Problems Expand with Confusion

New layers of the polycrisis are overwhelming us, but no one will admit it is happening.

Mike Meyer


Photo by Ozan Safak on Unsplash

As if this weren’t already complicated enough, we must drill down to deeper levels of understanding in the planetary polycrisis to understand how this proliferates at a frightening rate.

While polycrisis is an easier-to-understand label for what we now see daily, these hyperobjects push the limits of human experience.

Since we need to find a path to broader levels of understanding, let’s keep the terminology as friendly as possible to avoid sliding into statistical and scientific complexity outside references. But we must learn to navigate this new world we have created. There are no options except to ignore it and wait for the end.

We are seeing increased intensity in predicting and denying the reality of climate disasters. The only people still in denial are fascists and religionists who haven’t realized that they have lost all credibility. For many people, scientific or even logical credibility is of little interest.

The onslaught of scientifically predicted reality in 2023 leaves little room for denialists unless they can ignore the weather.

The maintenance of reality denial is now being done by the more sophisticated means of agreeing to the Climate Disaster but ignoring it as less important than the maintenance of our late-stage capitalist economy. Great effort is being exerted in pretending that it doesn’t mean anything.

For example, Biden commissioned the CEA-OMB White Paper dated March 13, 2023, on national risk analysis methodologies with economic statistics showing nothing happening yet and a relatively mild (2%) GDP decline by 2070.

The White Paper is dense and is designed to “correct” the president’s budgeting process by factoring in climate change. The conclusion seems to be that there is not much to worry about financially. The takeaway is that we should not waste money on trillion-dollar climate correction.

I cannot point to specific errors in the assumptions in the complex risk assessment process, but I suspect this was a product of linear thinking in nonlinear complexity. Please take a look and let me know…



Mike Meyer

Writer, Educator, Campus CIO (retired) . Essays on our changing reality here, news and more at