A god-sized hole

How do we attempt to fill it?

The 17th century philosopher Blaise Pascal coined this term of god-sized hole, positing that everyone has one and only god can fill it, trying to explain the malaise he observed with modern civilized folks, who seem discontented despite trying to get what they think they need, implying that what they really need in the long-term is God, and all else would be a poor substitute, offering only a short-term relief (If you’ve been able to read this last sentence, there is still some hope for your salvation, as the internet has not turned your brain into short-attention span mush). But being a product of the European Enlightenment, he was, like most people since then, immersed in a culture where tribes and villages have been greatly weakened, and since his time families and even individuals have been weakened. We’ve evolved in families and tribes, and families and villages for most of our time as a species, where our very survival depended on our family, tribe and village members, and as a result, we’re a super social species. We’ve also evolved in contact with other non-human beings whom we depended on for survival in natural settings and as a result we’ve developed a love of nature, what E.O. Wilson called “biophilia”.

But since the industrial revolution, we have lost this close dependence on other people close by, and on nature in our surroundings. We haven’t lost the software that makes us want that dependence. We’ve just managed to substitute other things for it. Our software makes us need experiences that give us endorphin, oxytocin and dopamine highs, and these experiences used to come from connecting to people in our villages, tribes, families and the nature around us. Of course there were downsides to these connections, yet we still miss them. With these connective experiences more difficult (if not impossible) to obtain, we resort to substitutes that produce the same short-term chemical effects, and the same good feelings. The question that Pascal posed still applies, though in different form: do these substitutes (not for God now, but for village, family, nature and tribe) satisfy us in the long-term?

I don’t have an answer for that. It seems like the answer is no, but I don’t have a theoretical understanding of why it should be so. We can look at the substitutes one by one and see that they work to some extent, but I’m not aware of data comparing the well-being of people who use these substitutes to that of people immersed in village or tribe cultures. I suspect the latter are both happier, and less needing of God (The Piraha are considered the happiest people on earth, but not according to a rigorous study. They also are polytheistic and gods are just nature spirits to them). Here are the substitutes for human and nature connection:

Pets—dogs have been with us the longest, followed by cats. Other domesticated animals followed, but until modern times, none of these animals ever substituted for other people in families, tribes and villages. The animals had jobs to do, things that benefitted humans, and companionship was not high on the priority list because people had human companions, and needed the animals for other things: They got hunting help and security from dogs, getting rid of pests who ate grain from cats, fast travel and warfare advantage from horses, all kinds of food and clothing from other domesticated animals. Only with the advent of royalty, who DIDN’T have as much human companions, did cats and dogs become a substitute for humans, aka pets. With the modern world, common people, not just royalty, can substitute pets for their desire to have deep connection with other humans. Plus, in a culture where cooperation is not highly valued, and edifying, connecting activities with other humans are scarce, domination becomes more attractive than other forms of interaction. Pets can be dominated more easily than humans. Pets also substitute for the need for the wild aspect of nature, doing things that are spontaneous. The downsides of pets are that they are not as intelligent and interesting as humans, and usually more short-lived. The relationship is highly asymmetrical, as far as emotional and intellectual aspects.

Drugs— Most cultures have some way to assist the human nervous system to relax and feel connected to other people and nature. Drugs are quite common for that. However, nowadays drugs can be done solo, as a substitute for human or nature connection. Even when there are other people present, many partakers of drugs do not interact. This is not always true, and some raves do feature dancing together. But generally drugs are a substitute for human and nature connection. They usually have some long-term detrimental effects if done on a continuous basis. It is tragic that the folks most prone to substituting drugs for human and land connection (and hence the negative side-effects of drugs) are the most artistic ones, or the ones, like native peoples who miss the land and tribe connection the most.

Religion— It is obvious that most religious practitioners do it in a social setting, and that religion is a way to unify people by using rituals and ridiculous beliefs as “high cost signals” (to be distinguished from low cost signals like virtue signals). Religion also offers epic stories that give meaning to life. Believers claim that they are not doing it for the social connection, but if that were so, why don’t we see more of them practicing their religions alone? The few ones that do are usually mystics, who seem to derive pleasure from nature or mystical experiences where their nervous systems seem to connect to something bigger than themselves. When it isn’t nature, it is not clear that what they are connecting to is not internal to them, though they claim it transcends them. Could it be that the hole Pascal spoke of is none other than a relic of connection to nature, family, tribe or village? But there is something else to the religious feeling of awe and wonder, which is shared by scientists when they observe nature and understand something about it. It is still about connection, but not to people or living beings, but something else that is at the root of being human. The downsides of religion is that it usually requires a belief in something untrue, and sometimes requires followers to hate the outsiders, and stifle creativity for the insiders.

Politics—Some of the issues people get passionate about are reflective of instinctual personality traits that are determined by genetics and early childhood experiences. Others are random, depending on what their identity group thinks defines them. In either case, most of politics is about connecting to some people about both commonalities and enemies. Most of it seems shallow to me, like trying to fix unfixable problems, or fixing some problems while producing others, given the current organization of our society.

Consumerism—Someone has already noticed that shopping, whether online or at a mall, is similar to hunting and gathering. So a relic of nature connection. And also, when shopping is done with friends and family, it is a way to connect to people. The downsides are that the connections to both people and nature are shallow ones, and much waste and destruction is generated because of weak feedbacks between people’s consumer actions and their consequences on people and nature far away.

Nature sports—some people can connect to nature through hiking, biking, sailing, hangliding, etc. But only as tourists and, as Tom Brown said, through the umbilical cord of civilization. The connection satisfies a bit, but not enough.

Work—People get to feel good about themselves by working hard at something that they get paid for. It also gives them social legitimacy. For some it offers a means of connection with other humans that is hard to achieve outside of work and church. For a few lucky ones it offers a way to express talent and passion. But for most it is an attempt to fill the tribe, family and village-sized holes of their souls.

Children—Though this is an evolutionary imperative, coded into our software by all kinds of so-called proximate mechanisms, it can also serve as a hole-filling device. Since families are under pressure from global capitalism for their coherence, having deep, satisfying relationships between parents and children is getting harder, especially as children get older and are more influenced by individualistic memes on social media. It is also harder for a small nuclear family to go at it alone, without the support of a tribe or a village. And also, the fact that children in our culture leave as soon as they are out of high school, and the parents are left alone, without a village or tribe to belong to.

The best way to fill this hole is to revitalize villages, tribes, families and nature connection. But also, perhaps since we fill holes with epic stories, we need to revitalizae or replace our stale old stories?