In defense of empathy

We could live in paradise, but we don’t. Why is that?

Humanity confronts numerous existential challenges (which could potentially annihilate either our species or society). Some of these are classified as natural disasters, yet the majority stem from our own ingenuity. The reality for nearly all of these issues (with the exception of events like a nearby star going nova) is that they can be addressed by humans. In fact, they can be resolved quite readily. So, what is the problem? What prevents us from implementing the necessary measures? The root of the issue lies in sociopathic thinking. This mindset underpins all the existential dilemmas we face.

Sociopathic thinking has been a part of humanity for as long as we can remember, and it is likely to remain unchanged. To be human is to be a bastard, at least some of the time. Yet, in 1602, a method was established to formalize sociopathy, initiating the process of normalizing sociopathic thinking. Limited Liability essentially allows individuals to benefit from the misfortunes of others, without experiencing any emotional repercussions. A lot of evil can be hidden behind Shareholder Value supremacy.

Corporations, colonization, capitalism are all just codified sociopathy. As is: Individualism, manifest destiny, religious doctrine, enlightened self-interest, consumer culture, nationalism, bigotry, evasion of responsibility etc.

There is no conspiracy at play. This was not orchestrated; it simply stems from their inherent nature. They have exploited a kink in our mental defenses, in our humanity. They have injected the toxic notion that there is no such thing as society. One of the most damaging effects of this is that it has led us to perceive our fellow humans as “others” or mere objects. This perspective dehumanizes them, making it easier for us to treat them in ways that are cruel and inhumane. There is no brilliance in this. They are not the masters of the Universe or exceptionally intelligent beings. They have merely established a system that allows their kind to flourish.

It is estimated that roughly 1-5% of people may be sociopaths. This represents a small fraction of the population, and throughout history, societies have developed methods to manage them. However, societies collapse. I would contend that, in many instances, this occurs because the protective measures against sociopathic behavior weaken & falter.

Sociopaths are hollow people. Lacking the ability to connect with humanity, they attempt to fill the emptiness with power, greed, and desire. It would be tragic, were it not for the reality that they have no desire to be healed. I watched a documentary on psychopathy, in which one man stated he would prefer death over being cured. He was aware of the suffering he had caused and understood how painful it would be if he were to suddenly feel that pain.

It is sad. Perhaps they will discover a cure someday. I wouldn’t hold my breath, but it’s a possibility.

Sociopaths can be characterized and recognized by various traits, yet one trait appears to be consistently present: Their unwavering conviction that everyone ought to think as they do, that they are correct in all their statements and actions. That we should all emulate their way of life, with enlightened self-interest and all that.

As I mentioned, it’s sad.

However, it is also bad, as it means that they are always attempting to subvert any system, reshaping it into a version they can control more effectively. Machiavelli was a bastard, but his followers are even more troubling.

Sociopathic reasoning is focused on the immediate. Why concern yourself with the repercussions of an action when the only thing that counts is your own satisfaction or quest for dominance? It fosters a lack of empathy for others, viewing them merely as tools to be exploited for personal gratification.

* Growth at all costs. Just like cancer. They gotta fill that emptiness with something.

* Believing only in yourself. Since no one else matter, they must be right in all regards.

* Conspiracy thinking. After all, it is what they would do if they had power.

* Only caring for power & pleasure. There is nothing else to care for.

* Choosing style over substance. When the center is empty, disguise it.

* Not wanting to sacrifice anything for the common good. What common good?

* To remove all friction in life. Friction reminds them of death.

* Always choosing the easy way out. It is the easy way, after all.

* Having a pathological fear of death. Since the world ends when they do.

* Having nothing but disdain for kindness & charity. Why care about others?

* Winning at all cost. You don’t win silver, you lose gold.

* Being authoritarian. You can’t climb the power-structure if it is not there.

* Traitorous. Cooperation should only serve you.

* Believing might make right. The goal justifies the means.

* Capitalistic. The easiest way to control others. A way to keep score as well.

* Paternalistic. It is so much easier to retain power if the power structure leans in your favour.

* Consumerist. Taking the place of any kind of genuine belief.

* Individualism. Other people are dangerous, they are not you. You are all you need.

*Certitude. Never admit you’re wrong. Being wrong is a weakness.

I am deeply concerned about existential threats, and a common rebuttal I often often encounter is this: Humanity has always believed that the world was on the verge of collapse, that these are the most perilous and alarming times. This assertion holds some truth; since the advent of writing, we have written about the end of humanity. Nevertheless, the sages of old were mistaken. Until we harnessed the terrifying power of the atomic bomb, nothing possessed the capability to annihilate all of humanity, only local civilizations. Since that discovery, existential threats have proliferated to such an extent that nuclear destruction now seems almost trivial. While not all of these threats can extinguish the human race, they all pose a risk to advanced human society, and it remains uncertain whether we could claw our way back to civilization. If we were to falter now, it appears unlikely that we could rise again. Who knows, perhaps cockroaches would serve as better caretakers of this planet, but is that truly what we desire? Perhaps by recognizing the underlying issue, we could improve our situation?

Another frequent objection is this: Why are you so fixated on sociopathic thinking? We encounter numerous challenges; why is this your primary focus, and why do you believe we should be concerned about it too? The labels sociopath or psychopath gets thrown around a lot. It appears to be trendy to label anyone with whom you disagree as a sociopath or narcissist. This practice is not only perilous, but it also complicates the issue. It detracts from the real stakes involved and diminishes the importance of the term.

Sociopaths are dangerous, because they foster sociopathic thinking. They pull us away from empathy.

Sociopathic thinking must be at the forefront of our concerns, as it is what pulls us down, both as individuals and as a society. Some believe we can coexist with such individuals and their ideas. They think that figures like Musk, Bibi, Thiel, and Trump can be reasoned with, that they can transform and become good people. This is not the case. They may claim to have a change of heart, but ultimately, they will always betray humanity. The greatest threat comes from those who appear to be aligned with humanity, such as Taibbi or Brand. They may initially say all the right things, but over time, their true monstrous nature becomes evident. We must remain vigilant and exclude such individuals from our movement. If you accept small evils, you open the door for great evils. As TMBG eloquently stated: “You can’t shake the Devil’s hand and claim you’re only kidding”. By concentrating on sociopathic thinking and behaviors, we can also steer clear of the pitfalls of purity culture. You may not agree with every belief held by a potential collaborator, but as long as they uphold humanistic principles, they can be a valuable partner. This approach helps prevent the infighting that frequently leads to the collapse of anti-authoritarian popular fronts.