fatalism is ubiquitous across the Internet. And certain Medium writers are some of its biggest offenders.

If you’re confused as to what I mean when I rail against Dystopian Porn, let me give you an example…

Somebody decides to vent about climate change.

They offer up a well-written summary of how the irresponsible actions of humans have increasingly chipped away at our biosphere, decade after decade.

They provide lots of persuasive scientific data and evidence for the worsening of air pollution, ocean acidification, wildlife degradation, and biodiversity eradication.

They’ve been extremely articulate and credible, so far.

Then, they go into a tirade against dark money and entrenched corruption. While touching upon some broad references to solutions that could reverse (or slow) climate change, they insist that these solutions can never be achieved.

Why not?

Because human beings are too inherently selfish. Even the powerless ones. And, even if those without power did everything perfectly, it would barely make a dent.

They foretell dire trajectories related to the facts and figures they’ve provided, under the assumption that the status quo will be preserved indefinitely or become exacerbated.

Their conclusion is that the powerful are too driven by short-term gratification and corporate profits to make the necessary changes.

Then, they top it off with a vivid description of the hellscape we’ll be living in, as more decades pass us by.

It’s hopeless, they’ll chant. We’re fucked. Deal with it.

Get ready to live a miserable existence. Make preparations to live off the grid. But be sure to stock up on ammo to fend off all of the marauders who will inevitably come after you. Become a minimalist so you’re conditioned to live a nomadic, squalor-filled existence.

We’re telling you this for your own good, they insist. Stop accusing us of fearmongering. Get your head out of the sand. Face the truth. Humans are hopeless.

Or some iteration of that diatribe. For which they receive endless clicks, constant coddling from platform curators, and critical acclaim amongst “enlightened” members of the peanut gallery.

Gee, and people wonder why I feel suicidal so often…

Obviously, I just used climate change as an example due to it being the most existential obstacle of our lifetimes.

But sub in any other alarming societal issue. Take your pick…

Systemic racism and police brutality. Institutional misogyny. Religious oppression. Heteronormative tyranny. Water shortages. Food shortages. Nuclear proliferation. Lack of preparation for future pandemics. Educational curriculums that get whitewashed, watered down, or commandeered by fanatics.

When tackling any of these problems…

What is the value of assuming that nobody will ever want to solve them?

Why must solutions be framed in an overly-ambitious or unrealistic manner?

Who do you think you’re going to persuade with bland, ambiguous talking points that are either condescending, underdeveloped, hyperwoke, or disingenuous?

I just can’t understand people who so mindlessly cling to self-fulfilling prophecies.

So let’s take a different approach, shall we?

How about we talk through a problem…and conceive of the possible solutions?

Then, let’s think of the stakeholders — and there are always many of them!

In which ways can our solutions be reframed or resourcefully packaged to convince the people in power that it’s in their best interest to change things?

Since my environmental science background is limited, I’m probably not the best person to lead such a thought experiment in terms of solving climate change. So, instead, I’m going to focus on something that must be confronted along a much shorter timeframe.

The rise of fascism. Specifically in the United States.

Recently, I penned a public plea for American voters to turn out, this November, and vote against Republicans:

This isn’t due to any love for the Democrats (because I don’t!). And it isn’t advice that will necessarily apply for the rest of eternity, beyond 2023 or 2025.

Rather, it’s recognition that letting the Democratic Party continue to control our government’s Legislative Branch — at least, in the short term — is the only way we’re going to be in a position to potentially enact better solutions.

It’s our only shot at preventing a complete right-wing takeover of our government. Disempowering them, even if they still retain 45%-48% minority status. Because they’ve made it clear that, if they ever seize power at all levels of government, they’re never going to surrender it.

Maybe someday, five years or ten years from now, liberals and progressives will be in a power position from which they’ll visibly try to overstep. In that scenario, we’ll need a revamped moderate Republican Party as a counterforce. Or even a libertarian-esque alternate party that displaces the so-called Moral Majority-style Republicans and presents a viable challenge to the worst of Democratic policies.

Ideally, we’ll end up with multiple political parties that govern through shifting coalitions.

But that’s simply not where we are, right now.

Why should Americans vote Democratic rather than Republican over the next one or two election cycles?

Ahead of the 2022 midterms, we need to consider who stands to lose their freedoms and livelihoods if we don’t stop fascism.

Media creators and journalists: they would be heavily censored by a “paleocon” (paleoconservative) government. The news we receive will be presented as though Vladimir Putin, Kim Jong-un, or Xi Jinping has written it.

Lawyers: paleocons would impose strict limits on the “types of” clients whom attorneys are allowed to represent, how much evidence they’re allowed to present in courtrooms, and new punishable offenses. The rulings of right-wing judges will be given preference.

Farmers: paleocons would allow Big Ag and corporate megaproducers to be given heftier subsidies and even more oligarchical perks. This will essentially make small, family-owned farms all but extinct.

Venture capitalists: paleocons would curb public-private partnerships if the company owners don’t adhere to business plans that promote traditional interpretations of religious morality.

Corporate executives: paleocons would restrict entrepreneurship and marketing that they perceive to be “sympathetic” toward multiculturalism, feminism, homosexuality, glorified violence, or sexualized content.

Fossil fuel barons: paleocons would jettison any tax credits or economic incentives for companies such as ExxonMobil, Chevron, BP, and Shell that seek to diversify their energy portfolios as alternative fuel sources become cheaper and more competitive. The oil, gas, and coal producers will be forced to grovel for an increasingly-limited number of contracts.

Educators: paleocons would make sure that everything ranging from history to the fine arts to literature to civics to science is regulated by the whims of the loudest voices at local school board meetings. Teachers and professors will find themselves censured, terminated, or “defunded” if their curriculums veer away from favoring traditional concepts of prayer, “chivalry,” or theocratic “values.”

Entertainers & artisans: paleocons would start a modern-day “blacklist” for anyone who produces onscreen or publicly-displayed content that is deemed to promote “indecency.”

Do I want radical leftists to seize control of these sectors? Hell no! But please present me with a plausible scenario under which that would actually become a risk, as of January 2023.

I’m waiting…

Staving off such power abuses or perverse excesses is only the first step.

None of this is a permanent fix.

The follow-up legislation, in coming decades, must spell out relatable policies that ensure a free press, due process, sustainable agriculture, open markets, regulatory transparency, robust competition, and spirited debates of ideas.

Future combinations of Democratic politicians may fail at achieving this, and we must hold them accountable.

But current Republicans have signaled that they want free reign to control all of these areas with zero accountability on their part.

For those who would accuse me of peddling “toxic positivity”: I’m well aware that our activism and civic dialogue cannot stop even when we accomplish short-term goals.

But we’re never going to get there, in the first place, if we can’t avoid succumbing to learned helplessness.

I share your fears about widespread natural disasters, warfare, viral diseases, greed, corruption, hatred, and absolutism.

But if we truly want a better world, then that requires us all to be a part of the solution.

It doesn’t take courage to throw our hope away and wilt underneath shadows of negativity, pessimism, and gloom. By giving in to such fear, we are empowering those who seek to destroy us.

We end up giving them more power than they actually possess.

When overloaded brains (mine included!) imagine worst-case scenarios in exquisite, excruciating detail, we lose sight of the positive.

We — and by “we,” I’m referring to rational minds of every ideological flavor — collectively outnumber these transgressors, and our outrage is more grounded than theirs is. We won’t always be able to defeat every single vindictive individual. But it’s still up to us to set our path forward to create a better country and a better global society.

It’s natural to feel dejected. But dejection is just a feeling that a person can choose to have. It’s an easy path…gravity pulling us down to submit to the negative.

If we want to prevail in the face of any arduous endeavor, and knowing that the lives of future generations depend on it, we need to remain focused on channeling our outrage productively, coherently, and perceptively.

Click here to subscribe to my stories.