3707. Catastrophic Global Warming and Climate Change: An Overview of the Crisis and How to Stop It

By Kamran Nayeri, August 3, 2026   

Overlap between future population distribution and extreme heat demographic projections to ∼2070. The shaded areas depict regions where minimum average temperature exceeds 29 °C, while the colored topography details the spread of population density.

As I am writing this essay on July 31, 2026, Canada, France, and Spain are all experiencing catastrophic wildfire seasons, but the fires have somewhat different characteristics. The striking common denominator is extreme heat and dryness associated with climate change, interacting with local vegetation, drought, wind, and human ignition sources. As I am writing, the region I live in in northern California is covered with smoke from the Woodside Fire near the Pacific Ocean, which ignited yesterday at 1:30 in the afternoon and is still burning.

In this essay, I will provide basic information from authoritative sources about the catastrophic global warming and climate change these fires exemplify and point to the policies needed to address them. To understand global warming and catastrophic climate change and how to stop them is not an option but a necessity for the survival of humanity and much of life on Earth.

What Is Global Warming and What Causes It?

The atmosphere is currently more than 1 degree Celsius (1.8 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer than preindustrial times.

Scientists attribute the global warming trend to the human expansion of the "greenhouse effect" (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change-IPCC, 2022), a warming that results when the atmosphere traps heat radiating from Earth toward space.

Life on Earth depends on energy coming from the Sun. About half the light energy reaching Earth's atmosphere passes through the air and clouds to the surface, where it is absorbed and radiated in the form of infrared heat. About 90% of this heat is then absorbed by greenhouse gases (GHGs) and re-radiated, slowing heat loss to space and causing the atmosphere to warm.

What Are Greenhouse Gases?

Greenhouse gases are a category of gases that absorb heat energy emitted from the planet's surface, and they remain in Earth's atmosphere for a long time (from decades to centuries). Though they make up less than 1% of all air molecules in the atmosphere, GHGs absorb a significant amount of heat energy and re-radiate some of it back toward the surface. They're called "greenhouse gases" because they trap heat near the Earth's surface in a manner somewhat like how a greenhouse allows in the sun’s rays and then holds in the resulting heat

By adding more GHGs, chief among them carbon dioxide and methane, to the atmosphere, humans are causing average global temperature to rise at an unprecedented rate. Earth has warmed up by an average of 0.11°F (0.06°C) per decade since 1850, or about 2°F (1.1°C) in total. Let’s recall this process began with the English Industrial Revolution 1760–1840 and has continued ever since with the spread of industrialization worldwide. 

The most important greenhouse gases, listed in order of their impact on the greenhouse effect, are:Water vapor (H₂O), carbon dioxide (CO₂), methane (CH₄), nitrous oxide (N₂O), and ozone (O₃).

Water vapor is the most abundant greenhouse gas, while carbon dioxide is the most significant in terms of human activities and climate change mitigation efforts. While water vapor emissions have been relatively stable over the long term, studies show they have been increasing in recent decades due to global warming and climate change (Allen et al. al, 2022; Dong et al., 2022).

In its Sixth Assessment Report, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, composed of scientific experts from countries all over the world, concluded that it is unequivocal that the increase of CO2, methane, and nitrous oxide in the atmosphere over the industrial era is the result of human activities and that human influence is the principal driver of many changes observed across the atmosphere, ocean, cryosphere and biosphere.

In recent decades, the average atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide (CO₂) has been increasing from around 330 parts per million (ppm) in the 1970s to 340 ppm in the 1980s, to 360 ppm in the 1990s, to 380 ppm in the 2000s, to 400 ppm in the 2100.  As of 2023, CO₂ concentrations are reported to be over 420 ppm, with methane (CH₄) and nitrous oxide (N₂O) also showing substantial increases.

If annual emissions continue to increase as rapidly as they have since 2000, climate models project that by the end of this century global temperature will be between 2.7°F (1.5°C) warmer than the 1901-1960 average, and possibly as much as 7.9°F (4.4°C) warmer, which would be catastrophic to humanity and much of life on Earth.

Sources of carbon dioxide emissions are:

• Fossil Fuel Combustion: This includes burning coal, oil, and natural gas for electricity, heat, and transportation, which is the largest contributor to greenhouse gas emissions globally.
• Agriculture: Agricultural practices, particularly livestock production, release significant amounts of methane (CH₄) and nitrous oxide (N₂O) due to enteric fermentation and fertilizer use.
• Deforestation: The clearing of forests for agriculture or urban development reduces the number of trees that can absorb CO₂, contributing to increased atmospheric carbon levels.
• Industrial Processes: Manufacturing and chemical production release various greenhouse gases, including CO₂ and fluorinated gases, which have a high global warming potential.
• Waste Management: Landfills produce methane as organic waste decomposes anaerobically, while waste treatment processes can also emit greenhouse gases.

The most basic reason is that fossil fuels, the equivalent of millions of years of plant growth, are the only source of carbon dioxide large enough to raise atmospheric carbon dioxide amounts as high and as quickly as they have risen.

How Does Global Warming Cause Climate Change?

Global warming causes catastrophic climate change by altering weather patterns characteristic of the Holocene geological epoch.  This epoch began approximately 11,700 years ago, following the last glacial period known as the Pleistocene. The Holocene is characterized by a relatively stable climate that has allowed farming and the development of human civilizations. Catastrophic climate change is undermining the stable weather patterns of the Holocene. Some geologists have argued that the Earth has entered the epoch of the Anthropocene (The Age of Humans). Climate change is primarily driven by the greenhouse effect, where gases like carbon dioxide (CO₂) and methane trap heat in the atmosphere. This process enhances the natural greenhouse effect, leading to higher temperatures. As temperatures rise, certain feedback mechanisms, such as reduced ice cover and increased water vapor, further amplify warming. For instance, melting ice reduces the Earth's albedo (reflectivity), causing more solar energy to be absorbed.

Consequences of Global Warming and Climate Change

Global warming and climate change affect virtually every aspect of the Earth system: the atmosphere, oceans, ecosystems, economies, and societies. They cause extreme weather, such as higher temperatures, leading to more frequent and severe hurricanes, droughts, and heavy rainfall. They cause ecosystem disruption: Changes in climate affect biodiversity, leading to shifts in species distribution and habitat loss. This feeds another existential ecological crisis, the Sixth Extinction: Current extinction rates are estimated at 100 to 1,000 times higher than natural background extinction (Ceballos et al., 2018; Cowie et al., 2022; De Vos et.al., 2014). They also cause sea Level rise: Melting polar ice and thermal expansion of seawater contribute to rising sea levels, threatening coastal communities.

Many consequences reinforce one another through feedback loops. Below is a systematic overview with examples.

1. Rising temperatures

Average global surface temperature has risen by about 1.3–1.5°C above pre-industrial levels, although warming varies by region. Examples include record-breaking heat waves in Europe (2022–2025), temperatures above 49°C (120°F) in parts of western North America, and longer and hotter summers in southern Europe and the Middle East.  Consequences include heat-related deaths, lower labor productivity, and greater electricity demand for cooling (causing more GHG emissions).

2. More frequent and intense heat waves

Heat waves are becoming longer, more frequent, and more severe. Examples include India’s recurring spring heat waves, the U.S. Pacific Northwest “heat dome” (2021),  Mediterranean heat waves. Consequences include heat stroke, crop damage, infrastructure failures (roads buckling, rail tracks deforming

3. Melting glaciers

Nearly all mountain glaciers are shrinking. Examples include the Alps, Himalayas, Andes, and Alaska. Consequences include reduced freshwater supplies, increased glacier lake outburst floods, and loss of tourism.

4. Greenland and Antarctic ice loss

Massive ice sheets are losing hundreds of billions of tons annually. Consequences include sea level rise lasting centuries and permanent loss of coastal land. Sea level has risen roughly 20–25 cm (8–10 inches) since 1900 and is accelerating. Examples include Miami flooding during high tides, Pacific island nations threatened, and coastal inundation in Bangladesh. Consequences include coastal erosion, saltwater intrusion into groundwater, and displacement of millions.

5. Sea level rise

Sea level has risen roughly 20–25 cm (8–10 inches) since 1900 and is accelerating. Examples: Miami flooding during high tides, Pacific island nations threatened, Bangladesh coastal inundation.  Consequences: Coastal erosion, saltwater intrusion into groundwater, displacement of millions. Sea level has risen roughly 20–25 cm (8–10 inches) since 1900 and is accelerating. Examples: Miami flooding during high tides, Pacific island nations threatened, Bangladesh coastal inundation. Consequences: Coastal erosion, saltwater intrusion into groundwater, displacement of millions.

6. Stronger storms

Warmer oceans provide more energy for tropical cyclones. Examples include Hurricane Harvey, Hurricane Ian, and Typhoon Haiyan. Consequences include greater rainfall, larger storm surges, and more infrastructure damage

7. More extreme rainfall: A warmer atmosphere holds more water vapor. Examples include Germany floods (2021), Pakistan floods (2022), Vermont flooding (2023), Afghanistan flood 2026.  Consequences include flash floods, landslides, and urban flooding

8. More severe droughts

Some regions experience prolonged drying. Examples include the Western United States megadrought, Horn of Africa drought, and Mediterranean drying. Consequences: Crop failures, water shortages, hydroelectric power losses

9. Larger wildfires

Hotter, drier conditions increase wildfire risk. Examples include Canada (2023), Australia's Black Summer (2019–20), and California fires. Consequences: Loss of forests, air pollution, and property destruction.

10. Ocean warming

More than 90% of excess heat enters the oceans.  Examples include heat waves and warmer North Atlantic temperatures. Consequences include Coral bleaching, fish migration, and stronger hurricanes.

11. Ocean acidification

Oceans absorb carbon dioxide, making seawater more acidic. Examples include coral reef acidification and bleaching, and oyster hatcheries in the Pacific Northwest. Consequences include weakened shells, reduced reef growth, and food web disruption.

12. Coral reef collapse

Repeated marine heat waves kill corals. Examples include Great Barrier Reef bleaching and Caribbean reef decline. Consequences: Loss of biodiversity, reduced fisheries, and lower tourism revenue.

13. Permafrost thaw

Frozen soils are thawing across the Arctic. Examples include Siberia, Alaska, and Northern. Consequences include Methane release, infrastructure collapse, and ecosystem changes.

14. Biodiversity loss

Many species cannot adapt quickly enough and die off. Examples: Amphibian declines, Arctic species under stress, and Alpine plants disappearing. Consequences: Local extinctions, simplified ecosystems, reduced resilience.

15. Species migration

Species move toward the poles or higher elevations. Examples include fish moving northward, birds changing migration timing, and insects expanding ranges. Consequences: New ecological competition. Altered food webs.

16. Agricultural impacts

Climate affects yields differently across regions. Examples include wheat losses during heat waves, coffee production moving uphill, and vineyard relocation. Consequences: Lower yields, food price increases, and greater volatility.

17. Water insecurity

Changing precipitation alters water availability. Examples include Colorado River shortages, Himalayan glacier-fed rivers, Cape Town water crisis. Consequences: Competition among agriculture, cities, and ecosystems.

18. Food insecurity

Climate stresses global food systems. Examples include crop failures in East Africa, fisheries decline, and livestock heat stress. Consequences: Higher food prices, increased malnutrition, humanitarian crises.

19. Human health impacts

Climate affects health through multiple pathways. Examples include heat deaths, smoke inhalation, and spread of infectious diseases. Consequences: More cardiovascular illness, respiratory disease, mental health impacts

20. Spread of infectious diseases

Changing climates alter habitats for disease vectors. Examples include Dengue fever expanding, malaria reaching higher elevations, and Lyme disease moving north.

21. Air quality deterioration

Higher temperatures worsen ozone formation and wildfire smoke. Examples include smoke from Canadian wildfires affecting eastern North America, and increased urban ozone episodes.

22. Economic losses

Climate damages infrastructure and reduces productivity. Examples include billion-dollar disasters in the United States, insurance losses, and agricultural losses.

23. Climate migration

People relocate because of environmental change. Examples include Pacific islands, Bangladesh, and the Sahel region.

24. Increased conflict risks

Climate does not usually cause wars directly, but it can intensify existing tensions. Examples include water disputes, farmer–herder conflicts, and resource competition

25. Infrastructure damage

Climate affects transportation, utilities, and buildings. Examples include rail buckling, airport runway damage, and flooded subway systems.

26. Energy system disruption

Climate influences both energy demand and supply. Examples include higher summer electricity demand, reduced hydropower during drought, and transmission failures during heat.

27. Loss of benefits from ecosystems

Natural ecosystems provide benefits that support human well-being. Examples include pollination, water purification, and flood protection by wetlands

28. Cultural losses

Climate threatens places and traditions tied to particular environments. Examples include Arctic Indigenous environmental cultural practices, Pacific island cultural heritage, and historic coastal communities.

29. Financial instability

Climate risks increasingly affect financial systems. Examples include rising insurance premiums or insurer withdrawals from high-risk regions, and declining property values in flood-prone areas.

30. Positive feedback loops

Some climate changes accelerate further warming. Examples include Arctic sea ice loss reducing Earth’s reflectivity (albedo), leading to more heat absorption; thawing permafrost releasing methane and carbon dioxide; and forest dieback reducing carbon storage.

Who Is Responsible?

To stop global warming and catastrophic climate change, let us ask who is most responsible for the emission of greenhouse gases.

The top ten countries responsible for greenhouse gas emissions are as follows:

• China - The largest emitter, contributing approximately 30% of global carbon dioxide emissions, with around 11.4 billion metric tons in 2022.
• United States - The second-largest contributor, emitting about 6.3 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent in 2021.
• India - Responsible for roughly 3.9 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent, accounting for about 7% of global emissions in 2021.
• European Union (EU) - As a collective, the EU member states contribute significantly, though individual country emissions vary widely.
• Russia - A major emitter to global greenhouse gases.
• Japan - Known for high emissions due to industrial activities.
• Germany - One of the largest economies in Europe, contributing notably to emissions.
• Iran - A significant emitter, largely due to its oil and gas industry.
• South Korea - High emissions from industrial and energy sectors.
• Indonesia - Notable emissions primarily from deforestation and land-use changes.

While China is the top polluter, it also has the largest population in the world, 1.4 billion people.

Another way to look at which countries are most responsible for greenhouse gas emissions is to look at the top five countries on a per capita basis. They are Qatar, Kuwait, United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, and Saudi Arabia; all are also major exporters of oil and gas.  

Thus, if two dozen countries of the world are held accountable for greenhouse gas emissions and they stop such emissions, it goes a long way toward stopping global warming.

Why Have World Governments Proved Unable to Stop Greenhouse Gas Emissions?

There is a clear correlation and causation between industrialization and burning fossil fuels, beginning with the English Industrial Revolution 1760–1840, as the following graph shows.

Fossil fuels have been essential for capitalist industrialization due to their role as a primary energy source. Fossil fuels, including coal, oil, and natural gas, have powered industrialization worldwide. Their accessibility and energy density made them the backbone of economic development, facilitating mass production and transportation. Despite being the world leader in the production of renewable technologies, China is still the largest producer and consumer of coal and coal power in the world. China produces approximately 4.8 billion tons of coal per year, over half of the global total.

The material force behind the continued use of fossil fuels is capitalist competition.

Competition and Efficiency
The competitive nature of capitalism has necessitated the adoption of fossil fuels. Once some capitalists began utilizing these energy sources, others had to follow to remain viable in the market. This has created a cycle of dependency that reinforced their use across industries and countries worldwide.

Infrastructure Development
Fossil fuels have driven the development of infrastructure, including transportation systems and urbanization, which are critical for capitalist economies. This infrastructure supports not only industrial activities but also the distribution of goods and services, further entrenching fossil fuels in the capitalist framework.

The same forces account for what economists call moral hazard.  In economics, a moral hazard is a situation where an economic actor (a corporation or a government) has an incentive to increase its exposure to risk because it will not bear the full costs associated with that risk. For example, when a corporation is insured, it may take on higher risk knowing that its insurance will pay the associated costs. A moral hazard may occur where the actions of the risk-taking party change to the detriment of the cost-bearing party after a financial transaction has taken place. Moral hazard arises when two or more parties form an agreement or contractual relationship and the arrangement itself provides an incentive for misbehavior by isolating one party from responsibility.

After decades of inaction by the world’s governments, the Paris Agreement was negotiated by 196 parties at the 2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference near Paris, France. Each government pledged to devise ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions voluntarily. There was no enforcement mechanism.  Thus, every government had an incentive to let others take steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions while it continued to pollute. As a result, greenhouse gas emissions increased 9% between 2015 and 2024, driven by rising energy demand from data centers and industrialization, as reported by McKinsey & Company.

What Is to Be Done?

Worldwide spread of capitalism and industrialization required the ever-increasing use of fossil fuels. human population has exploded 800 percent since the start of the use of fossil fuels. Capitalist development requires ever more production and consumption of commodities, increasing global per capita energy usage over time. Life today in a typical city looks profoundly different from daily life in 1820.  Modernity would never have happened without an unprecedented abundance of energy.

Societies became dependent on evermore economic growth to provide jobs for a growing workforce and returns on investment for an expanding capitalist class. Today, every politician, regardless of party or ideology, promises more economic growth. But more growth requires a continued increase in energy.

Wars are being waged for oil and gas as the current war against Iran and the struggle over control of the Strait of Hormuz show.

This worldwide dynamic is driving catastrophic global warming and climate change.

Unless greenhouse gas emissions stop, climate science tells us it can become self-sustaining once one or more tipping points are reached. A tipping point is a critical threshold that, when crossed, leads to large, accelerating, and often irreversible changes in the climate system. If tipping points are crossed, they are likely to have severe impacts on human society and accelerate global warming.

Key climate tipping points include: Greenland Ice Sheet Collapse, West Antarctic Ice Sheet Collapse, as significant melting could lead to accelerated sea-level rise; coral Reef Die-Off, as warming oceans and acidification threaten coral ecosystems, impacting marine biodiversity; Boreal permafrost thaw, which releases methane, a potent greenhouse gas, exacerbating climate change; Monsoon system changes that cause alterations in monsoon patterns can affect water supply and agriculture in many regions.

The only effective method is to force governments to enact enforceable legislation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and transition to a post-carbon economy and society, and to change our lifestyle in ways to reduce and eliminate greenhouse gas emissions. This is only possible if a politically independent mass movement of working people forces the government’s hand.

However, this has not happened anywhere in the world yet. In the U.S., a main polluter, on September 21, 2014, the People’s Climate March in New York City, with more than 310,000 people and hundreds of contingents, was a great success. The organizers report that 2,807 similar actions took place in 166 countries during that weekend (Nayeri, October 1, 2014). However, the leadership of the movement fell to Bill McKibben, a journalist by profession, who helped organize 350.org, the main organization in the movement to stop global warming. However, McKibben originally believed he could convince the fossil fuel companies to cease production. Later, he offered self-criticism and argued the movement should instead focus on electing politicians who support the transition to renewable energy, which happens to be largely Democratic politicians, to lobby nationally and locally for the same end. He combined this with “direct action” like chaining himself to the gates of a refinery.

Margaret Klein Salamon and Ezra Silk organized The Climate Mobilization, who believed the U.S. needs an emergency mobilization like the effort organized by Franklin D. Roosevelt (FDR) in World War II to transform the U.S. economy. The problem again was that to do so they wanted to rely on capitalist politicians (Nayeri, September 3, 2016). In 2018, Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez was elected to the House of Representatives, and she campaigned for what she called a Green New Deal (GND) to stop global warming and climate change. At the time, she managed to get a large following among the left Democratic Party supporters as well as socialists and ecosocialists. Her GND was built on a left-liberal bourgeois vision and political platform, as I analyzed in detail (Nayeri, March 25, 2019).

Without an independent politically minded working people’s movement, it remains up to individuals to adopt lifestyles that avoid emissions of greenhouse gases. Currently, about 5%-7% of households have rooftop solar photovoltaic systems. In 2026, renewables supply roughly 27-30% of U.S. electricity generation, so the average household’s electricity mix contains about that proportion of renewable energy, although it varies widely state by state, which amounts to about 5% of home energy use. However, the “renewable” sources for this type of energy generation include burning wood, which releases greenhouse gases.

In brief, the U.S. falls very short of any serious effort to stop catastrophic global warming and climate change.   

Consciousness trails scientific knowledge by well over a century

Svante August Arrhenius (1859 – 1927), a Swedish scientist, was the first to use the principles of physical chemistry to estimate the extent to which increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide are responsible for the Earth's increasing surface temperature. His work played an important role in the emergence of modern climate science. In the 1960s, Charles David Keeling, an American scientist, recorded atmospheric carbon dioxide at the Mauna Loa Observatory, confirming Svante Arrhenius's hypothesis of anthropogenic causes for the greenhouse effect and global warming.

Let us remember, humanity also faces other existential ecological crises: The Sixth Extinction, recurrent pandemics, and nuclear holocaust. The first two are interrelated with catastrophic global warming and climate change.

Degrowth literature hints at the possible solution (Nayeri, 2021). However, there is nothing short of transcending anthropocentric, industrial-capitalist civilization in the direction of an Ecocentric Socialist (Nayeri, 2023, Chapter 19; Nayeri, 2012) future that can save humanity and much of life on Earth.  

References:

Allen, Richard P., Kate M. Willett, Viju O. John, Tim Trent. “Global Changes in Water Vapor 1979–2020.” JGR Atmospheres.  June 2022.

Ceballos, Gerardo; Ehrlich, Paul R. "The Misunderstood Sixth Mass Extinction". Science. 360 (6393): 1080–1081. June 8, 2018.

Cowie, Robert H., Philippe Bouchet, Benoît Fontaine. “The Sixth Mass Extinction: Fact, Fiction or Speculation?” Biol Rev Camb Philo Soc. 2022 Jan 10;97(2):640–663.

De Vos, Jurriaan M.; Joppa, Lucas N.; Gittleman, John L.; Stephens, Patrick R.; Pimm, Stuart L. (2014-08-26). "Estimating the Normal Background Rate of Species Extinction" (PDF). Conservation Biology (in Spanish). 29 (2): 452–462.

Dong Ren, Yong Wang, Guocheng Wang, Lintao Liu. “Rising trends of global precipitable water vapor and its correlation with flood frequency.” Geodesy and Geodynamics, Volume 14, Issue 4, July 2023, Pages 355-367.

Nayeri, Kamran. “People’s Climate March Was a Huge Success; What to Do Next?” Our Place in the World: A Journal of Ecosocialism. October 1, 2014.

_____________. “Making Progress: A Critical Assessment of Climate Action Plans by Bill McKibben and The Climate Mobilization.” Our Place in the World: A Journal of Ecosocialism. September 3, 2016.

_____________. “A Future for American Capitalism or The Future of Life on Earth?: An Ecosocialist Critique of the "Green New Deal." Our Place in the World: A Journal of Ecosocialism. March 25, 2019.

_____________. “The Case for Ecocentric Socialism.” Our Place in the World: A Journal of Ecosocialism. July 22, 2021.

_____________. “On Degrowth.” Our Place in the World: A Journal of Ecosocialism. July 22, 2021.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). WG1, Summary for Policy Makers, Section A, “The Current State of the Climate;” IPCC 6th Assessment Report, WG1, Technical Summary, Sections TS.1.2, TS.2.1 and TS.3.1. 

3706. Human Nature and Socialism

By Kamran Nayeri, July 30, 2026

The question of human nature has long been posed. It has been a common feature of moral and political discourse among ordinary people, as well as among various religions, philosophers, political scientists, and sociologists (Roughley, 2023). From views that saw human nature in its social and natural life to views that saw man as a creature with moral responsibility, a wide range of views on human nature have been put forward in modern times by thinkers such as Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Adam Smith, David Hume, classical German philosophers, and others.

In the nineteenth century, socialism was envisioned as a political and economic system in which the means of production, distribution, and exchange are collectively owned and controlled rather than by private individuals. Clearly, such theories of socialism assume that it is compatible with human nature.  Yet they generally do not outline any, except to some degree in Marx’s theory.

Karl Marx’s theory of socialism is a much more sophisticated theory of the transition from an alienated capitalist society to a society of freely associated producers, in which all vestiges of alienation and exploitation would wither away.  In Theses on Feuerbach (1845), Marx defined human nature through a philosophical anthropology lens by stating that “the essence of man is no abstraction inherent in every single individual. In reality, it is the ensemble of social relations.” (Thesis 6) Thus, he argues against “contemplative materialism[1]” of Feuerbach in favor of a materialist (as against Hegel’s idealist) historical understanding of human nature. Therefore, Marx argues: “The standpoint of the old materialism is civil society[2]; the standpoint of the new is human society or social humanity.”

In this context, Marx affirmed his view that “the standpoint of the new [materialism] is human society or social humanity.” (Thesis 10) That is, human beings are inherently social beings whose nature, consciousness, needs, capacities, and freedom develop only through historically formed social relations.

This idea stood in opposition to the liberal view that isolated individuals are the basic units of human society. Instead, he argued that human essence is fundamentally social and historical.  

Historical materialism

In the same year, this idea of human nature became the cornerstone of their materialist conception of history in The German Ideology (Marx and Engels 1845).

Thus, they wrote:

“The first premise of all human history is, of course, the existence of living human individuals. Thus, the first fact to be established is the physical organization of these individuals and their consequent relation to the rest of nature. Of course, we cannot here go either into the actual physical nature of man, or into the natural conditions in which man finds himself -- geological, hydrographical, climatic, and so on. The writing of history must always set out from these natural bases and their modification in the course of history through the action of men.” (my emphasis)

Let us underline what Marx and Engels argued in these sentences. Of course, how human individuals emerged, and their relationship with the rest of nature, are the first premises of all human history. However, in 1845, nobody, including Marx and Engels, had any idea of the natural history that led to the emergence of humanity.

The term "biology" was coined by scientists like Lamarck and Travisanos in the 18th century. In the 19th century, advances in microscopy and cell theory by scientists like Schleiden and Schwann established biology as a distinct discipline.  Darwin’s theory of evolution, outlined in On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, was published in 1859, linking all species throughout natural history. 

In the 20th century, Watson and Crick discovered DNA, further solidifying biology's status as a key scientific field. Anthropology emerged as a distinct discipline in the 19th century, influenced by Darwin’s theory. Franz Boas, often called the "father of American anthropology," formalized the field in the early 20th century.  The introduction of scientific methods and fieldwork techniques solidified anthropology's status as a science.  The field of archaeology was revolutionized by carbon dating, which was developed in the late 1940s by Willard Libby; the determination of the age of organic matter from the relative proportions of the carbon isotopes carbon-12 and carbon-14 it contains. The ratio between them changes as radioactive carbon-14 decays, which is not replaced by atmospheric exchange. Carbon. It was first widely used in the early 1950s, marking a milestone. The technique allowed for dating organic materials up to about 50,000 years old. It provided a scientific method to establish timelines for archaeological finds. Carbon dating helped confirm and refine historical chronology.

Fossil study and stratigraphy, a branch of geology concerned with rock layers (strata) and layering (stratification), contributed to further improvements in the dating of archeological sites.

Techniques like potassium-argon dating and uranium-series dating can date older materials.  DNA analysis provides insights into human evolution and migration patterns over time.

These contributed to a paradigm shift in dating methods used by archaeologists and anthropologists.

On this basis, we know that life emerged on Earth 3.5 to 4 billion years ago; the homo genus emerged 2.5 million years ago; and Homo sapiens emerged about 300,000 years ago. 

In contrast, in the mid-nineteenth century, Marx and Engels had access only to three thousand years of written history. Thus, they were quite correct to admit “we cannot here go either into the actual physical nature of man, or into the natural conditions in which man finds himself -- geological, hydrographical, climatic, and so on.” They lacked knowledge about humanity’s natural history, especially the 2.5 million years of our “prehistory” as hunter-gatherers. Therefore, they could not have developed a materialist conception of history because, in their own words, “The writing of history must always set out from these natural bases and their modification in the course of history through the action of men.”

Their theory of society and history, historical materialism, is, of necessity, limited to three thousand years of written social history of class societies (civilization).

Part 1. Marxism and human nature

Aware of this shortcoming, Engels sought to address it to some extent by writing The Origins of Family, Private Property, and the State (1884).  In this, he followed Marx’s notes on Lewis Henry Morgan’s Ancient Society or Researches in the Lines of Human Progress from Savagery through Barbarism to Civilization (1877).  Morgan was an American anthropologist and social theorist who developed his theory of stages of human progress. Building on the data about kinship and social organization presented in his Systems of Consanguinity and Affinity of the Human Family (1871), Morgan developed a three-stage theory of human progress, from savagery through barbarism to civilization. 

In his book, Engels attempts to show how Morgan’s theory of human progress was in line with historical materialism and that the development of social institutions ultimately reflects economic conditions. Morgan’s research on how the family evolved over time provided substantial evidence of this. Morgan’s insight was to discover that in prehistoric times, a “matriarchal gens,” a family structure that passed on the family's rights and privileges through the mother, existed, tracing it back to an original female ancestor. The mere existence of such a structure refutes the contemporary notion that marriage has always been a strictly monogamous arrangement with the father squarely in charge. This lends more support to the fight from a patriarchal society. The book then proceeds in chronological order, beginning with a broad overview of humanity’s progression through three phases of development that Engels, following Morgan’s example, terms “savagery,” “barbarism,” and “civilization.” Engels details a series of premodern family structures in which consanguinity, the sharing of a bloodline, was the central arrangement rather than monogamous marriage. Such systems also tended toward matriarchy, as maternity was far easier to prove than paternity. Thus, mothers were the most reliable conveyers of the bloodline from one generation to the next.

It was the ancient Greeks who were primarily responsible for the establishment of patriarchy, following an intense period of economic development that induced a handful of powerful families to concentrate wealth in their own hands, ultimately treating their own wives and children as property as well.[3] To preserve their wealth, the patriarchal societies created the state, formally a neutral entity that was, in fact, charged with preserving the status quo by which the few continued to enrich themselves at the expense of the many.

After a painstaking overview of the transition from matriarchy under the Iroquois in North America and the “barbarian” peoples of Europe to the patriarchy of Greece and Rome, which he borrowed from Morgan, Engels sees the last flash of hope in the German and Frankish tribes, which destroyed the Roman Empire and passed on a flicker of individual liberty, which ultimately allowed for the abolition of serfdom. As matters currently stand, capitalism has turned most people into producers of commodities, over which they exercise no meaningful control. “Civilization” itself, in Engels’s view, is a nice word for a condition of acute class warfare. Humanity must therefore reach into it’s past to reclaim freedom in its future.

In 1890, Engels further developed his ideas about human nature in the essay “The Role of Labor in the Transition from Ape to Man.”  He argued that evolution from ape to man resulted from the ape’s interaction with its environment, which not only changed the environment but also transformed the ape into man. As Levin and Lewontin (1980, p. 453), an ecologist and evolutionary geneticist respectively, put it: “He saw ‘environment’ not as a passive selective force external to the organism but rather as the product of human activity, the special feature of the human niche being productive labor and cooperation, which channeled the evolution of hand and brain.”

Levins and Lewontin’s approach to human nature

In The Dialectical Biologist (1985), Levins and Lewontin argue that human nature is not a fixed, genetically programmed blueprint, but a flexible, constantly evolving process created by the interaction between biology and society. They reject biological determinism, the idea that genes dictate human behavior, and cultural determinism, the idea that biology does not matter. Instead, they propose dialectical determinism to offer a holistic alternative.

Levins and Lewontin argued against E. O. Wilson's (1978) On Human Nature, which attempts to explain human nature and society through sociobiology. Wilson argues that evolution has left its traces on characteristics such as generosity, self-sacrifice, worship, and the use of sex for pleasure, and proposes a sociobiological explanation of homosexuality. He attempts to complete the Darwinian revolution by fusing biological thought into the social sciences and humanities. On Human Nature was a sequel to his earlier books The Insect Societies (1971) and Sociobiology: The New Synthesis (1975).[4]

Levins and Lewontin (1985, p. 254) wrote: “For Marxists the evolution of humans from prehumans and the inclusion of human history in natural history presupposed both continuity and discontinuities, qualitative change, but for most materialists’ evolution meant simply continuity.”

They stress the foundational quality of the conception of human nature.  

“No political theorist, not even the completely historicist Marx, has been able to dispense with the problem of human nature; on the contrary, all have found it fundamental to the construction of their worldview. After all, if we want to give a normative description of society, how can we say how society ought to be organized unless we claim to know what human beings are really like (ibid.).”

They then critique “reductionist” views of human nature, focusing on E. O. Wilson’s sociobiology.

“Since the individual is ontologically prior to the social organization, it is genetically determined human nature that gives shape to society. Wilson (1978) gives an explicit exposition of this theory. The biologically deterministic theory of human nature is logically consistent (ibid.).”  

They also criticize the liberal, anarchist, and “classical Marxist” responses to conservative theorists. 

“The most superficial disagreement with the conservative theory has come both from liberals and from the anarchist left. This position holds that there is indeed a biologically determined human nature and that a prescription for society can be written using knowledge of that innate nature, but that conservatives have simply got the details wrong. Whereas apologists for unrestrained competitive capitalism claim aggressiveness, entrepreneurial activity, male domination, territoriality, and xenophobia as the content of human nature, left anarchists give a contrary description, arguing as Kropotkin did in Mutual Aid that people are really cooperative and altruistic underneath but have been coerced into competition by an artificial world. These critics agree with the conservatives that a basic set of attributes is natural to human being as an entity as an entity in isolation but that these attributes may be suppressed by societies, that are either unnaturally competitive, as one’s taste runs.

“A more subtle version of the human nature argument flows from classical Marxism.  According to what little can be found in Marx on the subject, this theory holds that labor is the property that marks off the human species from all others, although it is not sufficient to specify the form of social relations. Human labor is marked by these features: it transforms the world of nature into a world of artifacts that serve human beings (ibid. pp. 254-55).”

Levins and Lewontin underscore that this transformation of nature is teleological: the end product is envisioned by humans and actualized through cooperative effort, using tools and implements, to arrive at the anticipated end product. They also note that some nonhumans behave similarly, citing Jane Goodall’s observations of chimpanzees. They also object to the universality of the classical Marxist claim that all humans always behave this way. They cite the Kalahari Bushmen, who alter nature minimally and, rather than production, plan consumption. The point is well taken only if we explicitly recognize the difference between hunter-gatherer cultures and the culture of civilized (class) societies. As I have discussed, it was with the rise of agriculture that hunter-gatherer animist views of the world were set aside, and anthropocentrism (a human-centered worldview) was adopted. I will return to this key issue later.

The second problem with the classical Marxist view[5] is that even if true, it is not very informative. “It cannot be used to project any actual features of human social organization, nor to say how that organization may or may not change (ibid, p. 265).”

“A radical alternative has been to deny the existence of human nature altogether, at least in any non-trivial sense. Human beings are simply what they make of themselves (ibid.).”

The existentialist Simon de Beauvoir in The Second Sex (1953) makes this argument using Marx. She wrote[6]:

“When we abolish the slavery of half humanity, together with the whole system of hypocrisy that it implies, then the division

“of humanity will reveal its genuine significance and the human couple will find its true form. ‘The direct, natural and necessary relation of human creatures is its relation of man to woman,” Marx has said. ‘The nature of this relation determines to what point man himself is to be considered as a generic being, as mankind; the relation of man to woman is the most natural relation human being to human being. By it is shown, therefore, to what point natural behavior of man becomes human, or at that point, the human being has become his nature.”[7]

Levins and Lewontin hold that the question of human nature is the wrong question because it partly “carries a vestige of Platonic idealism” (ibid. p. 257) and partly the analyst’s own point of view.

“The evident fact about human life is the incredible diversity in individual life histories and in social organization across space and time. The attempt to understand this diversity by looking for some underlying ideal uniformity called ‘human nature,’ of which the manifest variation is only a shadow, is reminiscent of the pre—Darwinian” idealism of biological thought (ibid.)

They also criticize the tabula rasa hypothesis, which holds that humans are born with a blank slate, unaffected by their biology. Proponents of the view include Aristotle, Ibn Sina (11th century), Ibn Tufail (12^th century), Agustina (13^th century), Descartes (17^th century), John Locke (17^th century), and Freud (19^th century).

Science has shown that we are not blank slates at birth and that biology matters in differentiated human life histories.

Moreover, there are universal needs in every species, including humans, such as the need for food. Warm-blooded animals like mammals and birds require much more food than cold-blooded animals like reptiles, as they must maintain a constant body temperature. Humans need specific nutrients, such as vitamin C, because our bodies can no longer produce them internally.  We respond to stress the same way other mammals do, such as increased adrenaline levels, higher blood pressure, and a faster heartbeat. As in other mammals, the regulation of breathing, blood circulation, digestion, and other functions is governed by hormone secretion and the autonomic nervous system's unconscious activities.

However, humans have complemented their bodies' innate needs with socially produced needs. We use clothing, shelter, and fuel to warm or cool our bodies.  Our body temperature now is also a function of our economic standing, as some of us cannot afford food, shelter, or fuel. Our ability to avoid and live in stressful situations is related to our social standing. And, so on.

Taking an example from Levins and Lewontin, a fundamental ecological problem confronting all organisms is how to cope with the uncertainty of their food supply. Cold-blooded animals live slowly, so their nutritional state depends on what they have eaten over the past few weeks or months. Mammals and birds live quickly. They eat, process, and use up food in a day or even in hours. So, they are more vulnerable to environmental variability. One way to deal with this is to store food as body fat.

People have invented ways to store food by curing, salting, smoking, cooking, or refrigerating it. People also redistribute food through their social networks by creating social ties and obligations, so today’s food can be tomorrow’s if supply problems arise. As food is widely monetized, it can be separated from its original purpose of providing nutritional value and, under certain conditions, become a source of insatiable appetite. Food as a commodity traded internationally creates new sources of uncertainty. Fluctuations in food prices become detached from local conditions. Thus, the price of bread would become more of a function of what happens to wheat production in Russia, Australia, Canada, the United States, and France. Further, food production becomes increasingly detached from its nutritional goals and more aligned with the profitability of the food-producing industry.  What people should eat has been biologically determined. What people can eat is an entirely different question.  Eating has become a social occasion that cements family or friendship bonds, but it has also become an opportunity for commercial exchange or for creating mutual social obligations. Hundred-dollar plate dinner invitations are not about feeding anyone nutrition, but about sustaining the body politic.

Critique of the Marxian view of human nature

If we take the above presentation of the Marxist view of human nature (assuming there is such a thing), let me summarize its key elements:

First, Marx did not have a well-defined theory of human nature. In his Theses on Feuerbach, he limited it to “the ensemble of the social relations.” While it is true that Marx considered human interaction with the rest of nature in his theory of society and history, historical materialism, he abstracted from nature:

“The first premise of all human history is, of course, the existence of living human individuals. Thus, the first fact to be established is the physical organization of these individuals and their consequent relation to the rest of nature. Of course, we cannot here go either into the actual physical nature of man, or into the natural conditions in which man finds himself -- geological, hydrographical, climatic, and so on. The writing of history must always set out from these natural bases and their modification in the course of history through the action of men.”  

Levins and Lewontin (1985, p. 255) admit “little can be found in Marx on the subject,” that is, about human nature.  At the same time, they also admit the importance of a theory of human nature for socialism: “how can we say how society ought to be organized unless we claim to know what human beings are really like” (ibid., p. 254).

Thus, Marx’s theory of socialism has an inadequate theory of human nature, which is the basis for any theory of society. I have argued that Marx’s theories are anthropocentric, while the existential crises of the 21^st century are ecological-social (ecosocial) (Nayeri, 2021, 2023, Chapter 19).

 Second, Engels’ attempt to develop Marx’s thinking on human nature represents a significant step in the sense that he followed Marx’s notes on Morgan and developed them to locate the transition of the hunter-gatherers' social organization to civilization (class society) with the emergence of private property, family, and the state as markers of the transition.

Of course, in the late nineteenth century, little was known about our prehistory, including hunter-gatherers and the emergence and evolution of life on the planet.

Levins and Lewontin (ibid., p. 255) point to some of the limits to Engels’ hypothesis.

Third, Marxists, including Engels, and Levins and Lewontin, entirely miss the world-historic changes in human culture from ecocentrism to anthropocentrism. As others and I have argued, the transition from hunter-gathering to agriculture required alienation from nature and the need to dominate and control it systematically for their socioeconomic reproduction.

Fourth, as Levins and Lewontin note, the “orthodox Marxist view…even if true” is “not very informative. It cannot be used to project any actual feature of human social organization, nor to say how that organization may or may not change (ibid. p. 256).”

Finally, while I agree with Levins and Lewontin’s criticism of E. O. Wilson’s theory of human nature and sociobiology (more nuanced in his later writings, with his emphasis on epigenic influences) that he goes too far out on a limb trying to synthesize the humanities and social sciences into a theory of sociobiology, Marx and Marxists can be similarly accused of venturing too far out in their critique of political economy to develop a theory of society and history. As some of the key problems of our time are clearly specific to the present capitalist mode of production, others, such as religion and war, date back to prehistory but are now articulated within a capitalist world economy (Nayeri, 2015).  Furthermore, I know of no Marxist who has shown as much attention and care for the natural world as Wilson has. He was not only a world-class entomologist and a prominent biologist, but also a prolific author of many biological and biologically related books, and a conservationist. His Half-Earth: Our Planet’s Fight for Life (2016), the last in a trilogy beginning with The Social Conquest of Earth (2012) and The Meaning of Human Existence (2014), is demanding that half the Earth’s land and ocean surface be set free of human intervention to allow wildlife to prosper. A very small-scale experiment of his ambitious idea was documented in the movie Wilding (2024), as the couple who owned it allowed all plants and animals to go wild (for a review of the movie, see here).

Part 2. Gregory Bateson’s Ecology of Mind

Gregory Bateson (1904 –1980) was an English American anthropologist, social scientist, linguist, visual anthropologist, semiotician, and cyberneticist whose work intersected with many other fields. “His contributions range from evolutionary theory to epistemology to clinical psychology and psychiatry to anthropology to learning and communication. His approach was decidedly multidisciplinary (Montuori, 2002).” 

Bateson got on the path to what he later called “ecology of mind” through his teaching:

“I have taught various branches of behavioral biology and cultural anthropology to American students ranging from college freshmen to psychiatric residents, in various schools and teaching hospitals, and I have encountered a very strange gap in their thinking that springs from a lack of certain tools of thought. This lack is rather equally distributed at all levels of education, among students of both sexes, and among humanities as well as scientists. Specifically, it is a lack of knowledge of the presuppositions not only of science but of everyday life (Bateson, 2002, p. 23).”

This interest led Bateson to develop a methodology for piecing together information gleaned from various fields into new patterns of knowledge. 

“At present, there is no existing science whose interest is the combining of pieces of information. But I shall argue that the evolutionary process must depend upon such double increments of information. Every evolutionary step is an addition of information to an already existing system. Because it is so, the combinations, harmonies, and discords between successive pieces and layers of information will present many problems of survival and determine many directions of change (Bateson, 2002, p. 19).”

Here, I will focus on Bateson’s concept of the ecology of mind, which evolved over time in his writing, as expressed especially in Steps to an Ecology of Mind (1972) and Mind and Nature (1979). Cybernetics and systems theory played a central role in his theory of ecology of mind.  Cybernetics is the study of systems, control, and communication in animals and machines. It explores feedback loops, which are essential for a system’s regulation and adaptation; examines the role of information flow in maintaining system stability and functionality; analyzes interactions among components within a system to understand emergent behaviors; and investigates the application of cybernetics across fields such as biology, engineering, and the social sciences.

Gregory Bateson’s core thesis is that the mind is not an isolated substance or faculty inside individuals’ brains, but a relational, cybernetic process distributed across organisms and their environments.

Mind is a process that emerges from networks of relationships among organisms and their environments. Human beings, other living beings, and ecosystems are linked through flows of information. The mind is a system of relationships; it is not a “thing” but a process. He defined a mental system as one in which differences are perceived. Differences are transformed into information. Information affects future behavior. Feedback loops connect the parts of the system. A forest, a family, an ecosystem, or even a society can therefore exhibit mental characteristics because they process information through interconnected feedback relationships. This means no organism can be understood apart from the ecological system in which it exists.

Information is "a difference that makes a difference." A difference becomes information when it affects a system's behavior. For example, changes in temperature affect a plant; a predator's movement affects prey; a spoken word affects a listener.

Mind, therefore, operates through the communication of differences rather than through material substances alone.

 Epistemological errors arise when we fragment this systemic whole into linear cause–and–effect chains or oppose the self and the world.

Bateson’s theory has resulted in debates about systems thinking, constructivist epistemology, and ecological ethics.

Bateson believed modern industrial civilization suffers from a profound epistemological error. Western thought often separates mind from nature, humans from ecosystems, and subject from object.

Bateson argued that these separations are largely illusions. Humans are components of larger ecological systems, not masters standing outside them. When people act as if they are separate from nature, they damage the ecological systems upon which they depend.

Feedback and self-regulation

Ecological systems survive through feedback loops. Examples include predator-prey relationships, body temperature regulation, family interactions, and ecosystem nutrient cycles. Healthy systems contain balancing feedback that prevents runaway growth or collapse.

Many social and ecological crises arise when these feedback mechanisms are disrupted.

For Bateson, species co-evolve within networks of relationships: Organisms shape environments. Environments shape organisms. Different species co-evolve together. Thus, evolution is fundamentally relational.

The sacred unity of life

In his later work, Bateson increasingly emphasized what he called the "pattern which connects," referring to the recurring relational structures found throughout living systems: Examples: cells and organisms; organisms and ecosystems; individuals and societies. He believed wisdom consists in recognizing these patterns rather than focusing only on isolated entities.

At the same time, Bateson’s view of the function of consciousness “in coupling between man and the homeostatic systems (self-regulating systems) surrounding him” is as follows:

“First, there is man’s habit of changing his environment rather than changing himself. …In evolutionary history, the great majority of steps have been changes within the organism itself; some steps have been of an intermediate kind in which the organism achieved [a] change of environment by [a] change of locale. In a few cases, organisms other than man have created modified microenvironments around themselves, e.g., the nests of Hymenoptera and birds, concentrated forests of conifers, fungal colonies, etc.

“In all such cases, the logic of evolutionary progress is toward ecosystems which sustain only the dominant, environment-controlling species, and its symbionts and parasites.

“Man, the outstanding modifier of environment, similarly achieves single-species ecosystems and parasites in his cities, but he goes one step further, establishing a special environment for his symbionts. These, likewise, become single-species ecosystems: fields of corn, cultures of bacteria, batteries of fowls, colonies of laboratory rats, and the like. “Secondly, the power ratio between purposive consciousness and the environment has rapidly changed in the last one hundred years, and the rate of change in the ratio is certainly rapidly increasing with technological advances. Conscious man, as a changer of the environment, is now fully able to wreck himself and the environment—with the very best conscious intentions. “Third, a peculiar sociological phenomenon has arisen in the last one hundred years, which perhaps threatens to isolate conscious purpose from many corrective processes which might come out of less conscious parts of the mind. The social scene is nowadays characterized by the existence of a large number of self-maximizing entities which, in law, have something like the status of ‘persons’-trusts, companies, political parties, unions, commercial and financial agencies, nations, and the like. In biological fact, these entities are precisely not persons and not even aggregates of whole persons. They are aggregates of parts of persons (Bateson, 2002, pp. 451-452).”

Batson then notes several factors “which may act as correctives.” They include love, by which he means “I-Thou” relationship, “between man and his society or ecosystem,” and the formation of “sensitivity groups,” arts, poetry, music, and the humanities, where “more of the mind is active than consciousness would admit.” He adds contact between “man and animals and between man and the natural world,” which “breeds, perhaps—sometimes—wisdom (ibid., p. 453). He includes religion, to which I will return.

Ecological implications

Bateson's ecological philosophy differs from both mechanistic materialism, which often treats nature as an object, and spiritual views that separate mind from the material world. Instead, he proposes a relational ontology in which the mind is immanent in ecological relationships. Human beings are part of larger living systems, and survival depends on maintaining the integrity of these systems.

The fundamental reality is not isolated things but relationships, patterns, and information flows. Human survival depends on recognizing that the true unit of life is the organism-in-its-ecosystem.

The survival unit

While Freudian psychology expanded the concept of the mind inwards to include the whole communication system within the body, the automatic, the habitual, and the vast range of unconscious processes, Bateson expands the mind outwards. Both these changes reduce the scope of the conscious self.

“We get a picture, then, of mind as synonymous with cybernetic system—the relevant total information-processing, trial-and-error completing unit. And we know that within Mind in the widest sense, there will be a hierarchy of subsystems, any one of which we call an individual mind. 

“But this picture is precisely the same as the picture which I arrived at in discussing the unit of evolution. I believe that this identity is the most important generalization which I have to offer you tonight…

“This identity between the unit of mind and the unit of evolutionary survival is of very great importance, not only theoretical but also ethical. (ibid., p. 466).” 

Let’s get back to religion for a moment, Bateson argues that if

“You put God outside and set him vis-à-vis his creation, and if you have the idea that you are created in his image, you will logically and naturally see yourself as outside against the things around you. And as you arrogate all mind to yourself, you will see the world as mindless and therefore not entitled to moral or ethical considerations. The environment will seem to be yours to exploit. Your survival unit will be you and your folks or conspecifics against the environment of other social units, other races, brutes, and vegetables.

“If this is your estimate of your relation to nature and you have advanced technology, your likelihood of survival will be that of a snowball in hell (ibid., p. 488, my emphasis).”

This is why Bateson has been influential in ecology, systems theory, cybernetics, family therapy, and environmental philosophy.

Critique of Bateson’s theory

From the perspective of a theory of human nature and socialism, it is evident that a cybernetic approach to human society operates at a higher degree of generality and lacks the specific theories of society and history that, for example, Emile Durkheim, Max Weber, and Karl Marx have.  However, he complements such theories of society and history with a grand overall view that offers significant advantages. To begin with, although Bateson does not explicitly discuss his ontology, it is evident that he held a philosophy of being, existence, and reality that is materialist and immanently relational. As I underscored in Part 1, even Marx’s historical materialism was constructed by limiting human nature, society, and history to social relations arising from modes of production and ensuing class struggles. Of course, Marx and Engels admitted this fundamental shortcoming but never returned to the task of placing humanity within nature, to which it is bound by natural history. A key exception is Marx’s concept of the metabolic rift, which originated in his critique of capitalist agriculture, which destroyed the metabolic relationship with the soil (Foster, 2000; Saito, 2017). However, contrary to claims of Foster and Saito, Marx never developed the idea in his theory of society and history, and his historical materialism and critique of political economy remained anthropocentric (Nayeri, 2023, Chapter 22; Nayeri, October 12, 2023). Marx accepted the ontology of nineteenth-century materialism but proposed it as dialectical materialism, thereby rejecting the prevalent mechanistic view.

At the same time, Marx’s theory entails no environmental ethics, while Bateson’s theory of ecology of mind does.

The task remains for the twenty-first-century ecological socialists to develop a theory of human nature cognizant of Bateson’s contributions.

References:

Aho, Kevin. “Existentialism.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 2023.

Brooks. Thom. “Hegel’s Social and Political Philosophy.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 2025.

Engels, Friedrich. Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State. 1884.

Foster, John Bellamy. Marx’s Ecology: Materialism and Nature. 2000.

Foster, John Bellamy, Brett Clark, Richard York. The Ecological Rift: Capitalism’s War on Earth. 2010.

Levins, Richard, and Richard Lewontin. The Dialectical Biologist. 1985.

Manghi, Sergio. Forward: In Wider Perspective. In Gregory Bateson, Mind and Nature: A Necessary Unity. 2002.

Morgan, Lewis Henry. Ancient Society or Researches in the Lines of Human Progress from Savagery through Barbarism to Civilization. 1877.

Nayeri, Kamran. “Economics, Socialism and Ecology: A Critical Outline, Part 2,” Our Place in the World: A Journal of Ecosocialism. October 29, 2013.

_____________. “An Ecological Socialist's Reflection on Edward O. Wilson's Sociobiology.” Our Place in the World: A Journal of Ecosocialism. October 16, 2015.

_____________. “E. O. Wilson: The Sixth Extinction: Life and Death in the Biosphere.” December 12. 2016.

_____________. “The Case for Ecocentric Socialism.”  Our Place in the World: A Journal of Ecosocialism. July 4, 2021.

_____________. “Was Marx an Ecosocialist?” Our Place in the World: A Journal of Ecosocialism. October 12, 2023.

_____________. Whose Planet? Essays on Ecocentric Socialism. 2023.

 

Roughley, Neil, "Human Nature", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2023 Edition), Edward N. Zalta & Uri Nodelman (eds.). Wilson, E. O. Sociobiology: The New Synthesis. 1975.

Saito, Kohei. Karl Marx’s Ecosocialism: Capital, Nature, and the Unfinished Critique of Political Economy. 2017.

Wilson, E. O. On Human Nature. 1978.

___________. Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge. 1999.

___________. The Social Conquest of the Earth. 2012.

___________. The Meaning of Human Existence. 2015.

___________. Half-Earth: Our Planet’s Fight for Life. 2016.

Notes:

---

[1] Contemplative materialism focuses on the relationship between thought and material reality, rejecting abstract idealism. Feuerbach believes that true human essence is found in our sensory experiences and social interactions.

He advocates for a philosophy that prioritizes human experience and empirical observation over metaphysical speculation. This approach aims to reconcile human nature with the material world, fostering a more grounded understanding of existence.

[2] The concept of civil society evolved over time.  Aristotle viewed the political community (polis) as the natural and highest form of human association. He did not sharply separate “state” from “society” as human beings were “political animals,” whose fulfillment came through participation in communal life.  Thus, in classical Western thought, civil society and political society were fused.  In modern thought, the two concepts have been separated.  John Locke argued that civil society emerged from a social contract: individuals agreed to establish government specifically to protect their pre-existing natural rights. This was a significant departure from the classical view because it placed individual rights prior to the state.  Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Adam Smith held that the binding principle of civil society was a private morality, grounded in self-interest but ultimately serving collective ends.

Adam Ferguson went further, contributing directly to the literature on civil society and democratic political society through his influential work in Scottish Enlightenment philosophy, emphasizing voluntary associations as a counterbalance to state power.    G.W.F. Hegel provided the most decisive theoretical break by fundamentally redefining civil society, giving rise to a modern liberal understanding of it as a form of non-political society, distinct from the institutions of the modern nation-state. For Hegel, civil society was a “system of needs” situated between the family and the state (Brooks, 2025). It was the realm of economic activity, social interaction, and individual pursuit.

[3] In The German Ideology, that is how Marx and Engels describe women and children in the patriarchal family structure.

[4] Levins, Lewontin, and Wilson were all professors at Harvard University, with their labs and offices close to each other.

[5] Levins and Lewontin use “classical Marxist” view and “Orthodox Marxist” view interchangeably. They were part of the young radicals in the United States who were attracted to the pro-Moscow Communist Party, later disillusioned with it, and formed the radical Science for the People as a loosely organized political organization. The author joined this group in 2008. In the post-Occupy Wall Street action, some Generation Alpha, the first full generation not to have known a world without smartphones and social media, who became radicalized scientists, mathematicians, and engineers, formed the new generation of Science for the People. The earlier generations, who were mostly active in politics through the Science for the People online discussion list, gradually abandoned it due to age-related factors.   

[6] According to Jean Paul, the first principle of existentialism is that we exist for ourselves as self-making or self-defining beings, and we are always in the process of making or defining ourselves through the situated choices we make as our lives unfold. This means that man exists, turns up, appears on the scene, and, only afterward, defines himself.” (Aho, 2023).

[7] The quotation is from Marx’s Philosophic Manuscripts, vol. 6, italics are in the original.