The big split: The cost of leaving the living

With gratitude to Alexander Solzhenitsyn

Veritas. Truth. Truth is rarely sweet. It most often arrives with a bitter taste, almost always, and I am writing to offer a measure of the bitter kind. I offer it the way a friend does: not to wound, but because the alternative is to stand here smiling while someone I respect walks cheerfully toward the edge of a cliff with a sack of shifting rocks on their back.

A man stood at a podium, forty-some years ago, and told a graduating class that the world was split apart. He was right, and he was right in a way his audience couldn't yet digest, and the room mostly heard him as an old, hardened, but wizened man, scolding them from the far side of a wall that everyone assumed would stand forever. The wall fell. The split he named did not.

The split we are trained to see

Ask anyone where the world is broken and the answers arrive pre-loaded, and have become almost reflexive: left and right, East and West, labour and capital, the global North against the global South, the network of the connected against the masses locked outside it. We mistake these break points for our wounds. They are symptoms.

Consider the parallels. Every one of those splits is a quarrel among humans about how to divide the spoils of a single, prior, far larger act of separation. A point of departure that nobody put on the ballot, the one with no diplomatic conference scheduled to resolve it. We severed ourselves from the living world that made us, nature. Not metaphorically but mechanically, biochemically, generationally. We pulled our species out of the biosphere the way you'd pull a transistor off a board, and we have spent the last two centuries acting surprised that the signals meant to support our lives degraded.

That is the Big Split. Humanity on one side, four billion years of refined, tested, ruthlessly edited intelligence on the other, the BiosVerse™, the living system that wrote every functional design we have ever reverse-engineered and patented as our own genius. It built the lung. It built the gut flora, which, by the way, is doing more of your thinking than your pride will admit. It triggered the neurons to fire in your brain as you read these very words. An estimated 8.7 million species, give or take a few million we haven't met yet, each one a working piece from the longest research program in the history of matter. And we stepped outside it, and we had the hubris (in the face of 98% of everything that has ever lived has gone extinct) to call that stepping-out progress.

A decline in contact with the ultimate arbiter

It used to be said that a decline in courage is the first symptom of a society's end. I think the symptom we should fear most now is subtler and harder to feel from inside: a decline in contact. We have raised a generation, several generations, who can recognise two hundred corporate logos at a glance and cannot name ten trees outside the window, who navigate a cognitive infrastructure of staggering sophistication and have never watched where the snow melts first.

I wish this were just nostalgia, but it is not. A creature that loses contact with the system regulating and supporting it loses the following in order: its instincts, then its judgment, then its sense that anything is wrong. I think we are somewhere in the middle of that sequence. We have more data about the environments, elements, and systems that keep us living than any humans who ever lived, and less skin touching it than any humans who ever lived, and we have somehow convinced ourselves these two facts cancel out. They don't. Information is not the understanding and wisdom that comes from contact. Digging our fingers into the soil or taking a moment to be in awe of a beaver dam. A weather report is not the same as feeling a warm rain on your face.

Comfort and the endless search for convenience as the ultimate anaesthesia

When the modern states were built, they promised the pursuit of happiness, which we have subsequently interpreted as convenience. Over the past century, the machinery has finally delivered climate-controlled, frictionless conveniences engineered down to the dopamine dosage. Even biology will tell you, if you ask it, that a high and habitual degree of comfort is not good for a living organism; the body softens around the absence of demand, in the presence of too much convenience, the senses dull, the long muscles of resilience go slack. We built a civilisation optimised to remove every signal the living world uses to tell an animal it is in trouble, and then we wonder at the worry written into faces that have everything. The comfort that a lack of inconvenience brings is the anaesthesia. It is the reason we can read that human brains now carry roughly seven grams of microplastic, the weight of a cheap disposable spoon, up about half in less than a decade, and feel nothing actionable at all. The self-constructed dividing wall held. We didn't have to look, and we certainly didn't feel it.

The new legalism

The old warning was that a society reduced to nothing but the letter of the law becomes spiritually mediocre, that it loses the muscle of voluntary self-restraint because the law never asks for it. Our letter of the law today is the financial quarter, the price signal, the profit and growth lines that must go up. The question of whether they are right or even survivable gets waved off as sentiment; those questions are for the 'lesser people' who don't understand markets.

A firm can sit entirely inside the law and inside its fiduciary duty and still be quietly liquidating the conditions of its own existence, booking the proceeds as profit and the destruction as someone else's externality, a footnote, a rounding error against a planet. We have built the most sophisticated accounting system in human history and trained it to not see the one ledger that cannot be argued with. The BiosVerse keeps that ledger. It does not negotiate, it does not grant extensions, and it has never once been moved by the elegance of a discounted cash flow sheet. PFAS and lead pipes came with liabilities that were off the balance sheet until they weren't.

The freedom to extract

We have sorted freedom, as it was once observed, into freedom for good and freedom for harm, and somehow given the second one the larger room. The freedom to build something genuinely regenerative moves slow, hedged, second-guessed, buried under permitting and skepticism and the thousand small vetoes that cling to anyone trying to do something hard and good. The freedom to clear, to drain, to emit, to strip-mine an aquifer or a watershed or your attention span. Unfortunately for us, that freedom runs nearly unobstructed, defended as liberty itself, with the living world of nature having been cast in the role of a side party that simply declined to participate. As if the soil and the pollinators and the carbon cycle were a vendor we could choose not to renew. How's that workin' out for us?

Saturation, and the fashions of thought

There is no censor deciding which ecological truths reach you. There doesn't need to be. Fashion (aka narrative) does the work that force used to do; certain framings circulate effortlessly, certain ones are quietly understood to be career-ending, and the teacher in the small college who actually understands the soil food web, who could tell us something we desperately need to hear, gives a talk to forty people while the sleepless online slop feeding systems serve a few billion of us something entirely different. We drown in information and starve for the thing information was supposed to point at: wisdom.

Hastiness and superficiality, the wise old man who inspired this piece, called them the diseases of his century. He hadn't seen ours. We have built an entire economy on the harvesting of human attention and digital feudalism, the new lords collecting rent not on your land but on your mind, your hours, the agency and cognitive infrastructure that used to be yours. And still, we wonder why no one can hold still and stay in contact with our planet long enough to feel the ground shifting.

The unexpected kinship

Here is the part that will be least welcome, so I'll say it and then say it again. The two great economic systems we spent the twentieth century treating as opposites were never opposites. They were siblings. Extractive capitalism and extractive communism wore different uniforms and worshipped at different altars and butchered each other's believers, and underneath the costume they shared a single creed: that the living world is inventory, that Man stands at the center of creation, that the measure of a society is throughput and convenience, tons moved, units shipped, output maximised against a biosphere assumed to be infinite and free.

I'll say it again, because it is the whole argument. The fight between the systems was never the deep split. The deep split is that both supposed better systems are anthropocentric to the bone, both treat four billion years of accumulated intelligence as raw material, and the quarrel between them has always been about who gets to do the most extracting and how the proceeds get divided among the fewest people.

The root, which is not where we keep looking

The mistake runs back to the Big Split's foundation, to the moment the species began to imagine itself as autonomous, the center and the measure of all things, the one creature exempt from the system. We are very much thinking like toddlers and acting like gods. The Renaissance pulled us out of an age that had crushed the body in the name of the spirit. That lift was a real liberation and a real correction, and then we kept going, kept reaching, until we had inverted the whole thing: body over everything, matter over everything, the human appetite for convenience and its preservation through power, was installed as the unit of value and nothing above it is permitted to exist. We made man the measure, imperfect, proud, envious, frightened, and we called the elevation of that flawed persona to the throne of the universe the enlightenment.

That wizened prophet from 1978 mourned the loss of God as the higher order that once restrained us. I'll name the higher order in terms even the most committed materialist cannot wave away, because it is not a matter of faith. The higher order is Nature. It is demonstrably older than us, demonstrably wiser than us by every measure of design that survives contact with reality, and demonstrably sovereign over us in the only way that finally counts: it can end us, and we cannot end it. Nature is the ultimate arbiter. Not a deity to be argued with or appeased. A creditor whose ledger is always open, whose interest is now compounding, and whose patience, now nearly four billion years deep, does not extend to a species that mistook a two-century borrowing spree for the rights of ownership as a sole proprietor.

Before the turn

I am not describing a catastrophe scheduled for some distant decade. The calamity is already here, making contact with us whether we like it or not. Seven of the nine planetary boundaries scientists use to mark as the safe operating space for human life have been crossed. Please read closely, not approached, crossed. The plastic is in our brains. Our symbiotic contact with nature is all but gone.

And here I owe you the bitter truth in its most honest form, because a futurist who overstates his case hands his enemies the exact tool they need to dismiss him. I cannot tell you, and I will not pretend, that the literal extinction of the human species is the likely outcome. It sits at the far, thin edge of the cone of what's possible and real, but not the median, and the people who shout extinction as if it were a forecast are doing the work of the comfortable for them, because a threat that absurd is a threat that's easy to dismiss and file under apocalypse, doomsayers and ignore. The median is worse than extinction in a way, because it is plausible: not the clean end of everything, but the slow unraveling of the conditions that made complex, generous, recognisably human society possible at all. Collapse is not the lights going out. It is the lights flickering for a hundred years while we fight each other over what's left. That is the realistic shape of the danger, and it is more than dangerous enough that arguing about whether the very last human draws the very last breath is itself a form of looking away.

No other way left but home

Solzhenitsyn's speech ended with a single direction: upward. The only way out, he said, was to climb to the next stage, to rise above the world stream of materialism. I think he had the slope right and the direction exactly backward. The way out is not up and away from the body, away from the soil, away from the wet and breathing and inconvenient living world. We have tried breaking away for two hundred years, and that getaway is what got us the spoon of plastic, the seven broken boundaries, and the child who knows the logos but not the trees.

The only way left is a deep dive in. Down into the system we never actually left, only forgot. Back into apprenticeship, to four billion years of R&D and biomimicry, not as a clever branding exercise but as the literal recovery of the nature-provided curriculum we walked out of. Toward a civilisation that is BiosVerse-Compatible™, that runs on possibility networks instead of extractive supply chains, that intercepts the horizon where the old order is dying, and the next one is being born and chooses, deliberately, to build on the side where the snow melts first. Nature returning home. Not the species crawling back in defeat, but the species (us) growing up enough to recognise the house that gave birth to us.

We are part of that infrastructure. We always were; the severance narrative we created and executed on has been a story we have told ourselves to the point of creating a paradigm we are becoming incapable of escaping. It is not a fact, and stories can be unwritten by the people brave enough to live differently.

So, I'll leave you with a question instead of a conclusion, the way the bitter truth prefers to be left. Not what the world is, because we know what it is, we've measured it to the nanometer and microplastic. The question is the other one, the one that people are bent on spending fortunes to avoid asking.

What comes next, and which side of the Big Split are you going to build on?

illuminem Voices is a democratic space presenting the opinions of leading Sustainability Thought Leaders, their views do not necessarily represent those of illuminem.

The world needs sustainability knowledge. At illuminem, no interest group or shareholder can influence our work. Thank you for supporting our mission to make high-quality and independent sustainability information free for all. Every contribution helps. Thank you for donating today.