J.J. Wisdom's Blog
March 15, 2025
Get the Soundtrack for G.A.I.A.
Playlists for G.A.I.A. are now available on Spotify and Amazon Music
While writing G.A.I.A., I imagined it as a cinematic experience with its own soundtrack. To add emotional depth and atmosphere, enhance specific scenes and develop characters, I integrated thirty-three songs into the story. Now, post-publication, I've assembled these tracks (plus sixteen bonus tracks that may find their way into the sequel) into public playlists available on Spotify and Amazon Music.
Follow the link below to get the G.A.I.A. playlist and learn how to get a free autographed copy of G.A.I.A.: A World on the Brink in the Age of A.I. for yourself or a friend.
Get the Soundtrack for G.A.I.A.
J.J. Wisdom
While writing G.A.I.A., I imagined it as a cinematic experience with its own soundtrack. To add emotional depth and atmosphere, enhance specific scenes and develop characters, I integrated thirty-three songs into the story. Now, post-publication, I've assembled these tracks (plus sixteen bonus tracks that may find their way into the sequel) into public playlists available on Spotify and Amazon Music.
Follow the link below to get the G.A.I.A. playlist and learn how to get a free autographed copy of G.A.I.A.: A World on the Brink in the Age of A.I. for yourself or a friend.
Get the Soundtrack for G.A.I.A.
J.J. Wisdom
March 6, 2025
The Great Derangement
This post is available where originally posted on Substack. The Great Derangement
As I wrote my novel G.A.I.A.: A World on the Brink in the Age of A.I., my goal was to help readers make sense of our world. In this Substack, I hope to further explore the ideas and questions that movitated me to write.
Earth is the insane asylum of the universe.
—Albert Einstein
Deranged (adj.): Mad; insane. Disturbed or disordered in function, arrangement, or condition.
Derangement is not just an individual affliction - it can also infect entire cultures, becoming so pervasive that the "sane" fail to recognize the underlying madness.
History shows us that stories we tell ourselves can lead to a “psychopathology of crowds” that allows “never again” to happen over and over again. Charasmatic storytelling leaders all too often lead us to undertake “great projects of human progress” that become destructive to individuals, groups and even entire nations.
Ever since I read Amitav Ghosh's The Great Derangement, I have been troubled by a question about a peculiar and pervasive type of madness—one that takes the form of positivist denialism.
Today, we live in a world in which nuclear weapons, climate catastrophes, gene-edited pathogens, and AI-driven existential risks threaten our collective survival. And yet, the more obvious and overwhelming these threats become, the more polite, very sane people prefer not to talk about them. Or take meaninful action.
It’s understandable.
Why? Because to do so would be to confront the overwhelming scale of these threats and our feelings that we have so little control over them. It would mean admitting that globally, our systems, our institutions, our leaders, and our very way of life are not rational but profoundly unhinged.
The Stories That Maintain Our Derangement
As Yuval Noah Harari argues, human civilizations are built on shared fictions — constructs that allow large groups to cooperate under a common narrative. These stories can shape and sustain derangement, justifying behaviors that may later be seen as pathological.
The problem arises when these stories become untethered from reality. When the fictions we tell ourselves allow us to ignore existential threats—insisting that market forces and new technology will solve climate change, that “rational” leaders of nuclear nations will not start a nuclear conflagration, that AI will always be aligned with human interests, or that infinite economic growth is possible on a finite planet—we become trapped in a Great Derangement.
Caught Between Optimism and Precaution
Throughout modern history, humanity has been caught between two competing forces: the belief in boundless progress and the recognition that unchecked progress often leads to unintended consequences. The tension between upwing growth optimism—the idea that technological advancements will inevitably lead to human flourishing—and the optimist’s dilemma—the realization that even beneficial innovations can have devastating side effects—defines our modern world.
Our ambivalence toward nuclear power, with its risks of quick or slow catastrophe, captures our modern dilemma perfectly. Where are the upwing progress folks who want the power and the waste?
Even the most enthusiastic advocates of progress acknowledge that technological advancements must be tempered by precaution, as evidenced by the existence of regulatory bodies like the EPA, FDA, and NRC. And yet, in the real world, and in the fictional world of G.A.I.A., some reject the need for this balance altogether.
Should we trust billionaires to dismantle regulatory agencies that were created to prevent harm to billions of everyday people? Once we have stripped our government of oversight powers will we enjoy a new wave of innovation brought to the world by wise and and benevolent tech titans? Or will the Ted Bundys of technology unleash an equal measure of predatory, toxic and addictive products for the trusting and unaware?
What unintended consequences might we all reap? History is filled with examples. The lesson of the optimist’s dilemma is that every technological leap carries risks we can’t fully anticipate. And when those risks involve artificial intelligence, bioengineering, or planetary-scale climate interventions, the stakes are existential.
The leading experts tell us AI could cause “human extinction.” Hyperbole? Read more about the warnings in a sample chapter of G.A.I.A.: Whistling Past the Warnings.
Should we devevelop clever new techologies simply because we can?
A Novel Answer to The Great Derangement
I never intended to write a novel, but then I read Amitosh Gosh’s The Great Derangement. Ghosh called for creative works of art that could help people see climate change for what it is and find the courage to do what must be done. A near future novel was my answer.
But as I started writing, I quickly realized the world could not adequately deal with any of the human-created existential threats to civilization. Progress itself, it seemed, was at once proliferating promising new technologies while creating an equal number of dangers beyond anyone’s control. This new human condition—where billions of people could be wiped out quickly or slowly—requires radical action–or a greater derangement.
Do you see what I see?
From Polycrisis to Monocrisis
We often hear the term polycrisis—the idea that we are facing a cascade of interconnected global problems. However, this framing still suggests that these crises are individual, albeit overlapping. We behave as if we can reduce one problem into many and solve each problem with well-designed solutions. I no longer believe in this approach. I see these crises as different faces of the same thing. They are manifestations of a single force of technological progress—what I call the monocrisis.
A constellation of technological advancements set in motion by what we call “progress " has brought us the monocrisis. Every powerful new invention—whether it’s the steam engine, nuclear power, genetic engineering, or AI—unleashes unintended consequences that fundamentally alter the trajectory of civilization. But because we insist on seeing progress as linear and inherently good, we struggle to acknowledge that we are on the edge of an abyss of our own making while trusting our technological and political leaders to keep us safe.
The End of the World Has Already Happened
As Timothy Morton provocatively argues in Hyperobjects, "The end of the world has already occurred... It was April 1784, when James Watt patented the steam engine."
The Industrial Revolution did not simply change human civilization; it initiated a planetary shift. It was the moment when, for the first time, humanity became a geophysical force—altering the climate, the oceans, and the composition of the earth itself. Morton would say we have not been living in “history” as we once conceived it—we have been living in its aftermath.
The true madness is that we still speak as though we have easy choices before us, as though we are not already subject to violent natural consequences set in motion centuries ago.
The Illusion of Control
The insanity of our time is not just that we refuse to acknowledge the full scope of our crisis—it is that we still pretend that we can manage it.
Amitav Ghosh warns that the dominant powers of the world understand this truth better than we do. Their response is not to prevent collapse but to secure their own survival:
“How will the security establishments of the West respond to these threat perceptions? In all likelihood they will resort to the strategy that Christian Parenti calls the ‘politics of the armed lifeboat.’”
This means mass surveillance, militarized borders, and the hoarding of resources by the wealthy while billions of us are left to suffer the consequences of decisions they never made.
This is why we are not “allowed” to talk about the monocrisis. Because to do so would reveal the true stakes of our predicament and the response required to avert disaster—and those in power do not want that conversation to happen.
The Role of Fiction in the Age of Hyperobjects
Ghosh argues that our literature has contributed to the derangement by ignoring these vast, systemic forces:
“Most forms of art and literature were drawn into the modes of concealment that prevented people from recognizing the realities of their plight.”
But if we are to survive this monocrisis, our focus must change. We need new stories. Stories that empower us and call us to meaninful action.
This is why I wrote G.A.I.A.—not as a utopian vision or a dystopian warning, but as an attempt to grapple with the scale of what we face. The story follows those who try to “solve” the crisis through AI, only to unleash something beyond their control. It forces characters to confront the reality that there is nowhere to hide from the consequences of our collective actions and complicit inactions.
This is the story we all must face.
Breaking the Silence
And so I return to my original question:
To maintain what we call ‘our sanity,’ must we necessarily become deranged?
I believe the answer is yes—if sanity means maintaining the illusions that keep us from confronting reality. If sanity means pretending that we can navigate these dangers with madmen and billionaires and madman-billionaires in control of our collective futures.
But perhaps there is another kind of sanity. One that embraces the full weight of the monocrisis; one that recognizes that the world we knew is gone and that what comes next is up to us.
“Hard times are coming, when we’ll be wanting the voices of writers who can see alternatives to how we live now, can see through our fear-stricken society and its obsessive technologies to other ways of being, and even imagine real grounds for hope.”
—Ursula K. Le Guin
In spite of it all, by some miracle of miracles, the world remains an astonishingly beautiful place where good people can come together and make hopeful plans. Are you with me? And speaking of hope, this is how I like to autograph copies of G.A.I.A.
No matter the score, no matter the circumstances, there is always hope.
—J.J. Wisdom
If you found this essay thought-provoking, you’ll love my novel, G.A.I.A.: A World on the Brink in the Age of A.I. It’s a story about power, technology, and the unintended consequences of progress—where artificial intelligence, climate catastrophe, and human ambition collide. Available now on Amazon and Barnes & Noble.
Read another sample chapter of G.A.I.A. on my Substack: The Looming Crisis
Subscribe to my Substack for more posts that explore the human and technological forces shaping our world. J.J. Wisdom
As I wrote my novel G.A.I.A.: A World on the Brink in the Age of A.I., my goal was to help readers make sense of our world. In this Substack, I hope to further explore the ideas and questions that movitated me to write.
Earth is the insane asylum of the universe.
—Albert Einstein
Deranged (adj.): Mad; insane. Disturbed or disordered in function, arrangement, or condition.
Derangement is not just an individual affliction - it can also infect entire cultures, becoming so pervasive that the "sane" fail to recognize the underlying madness.
History shows us that stories we tell ourselves can lead to a “psychopathology of crowds” that allows “never again” to happen over and over again. Charasmatic storytelling leaders all too often lead us to undertake “great projects of human progress” that become destructive to individuals, groups and even entire nations.
Ever since I read Amitav Ghosh's The Great Derangement, I have been troubled by a question about a peculiar and pervasive type of madness—one that takes the form of positivist denialism.
Today, we live in a world in which nuclear weapons, climate catastrophes, gene-edited pathogens, and AI-driven existential risks threaten our collective survival. And yet, the more obvious and overwhelming these threats become, the more polite, very sane people prefer not to talk about them. Or take meaninful action.
It’s understandable.
Why? Because to do so would be to confront the overwhelming scale of these threats and our feelings that we have so little control over them. It would mean admitting that globally, our systems, our institutions, our leaders, and our very way of life are not rational but profoundly unhinged.
The Stories That Maintain Our Derangement
As Yuval Noah Harari argues, human civilizations are built on shared fictions — constructs that allow large groups to cooperate under a common narrative. These stories can shape and sustain derangement, justifying behaviors that may later be seen as pathological.
The problem arises when these stories become untethered from reality. When the fictions we tell ourselves allow us to ignore existential threats—insisting that market forces and new technology will solve climate change, that “rational” leaders of nuclear nations will not start a nuclear conflagration, that AI will always be aligned with human interests, or that infinite economic growth is possible on a finite planet—we become trapped in a Great Derangement.
Caught Between Optimism and Precaution
Throughout modern history, humanity has been caught between two competing forces: the belief in boundless progress and the recognition that unchecked progress often leads to unintended consequences. The tension between upwing growth optimism—the idea that technological advancements will inevitably lead to human flourishing—and the optimist’s dilemma—the realization that even beneficial innovations can have devastating side effects—defines our modern world.
Our ambivalence toward nuclear power, with its risks of quick or slow catastrophe, captures our modern dilemma perfectly. Where are the upwing progress folks who want the power and the waste?
Even the most enthusiastic advocates of progress acknowledge that technological advancements must be tempered by precaution, as evidenced by the existence of regulatory bodies like the EPA, FDA, and NRC. And yet, in the real world, and in the fictional world of G.A.I.A., some reject the need for this balance altogether.
Should we trust billionaires to dismantle regulatory agencies that were created to prevent harm to billions of everyday people? Once we have stripped our government of oversight powers will we enjoy a new wave of innovation brought to the world by wise and and benevolent tech titans? Or will the Ted Bundys of technology unleash an equal measure of predatory, toxic and addictive products for the trusting and unaware?
What unintended consequences might we all reap? History is filled with examples. The lesson of the optimist’s dilemma is that every technological leap carries risks we can’t fully anticipate. And when those risks involve artificial intelligence, bioengineering, or planetary-scale climate interventions, the stakes are existential.
The leading experts tell us AI could cause “human extinction.” Hyperbole? Read more about the warnings in a sample chapter of G.A.I.A.: Whistling Past the Warnings.
Should we devevelop clever new techologies simply because we can?
A Novel Answer to The Great Derangement
I never intended to write a novel, but then I read Amitosh Gosh’s The Great Derangement. Ghosh called for creative works of art that could help people see climate change for what it is and find the courage to do what must be done. A near future novel was my answer.
But as I started writing, I quickly realized the world could not adequately deal with any of the human-created existential threats to civilization. Progress itself, it seemed, was at once proliferating promising new technologies while creating an equal number of dangers beyond anyone’s control. This new human condition—where billions of people could be wiped out quickly or slowly—requires radical action–or a greater derangement.
Do you see what I see?
From Polycrisis to Monocrisis
We often hear the term polycrisis—the idea that we are facing a cascade of interconnected global problems. However, this framing still suggests that these crises are individual, albeit overlapping. We behave as if we can reduce one problem into many and solve each problem with well-designed solutions. I no longer believe in this approach. I see these crises as different faces of the same thing. They are manifestations of a single force of technological progress—what I call the monocrisis.
A constellation of technological advancements set in motion by what we call “progress " has brought us the monocrisis. Every powerful new invention—whether it’s the steam engine, nuclear power, genetic engineering, or AI—unleashes unintended consequences that fundamentally alter the trajectory of civilization. But because we insist on seeing progress as linear and inherently good, we struggle to acknowledge that we are on the edge of an abyss of our own making while trusting our technological and political leaders to keep us safe.
The End of the World Has Already Happened
As Timothy Morton provocatively argues in Hyperobjects, "The end of the world has already occurred... It was April 1784, when James Watt patented the steam engine."
The Industrial Revolution did not simply change human civilization; it initiated a planetary shift. It was the moment when, for the first time, humanity became a geophysical force—altering the climate, the oceans, and the composition of the earth itself. Morton would say we have not been living in “history” as we once conceived it—we have been living in its aftermath.
The true madness is that we still speak as though we have easy choices before us, as though we are not already subject to violent natural consequences set in motion centuries ago.
The Illusion of Control
The insanity of our time is not just that we refuse to acknowledge the full scope of our crisis—it is that we still pretend that we can manage it.
Amitav Ghosh warns that the dominant powers of the world understand this truth better than we do. Their response is not to prevent collapse but to secure their own survival:
“How will the security establishments of the West respond to these threat perceptions? In all likelihood they will resort to the strategy that Christian Parenti calls the ‘politics of the armed lifeboat.’”
This means mass surveillance, militarized borders, and the hoarding of resources by the wealthy while billions of us are left to suffer the consequences of decisions they never made.
This is why we are not “allowed” to talk about the monocrisis. Because to do so would reveal the true stakes of our predicament and the response required to avert disaster—and those in power do not want that conversation to happen.
The Role of Fiction in the Age of Hyperobjects
Ghosh argues that our literature has contributed to the derangement by ignoring these vast, systemic forces:
“Most forms of art and literature were drawn into the modes of concealment that prevented people from recognizing the realities of their plight.”
But if we are to survive this monocrisis, our focus must change. We need new stories. Stories that empower us and call us to meaninful action.
This is why I wrote G.A.I.A.—not as a utopian vision or a dystopian warning, but as an attempt to grapple with the scale of what we face. The story follows those who try to “solve” the crisis through AI, only to unleash something beyond their control. It forces characters to confront the reality that there is nowhere to hide from the consequences of our collective actions and complicit inactions.
This is the story we all must face.
Breaking the Silence
And so I return to my original question:
To maintain what we call ‘our sanity,’ must we necessarily become deranged?
I believe the answer is yes—if sanity means maintaining the illusions that keep us from confronting reality. If sanity means pretending that we can navigate these dangers with madmen and billionaires and madman-billionaires in control of our collective futures.
But perhaps there is another kind of sanity. One that embraces the full weight of the monocrisis; one that recognizes that the world we knew is gone and that what comes next is up to us.
“Hard times are coming, when we’ll be wanting the voices of writers who can see alternatives to how we live now, can see through our fear-stricken society and its obsessive technologies to other ways of being, and even imagine real grounds for hope.”
—Ursula K. Le Guin
In spite of it all, by some miracle of miracles, the world remains an astonishingly beautiful place where good people can come together and make hopeful plans. Are you with me? And speaking of hope, this is how I like to autograph copies of G.A.I.A.
No matter the score, no matter the circumstances, there is always hope.
—J.J. Wisdom
If you found this essay thought-provoking, you’ll love my novel, G.A.I.A.: A World on the Brink in the Age of A.I. It’s a story about power, technology, and the unintended consequences of progress—where artificial intelligence, climate catastrophe, and human ambition collide. Available now on Amazon and Barnes & Noble.
Read another sample chapter of G.A.I.A. on my Substack: The Looming Crisis
Subscribe to my Substack for more posts that explore the human and technological forces shaping our world. J.J. Wisdom
