This is one in a series of posts with brief notes on society, politics, and nature. I sometimes include short personal notes as well. Click “read more” to see all the entries.
TRUMP, GREENLAND, ETC.
I have taken a break from these posts, but thought I would add something brief about the Trump situation.
And a few comments on the current situation.
In the short term, Europe and other countries need to stand up to Trump. European and other reliable democracies need to create stronger and deeper ties, and stand up to Trump in a stronger and more unified way. It’s the only language bullies understand, and it’s an urgent priority.
I see that Denmark has dumped US bonds from the pension funds. That’s a good start, and more European countries are likely to do the same. It’s both a signal of what the world thinks of Trump, and also the economic instability that follows his erratic actions and policies.
A majority of Norwegians still oppose joining the EU. That surprises me. In the 1990s, I was opposed since it made sense in that world situation. In the 2000s, the world changed and joining the EU made much more sense. In a less stable world where the US cannot be relied on, we need the fellowship of the EU, ideally with countries like Canada and Australia included.
Also, the way the world moves, there is no reason to think the Schengen agreement will continue as before. If we want to be able to travel and live freely within Europe in the future, we need to be part of the EU.
Some Norwegian and European politicians still default to the “US is an ally and friend” mindset, and want to appease Trump. That seems misguided. Trump has made it clear that he sees European liberal democracies as the enemy and Putin as a friend. The US is no longer an ally.
More importantly, this is not just about Trump. This is about deeper changes within the US population. A majority of voters have twice made it clear they are happy to elect a criminal with a mobster mentality. The forces that made him president will be there for decades to come, and coming presidents may well have the general orientation of Trump, combined more charm, intelligence, and ruthlessness. Even after Trump is gone, the US will not be a reliable ally.
With authoritarians like Putin and Trump, appeasement doesn’t work. It just encourages them to continue. If Putin is not stopped in Ukraine, he will try to take more countries to re-create a Russian empire. Similarly, if Trump takes Greenland, there is no reason to assume he will stop there.
Also, giving the Nobel Peace Price for 2025 to María Corina Machado seemed misguided at the time. She is not a good example of someone who prioritizes deep democracy and peace. She openly admires Trump and is aligned with him in worldview and orientation. Now that she has given her price to Trump in order to gain favors from him, it’s even more clear it was misguided.
Maduro was a terrible and dictatorial president of Venezuela, but that does not justify going in and taking him out by force. It also does not justify taking over the Venezuelan government and giving their oil to US oil companies. All of that is profoundly illegal according to international law. (Which Trump is happy to ignore, of course.) The US has a long and terrible history of intervening in other countries. It typically leads to (a) extraction of resources and wealth for the benefit of US companies, and (b) terrible consequences for the country and people – often for decades into the future.
About Greenland, it’s obvious that Trump or the US doesn’t need Greenland for security reasons. They already have a military base there and full access, and have shut down six or seven military bases! The mineral side of it is a questionable argument. Mostly, it seems that Trump wants to make the US bigger. He wants a land deal to make himself seem better. And although NATO as a whole if far better equipped than the US alone to protect Greenland from China and/or Russia, it’s likely that Trump plans on the destruction of NATO, in which case it makes sense if he wants Greenland.
Trump can be seen as a symptom of the US empire in decline. Johan Galtung, the Norwegian peace researcher, studied the fall of empires. Based on his findings, he correctly predicted the timeline of the fall of the Soviet Union. He also predicted the fall of the US empire, and that it would accelerate in the 2020s. Here is a Democracy Now interview on this topic: “Empire in Decline”: Historian Alfred McCoy on U.S. Aggression in Venezuela, Iran & Beyond.
Trump is clearly not right. He behaves like a damaged child, far from a healthy and mature adult. It’s surprising to me that it, in itself, isn’t enough to disqualify him from any position of power or leadership. How come some support him, knowing he behaves like a damaged child? Knowing that his erratic behavior is a danger to us all? Do some like it, because it somehow lends justification or support to when they act like a damaged child in their own lives?
Also, why does the media engage in so much sane-washing of Trump? Why do they take a rambling, incoherent, and childish tirade, and make it sound as if it was coherent and reasonable? Why don’t they highlight the lack of coherence? Why don’t they quote him verbatim more often, so people get to see the erratic nature of his speech and thought process?
Trump’s policies of cruelty is an expression of domination culture, empire, perhaps amplified by the dynamics of a crumbling empire. I have to admit I am a bit shocked by how many seem to agree with his policies of cruelty – where cruelty often is the point – and how many mock and disparage compassion, inclusivity, policies aimed at creating a better world for everyone, and even people suffering. This is all a reflection of trauma and being raised by authoritarian parents, in a society with strong authoritarian elements.
Most crucially, the whole Trump debacle is stupid, unnecessary, and a distraction from far more important issues. Mainly, that we are in global ecological overshoot. We are collectively using far more resources than this living planet can replenish. That’s similar to living off a savings account – it seems fine until we reach the bottom and our lifestyle collapse. In our case, it means that ecosystems unravel and society and civilization with it.
Unfortunately, the way the world and people are now, it seems that what we are seeing – including the distraction from this far more important topic – is necessary. It comes out of a combination of factors: lack of ecological literacy, a day-to-day survival focus for large portions of humanity, internalized domination culture and ideas of separation, forces that wish us to be distracted, and so on. Will it change? How far will the unraveling and collapse go before more realize what’s happening? What will take for enough of us to reprioritize and align our priorities with ecological reality?
In any case, what we can do is the same: Work to stop the destruction. Live the solutions. Change our own worldview to recognize ourselves as part of a living system.
The major and real issues in the world are not about Trump or any one political party. It’s about something much more deep and systemic. It’s about neo-liberal policies that have been adopted by both the right and left over the last few decades, aimed at funneling money to the already extremely wealthy and away from everyone else. It’s about domination culture. It’s about a worldview and social systems that assume separation between humans and the wider web of life that sustains us.
JANUARY 22, 2026
CARNEY’S SPEECH
in his Davos speech, Canada’s prime minister says what I would have thought would be obvious independent of circumstances.
Medium and smaller democracies need to strengthen their ties and connections at all levels, and as far as possible avoid being dependent on superpowers. Superpowers are empires, and these function in a different way, often not to the benefit of the rest of the world.
JANUARY 25, 2026
HONNOLD & THE SKYSCRAPER
I have enjoyed following some of what’s happening in the bouldering and climbing world, partly through Alex Honnold’s podcast.
Yesterday, he free soloed (no ropes) the Taipei 101 skyscraper.
To me, it’s a reminder of how something can look one way if we don’t know much about it, and another if we have more information.
Many in the public sees it as extremely risky, irresponsible, and so on.
And for those with more information, it looks different.
It’s high consequence since a fall may mean death, and it’s low risk since it’s well within what he is capable of.
He has practiced and prepared for decades, and specifically for this climb for months. He has climbed the difficult sections many times with rope, knows every part of the climb well, and I am sure they have cleaned his path thoroughly.
This is similar to the daily risks most of us expose ourselves. If we drive in a car, or cross a busy street, or bike along the road, that’s high consequence too. We may get in an accident and die. And it’s relatively low risk since accidents are relatively rare.
Living itself is high consequence and low risk, most of the time, until it’s our time to shed this human body.
I saw an interview with a sports psychologist who seemed to have an odd take on it. To me, I imagine that the reasons for doing it are a combination of…. Being fully present at each moment. (Which feels really good.) By necessity, the mind sets aside anything else, the rest of the world doesn’t exist for the minutes and hours of climbing. A feeling of accomplishment. A dream come true. And also, of course, that it pays the bills. This is his work.
JANUARY 30, 2026
AMERICAN JEWS RECLAIM THEIR GERMAN CITIZENSHIP
Once unthinkable: At 103, Holocaust survivor Ruth Gruenthal has reclaimed the German citizenship the Nazi regime stripped from her because she was Jewish. After surviving Nazi persecution and rebuilding her life in the U.S., Ruth became a psychotherapist and raised a family spanning four generations — many of whom have now also reclaimed German citizenship.
FEBURARY 5, 2026
WHY DO PEOPLE TREAT A COLLECTIVE SURVIVAL ISSUE AS FRINGE?
The Guardian view on risks from biodiversity collapse: warnings must be heeded before it’s too late –> Inadequate food supplies and collapsing rainforests must be recognised as national security threats – not pigeonholed as green issues
Why do people treat something that’s clearly a collective survival issue as a fringe issue? As something they don’t need to take serious? As something for especially interested? Or even for weirdos?
That’s something I have never quite understood.
Global ecological overshoot is clearly a collective survival issue.
It’s hugely important. It impacts every one of us. And it’s urgent.
So why is not the number one issue in our collective discourse? In our politics? In our daily conversation?
Why is it not our number one priority individually and collectively?
I have written about this several times before.
I suspect there is a combination of reasons.
The main one is a worldview of separation. We see ourselves as separate from the web of life we are part of. We are trained to see anything related to nature as away from us, fringe, not relevant to us apart from if we want to go for a hike some day.
In reality, we are part of this web of life. Our life, and our quality of life, depends on the life and quality of life of this living Earth as a whole.
When we have loss of biodiversity, we have loss of what supports and enhances our own life – at all levels from biology, to society, to psychology.
There are other reasons within this overarching reason. We may think others will take care of it. There is still time. If politicians are not doing anything, and it’s not at the forefront of public discourse, it can’t be important. It doesn’t fit our identity. Etc.
The identity topic is important. Hippies and lefties have understood this for decades. It became a big issue among this group of people in the 1960s and 1970s, and many understood it long before that too.
So if you see yourself as conservative, and has an identity that excludes and is opposed to hippies and lefties, it may be a tough pill to swallow. It may be difficult to admit they were right all along.
The question then is: What’s more important? Holding onto a constructed and ultimately fake identity that’s not at all who and what you are? Or acting to save humanity and your own children and grandchildren? To me, it seems an easy choice.
IS SILENCE ONLY FOR PRIVILEGED PEOPLE?
I have seen an article circulating about how silence, and the desire for silence, belongs to privileged people, and how they try to impose it on others.
I recognize that dynamic and see the point.
And there is a lot more to this picture.
If not everyone is having fun, it’s not fun. – John Hodgman.
Having fun by making others miserable is a zero-sum attitude to fun. I have fun and you get miserable, and I don’t care enough (or am not well enough informed) to change how I seek my fun.
It also confuses needs and strategies to meet those needs. Yes, it’s good to seek enjoyment, fun, a sense of being alive, and so on. And there are a million ways to do it. Many don’t impact the well being of others. So why not choose those?
The world is already very noisy. Why add to it? Why make it more noisy?
In every neighborhood, there will be some who desperately need silence. They may need to sleep to get up to work later. (And they may have a very different sleep schedule to you.) They may be old or sick and depend on rest and sleep to get through the day. Why harm these people? If you saw the impact from the noise, would you still do it? If it harmed someone close to you, would you still do it?
Noise impacts the health and well-being of everyone. It puts our nervous systems on edge, whether we notice or not. (As medical studies have shown.) It hugely impacts wildlife.
WHERE DID GRITTINESS GO?
I assume this is a common observation: Actors, costumes, and settings in recent movies and series are becoming more and more “perfect”.
It takes me out of the story. I enjoyed Peaky Blinders, but seeing their always impeccable clothing seemed weird. It reminded me that this is fiction, there are people deciding that the clothes should be perfect, and there are people whose only job (I assume) is to make sure their clothes are always impeccable and perfect. These are gangsters. I hardly think this would be their priority, or something they would be even remotely able to do even if they wanted to.
It’s a relief to watch movies from a few decades ago where people seemed real, ordinary, and with flaws that give character, and where they are wearing ordinary somewhat crumpled clothes.
I understand that for some movies, some kind of visual perfection is part of the story. But for most movies, it’s not. Most stories aim at being more real and relatable.
One side of this is botox and cosmetic surgery. In my experience, these often make people look unsettling at best and terrifying at worst. Our brain is finely tuned to pick up anything out of the ordinary, so these faces tend to set off warning signals. I doubt I am the only one experiencing it that way.
Why this shift? I am not sure. Maybe because the studios don’t want to take any risks? They go for some image of perfection to not turn the audience away? Ironically, turning people away is what they risk doing when everything is too perfect. It doesn’t feel real anymore. It’s not relatable. It takes me out of the story.
FEBRUARY 12, 2026
A SCIENTIFIC FACT?
“The theory of evolution, like the theory of gravity, is a scientific fact.” – Neil deGrasse Tyson
I have an ambivalent relationship with Neil deGrasse Tyson. I love his enthusiasm, charm, and passion for sharing science with the public. I also feel he sometimes oversteps.
In this case, he clearly wants to emphasize a point. Well-tested scientific theories are grounded in reality and how the world works. They are, said very loosely, “facts”.
And yet, they are not. They are still theories. They are theories that happen to very well predict some aspect of how the world works.
As all ideas, they are a map, not the terrain. They highlight some features of the world, and leave much more out. They simplify. In the future, there will, very likely, be other theories that explain the same better. Also, the context we understand a theory within – the wider worldview – also profoundly influence how we see and understand the theory.
They are not facts. Saying they are is as best confusing, and at worst fuel science-skepticism since it’s promising too much.
Even if it does require more explanation and subtlety, it’s important to differentiate between theories that are (a) very well tested and fit observations and how the world works, and (b) are not.
They are both theories, they are both maps, and in practical terms, there is otherwise no comparison. Well-tested theories are far superior to those less well tested or the ones that don’t match observations.
EVOLUTION
The theory of evolution is one of those thoroughly tested theories. It matches a huge amount of observations – both from fossil records and in our current world. We can literally see it happening here and now. Also, it makes perfect sense. So it’s close to a “fact” in colloquial terms, and it’s also not at all a “fact”. (If we want to frame evolution in terms of religion or spirituality, we can say that evolution is one of the ways creation works, or it’s one of the ways the divine is exploring itself in always new ways.)
FACTS OR DATA?
Not even facts are facts. Data are still based on a certain understanding and interpretation. They too are up for revision. And they too can be based more or less in solid observations. Some are far more solid than others. Cat exists – there is solid data to support that. Unicorns exist – that’s not supported by observation.
That’s why I don’t talk about facts. There is no facts. There is only data supported by observation, or not, and to varying degrees.
ECOLOGICAL LITERACY
Basic ecological literacy is very simple, and yet it’s sorely lacking in the world today.
What do I see as the essentials of basic ecological literacy?
We are part of the web of life. We are temporary and local expressions of this living planet. We are expressions of an evolving living system.
What happens to the web of life happens to us. We are fully dependent on the health, richness, and well being of this living planet.
Almost all ecosystems are heavily impacted by human activity. They are far from in a natural and healthy state. For instance, most forests are species-deficient plantations. Oceans are severely depleted compared to the pre-industrial age. There is a global dramatic drop in insects, which impact all other life.
Our current human systems do not take ecological realities into account. They assume an infinite Earth in terms of its ability to absorb waste and provide resources for our use.
This has led to global ecological overshoot. We collectively use more resources than this living planet can replace. This is similar to living on a savings account. It looks OK until we reach the bottom and our lifestyle collapses. When we reach closer to the bottom in terms of ecological resources, it leads to ecological and social collapse. We are already in that process, although we don’t see the most dramatic consequences yet.
Over time, global ecological overshoot means ecocide and suicide. We collectively destroy the web of life we are part of, and we destroy ourselves.
Behind our current global situation is domination culture. Global ecological overshoot is the result of human systems that don’t take ecological realities into account. And this, in turn, is the result of domination culture. A culture that operates on assumptions of separation, human superiority, infinite natural resources, and so on.
A domination worldview minimizes our current ecological crisis. It sees nature as “out there”, peripheral, only for our enjoyment, and so on. It sees ecology as a secondary issue. It assumes technology will take of it. It assumes that someone else will do it.
Taking this seriously means a thorough transformation of all human systems. Economy, food production, energy, transportation, production, education, and everything needs to transform to reflect fundamental ecological realities and the limits of this living planet.
A regenerative civilization not only operates well within the limits of this living planet, but actively supports living systems and supports them in increasing their capacity. It’s more than possible to create if we can find the collective will to do so.
Our current problems are based in human systems. We are all part of it. We are all also potentially part of the solution. We can stop harmful actions. Find, develop, and live solutions. And change our worldview to be more life-centered.
These are some of the big picture aspects of ecological literacy, and there are are several important ones that are more finely grained.
Healthy ecosystems are more resilient. They tend to better deal with disruptions like unusual amounts of rain, drought, wildfires, and so on. This resilience also benefit us.
Ecosystems change dramatically over time from human intervention. When we learn about the history of ecosystems, and how they used to be, we learn to see with deep time eyes.
RACISM AND SPECIESISM
Trump recently, and true to form, posted an AI meme of the Obamas with ape bodies.
It’s clearly racist. That’s not surprising. It’s part of how he operates.
What’s equally interesting is that it depends on speciesism to work as racism or an insult.
It’s only insulting to be compared with a non-human being if we think humans are inherently superior.
And why would we see humans as inherently superior?
At a psychological level, it makes us feel better about ourselves. It reflects low self-worth which, in turn, reflects our culture. So instead of questioning that and meeting it with kindness, we put ourselves above other species to feel better.
At a social level, it justifies treating non-human beings and nature as resources for humans. We can own, use, and abuse non-human beings and land because they are worth less than us.
Trump’s meme is a double reflection of domination culture. First, in the form of racism. Then, in the form of speciesism.
Domination culture comes with a worldview of separation. We are separate from the rest of this living planet. We are superior. We can dominate and use the rest of the web of life for our own purposes. We operate from hierarchies and levels of value and worth. All of this leads to (a) low self worth, (b) placing others – humans and non-humans below us to feel better, and (c) having an extractive relationship with the web of life that is (d) ultimately ecocidal and suicidal.
A partnership orientation is different. Here, we recognize ourselves as part of the web of life. All life has different characteristics. This is part of the diversity and richness of how life expresses itself. We find meaning and value in connection. We seek win-win solutions since we are all part of the same social and ecological systems. We are all part of this seamless living planet.
Would I feel hurt or offended by being compared with a non-human being? Maybe a little, just because I know it’s meant to hurt or offend. Mainly, I feel deeply honored to be part of this web of life, and knowing that all Earth life is closely connected. It makes me feel part of this web of life and connected. It opens for a deep sense of belonging and meaning.
FEBRUARY 18
THE AGE OF THE HUMAN-MADE & DEEPENING INTO BOTH ENDS OF THE SPECTRUM
Predictably, our digital age and AI has spurred a resurgence of the non-digital life and the human-made.
More and more people intentionally use their cell phones less or use simpler phones.
More and more people deeply value the human-made.
AI will obviously be used for a lot of things – including programming, AI assisted diagnoses, data processing, and so on. In many cases, there will be a hybrid approach where we use AI as an assistant and verify or create the final product ourselves.
For art, music, and much else, I suspect there will be a divergence. Some will be happy with AI slop (as many call it) or don’t care much if it’s one or the other. And some more deeply value, appreciate, and seek out the fully human created.
HOPING IT WILL GET BETTER AS A COPING STRATEGY
I listened to a podcast about Wild Truth by Carine McCandless, the sister of Chris McCandless of Into the Wild fame. In this book, she outlines her parents’ abuse of her and her brother, and how it sets Chris’ actions in a new light. (For me, it was no surprise based on Into the Wild and Chris’ decision to remove himself from that family.)
The hosts praised his sister for her empathy and compassion for her parents. I agree with that.
At the same time, she seemed to consistently think her parents would change against all evidence to the contrary. That is an understanding coping strategy to deal with intolerable situations.
In the immediate situation, hoping for and imagining change can give comfort and a ray of light in a dark and otherwise hopeless situation.
And in the longer run, it can cause the person stay in contact with people they may do better to stay away from, it sets them up for repeated disappointments, and it can even lead to dangerous situations.
I don’t see that as anything to praise. It’s better to highlight it as an understandable although sometimes unwise and dangerous coping strategy.
Since this is all in the public, I feel I can talk about it here using names.