18 MIN READ
MAR 2023
I’ve told many that beyond all auxiliary activities and goals, I only really have three goals to pursue before I die. One of them is to complete the fictional universe and story I have been developing
I've recorded story "beats" over time (events, scenes, characters, ideas I'd want to include), but the major themes were always murky. I felt them, but they were not conscious in thought. I'd stumble over my words trying to verbalise the intent. I always knew I was not doing the idea justice
I've recently been able to capture what they are. It makes sense it took years to pin down. To me, at least, they are heavy
To cut down on extraneous detail, I will cover only relevant structure, setting and major plot points for context only. The rest will explore themes, the major focus of this article, which surface at the end of the story
I will be releasing another article at a later date over the general strategy of note-keeping and story building (hint: obsidian.md. Thanks Tyler)
Structure and Context:
The story focuses on new colonisers, cryogenically frozen on a spaceship for 300 years to reach their target planet. Hundreds in the ship, all unique characters in the story. Earth is left behind; no contact, new beginnings. This is the faction of focus (think of it like Hogwarts in Harry Potter)
The new colonisation is governed by a board; main characters focused on in the story. It’s a cross between a Roman republic senate, municipal council and private corporation board. They meet regularly to make authoritative decisions with intentions to make their colony successful, stable, healthy, happy. Members are made of key leadership positions in the core departments of the colony effort (incomplete list: agriculture, manufacturing, defence, commerce, culture and arts, civil services, health, foreign policy)
3 or 4 different ships of colonisers have settled the planet generations ago. It is still populated by people. Citizens organically form factionalism. Think of them interacting similar to "game of thrones" families or modern countries; alliances and tensions are driven by well-thought self-serving bureaucratic goals. No good or bad leaders, just “shades of grey” with different schools of thought and citizen needs
No aliens, no sci-fi tropes beyond ships and the plot devices found at the beginning of each act
There are 4 major acts. Acts 1-3 are based around a more standard geopolitical drama. They are precursor events to reflect upon in the 4th act, where the major themes surface. It will indirectly question the audience if they, their peers, communities, governments and the history of humankind has focused on what really matters to achieve a fulfilled human existence. If not, what was in the way, and can we change things today to achieve that. Sounds really existential and weird. Trust me, let’s get to it; it makes sense
A regular geopolitical drama. All on the colony ship are awakened from their sleep to settle the planet. Like any colony effort, they focus on building power and stability to meet citizen needs. They focus on diplomacy and collaboration, effective utilisation of natural and labour resources, force if required. Introductions to other factions are organically made. Trade, tensions, cooperation, etc, begins to develop. Things operate the same to how politics and settlements work in our history (Jewish immigration to Jerusalem, Cortez to the Americas, Pilgrims to America, Rome's expansionism, modern immigration)
A “free energy” device is discovered. Average wealth rises greatly, but extreme inequalities erupt as a result. Factional economies not reliant on energy become much more wealthy overnight. Factions reliant on energy for wealth are poorer and out of work overnight. It essentially turns them into 2nd class stateless citizens (think refugee crises, Jewish and Gypsy populations in the pre-modern world, serfdom in pre-revolution imperial Russia, feudal citizens). Pity through charity or prejudice with exclusionary NIMBY-ism for the have-nots, the are undercurrents of high tensions between groups of peoples
The majority of factions see an increase in machiavellian political action, civil unrest and tribalistic zero sum competition. Structural authority and power increases in influence, decrease of individual liberties
A “free matter” device is discovered. In its current state, only simple compounds can be created like water, silicon or basic food pastes. AI development is required to harness full potential to create complex objects from human input
An analogy to explain: it is like finding a TV before video processing software is invented. Software/firmware is required to play movies, but simple red, blue, green screens (simple elements or molecules with this device) on the TV can be triggered with brute force. Fully realised, the device will have the ability to make anything that comes to mind. Landscapes, planets, humans from the dead, reverse ageing; imagination is the limit. Think of a “star trek holodeck” mixed with "skynet" that can read what you want from your mind to summon what you want. Anytime, anywhere. All factions pool their resources together to further develop this new tech (think America's rally around the flag for the space race, forgiveness of German V2 rocket scientists)
This stage increases a cooperative mindset. Factionalism essentially dissolves, tensions between groups fade to near zero quickly, individual liberties increase with basic needs provided to all (food, shelter, water). However, “social” and interpersonal “political” inequality rises; those who have the skill or leadership to drive the tech development become catered to more than others, having special access to social events, political decision making and luxury goods
The AI is made. Complete abundance and equality - overnight eradication of work, authority, factionalism, classes and power. True liberty. Anybody can have anything they want, anytime. Anybody is free to spend their time doing whatever they want
What do you think would happen next? How would people behave? How do you think you would act?
My hypothesis: It’s a polarising event. Some feel fine. Some ecstatic and emancipated. Some depressed or spiral into madness. Some change and become new people
Most I speak to think the same
But, why? Don’t we all wish we could have anything we’d want, spend our time the way we want? Why do we believe some would be okay and others not? Can we determine who would be okay or not?
Themes in Act 4:
To the question above, I believe reactions depend on both how self-actualized a person is and if they can identify their unresolved traumas. Since trauma is the centrepiece of themes, it’s important I define my intent around the word. My definition, not the literal definition, is what will be important to consider
Trauma, as I use the word, has 3 components. The occurrence (or lack) of an event (1) that triggers a negative emotional response (2) that goes unresolved in your psyche. It can be a big event (witness death) or seemingly inconsequential (not invited to play soccer). When unresolved, the negative association becomes “learned” and projected onto a stressor (3). The emotion felt with the stressor is always fear; a protective response to an expected negative experience. Without conscious identification of the fear, it is always managed with the 4 “F’s”; fight, fawn (grouped into anxious behaviours), flight, freeze (grouped into avoidant behaviours). Many live their whole lives with many traumas unacknowledged
A trauma is usually always tied to a human need (think Mazlov’s hierarchy). Fear almost always distorts one’s rational thought process; unmet needs are suppressed and kept in the subconscious because it’s painful to address. I split tramas into two categories:
Positive traumas: to protect us from losing needs we have. If I see a crazy man with a gun, I fear the loss of my life (physiological need) and decide to engage in flight (run). The self-actualized individual would do the same
Negative traumas: to protect us from pursuing needs we don’t have fully met. If one fears being rejected by a cute man/woman they see (love/belonging need), they may engage in avoidant behaviours to protect themselves from perceived negative responses (embarrassment, shame, sadness). They might try to overtly impress them by putting on an act for attention, driven by anxious behaviours. The self-actualized individual would not do the same; they would engage, accepting both receptiveness and rejection. They feel self-assurance in deciding to pursue their human needs, not the outcome of their interaction
Self-actualization, as I use the term, describes those who can identify what their true values and needs are. They feel safety and security taking actions to pursue their needs unburdened by trauma responses. Fear and expectations in outcome are completely absent
Reconciliation, as I use the term, describes those who can openly identify a trauma and the corresponding need they have. They are emotionally vulnerable enough to consciously analyse these needs and the fears surrounding stressors. They eventually develop the courage to express them to others they trust. Vulnerability is the key ingredient needed to transform a negative trauma into a self-actualized need, reconciling with it. Ironically, most fear emotional vulnerability to begin with, so they are (tragically) too traumatised to engage in the activity of healing
All characters in the story will react to the new post-scarcity existence. Broadly, they are divided into 3 catagories:
Unaffected or happier - they were self-actualized before post scarcity
Despair - they are not self-actualized an never figure out the root of their tramas. They spiral deeper into unfulfilled lives
Transformation - Those who have unresolved traumas, but reconcile with them after the post-scarcity event. They change their lifestyle and actions to reach self-actualization
The major themes below are split in between story examples and explicit explanations. I have no structure, I just plotted my thoughts as they seemed fitting:
Case study: Two top scientists work in the same lab. They have stayed best friends since nursery school. They are nearly one of the same:
Workaholic personalities
Driven to set and never abandon personal goals
Both find pride in their work
Both don’t like overly socialising; only selectively with the close “smart” people they hold dear
Both have hobbies they enjoy, like playing board games
When post scarcity hits in the 4th, one begins training pigeons to keep his time occupied (yes that’s a Tesla reference) and has a blast. The other becomes an alcoholic and kills himself (Meirweather Lewis reference, aka the “Lewis” in Lewis and Clarke). Why? They are nearly the same, even with through the lens of their own self-reflection
The happy one simply finds joy through satisfying their own need for curiosity. There are hardships and joyless tasks along the way, but the cumulative investment of those actions are worth the joy the outcomes bring him. He neglects socialisation with newcomers as he needs quality, not volume, to satiate his needs. Those are already met. The pigeons become his outlet to feed the same needs for curiosity. He feels fulfilled
The other finds a need to satiate his curiosity too, but it’s unconsciously tethered to a way to soothe his traumas. His social rejection of those not “smart” comes from a trauma in youth; being socially rejected by others for his eclectic interests. Deep in his subconscious and unacknowledged, he believes "I am not worthy of attention". His curious discoveries “prove” his worthiness to others in his subconscious. It provides an excuse to avoid socialising with others. Pavlovian conditioning rewards him with a bastardised projection of “joy” in his work. He over uses logical rationalisation to pick out flaws in peers to reject them (flight) before they reject him. In post-scarcity, the loss of his work as a scientist to validate his worthiness causes an overwhelming deconstruction of his worldview. His trauma coping mechanism is gone overnight. He thinks he misses work, as he has trained himself to suppress his emotions from youth, but in reality he has unmet love/belonging needs. Without the awareness of skill in vulnerability to realise it, his feelings of inadequacy spiral out of control and he is unable to reconcile with it. In result, he seeks refuge in the most dire of escapist (flight) acts. Drugs and suicide
The line between these two is almost impossible to detect on the surface in the first 3 acts. Both scientists grew up in the same school. Both socially outcast by the same peers in their youth. Both handled it the same way externally. The only difference was one didn’t care about the rejection. The other emotionally suppressed the pain the rejection brought him, unmet social needs. He never showed how it affected him, even to himself. Self validation from his work as a top scientist was used as a trauma coping mechanism; the ability to feel more important (anxious behaviours, prove worthiness) and to discount the worthiness of others (avoidant behaviours, wrath to prove others are not worthy)
These types of stories occur with nearly all of the hundreds of characters in the colony
Case study: Becky was a nice quiet girl growing up. Loves animals, loves the outdoors and quiet social gatherings. In middle school, she ended up getting a crush on with someone in class
It was her first crush, she is afraid to ask him out. She ends up telling one of her friends by the lockers. In typical middle school fashion, her friend starts blabbering out how she has a crush on him
In order to appear cool and gain validation from his peers, Becky's crush and peers keep teasing her with her hurtful nickname, "horse girl". She hears this, darts to the washroom and cries. She has learned the core trauma "I am unworthy for love" and "I am not safe being vulnerable". It’s projected onto men of romantic interest
Rather than reconcile with those wounds, she starts changing into something that sticks up into adulthood. She starts becoming someone similar to a "Kardashian". Tons of beauty products, always having outfit-of-the-month, cares about how much social power she has, cares about how many men she can have attracted to her. For Becky, these are coping mechanisms. She thinks she likes it as it soothes her wounds (sense of false worthiness). She is driven towards these interests out of anxiety of not being enough and envy in others, not out of unburdened joy. In reality, she does not value these things at all. It soothes her
In adulthood, she works as a veterinarian tech. She is similar to her childhood self there. But in the night, she puts on her persona and goes to the most popular nightclubs. She frequently seeks what she thinks compatible men are; emotionally distant men who partake in the same superficialities as her (clubbing, social capital)
In reality, the men she seeks don't challenge her defence mechanism; she feels unworthy for her need for love, so she subconsciously feels safety in men who neglect her presence and don’t show vulnerability. “Emotionally unavailable”
When she feels these men start to distance further from her, ironically, it spurs an anxious fear defence mechanism. She uses sex to keep them. It's not used as a healthy act (feeling enough mutual comfort and admiration between two to find a childlike joy in expressing vulnerable desires for one another), but rather used as a transactional tool to retain connection with hedonistic value. It's cyclical. She constantly complains, with good reason, why these men keep leaving even when she tries so hard. It further reinforces her trauma belief that she's unworthy when they leave her. She copes by believing her celebrity crush is the idealised perfect man; these men are lesser, but that perfect man she does not know and will never meet would never leave her
When post scarcity hits, things get shaken up. There are no longer the "coolest" or "most prestigious" nightclubs. Everyone is equal. This kind of sends Becky into shock. Like a teenager who overcomes her rebellious phase dressing like their favourite music stars, she slowly starts phasing out her "Kardashian" persona. She becomes socially recluse as she fears she does not know her true identity anymore (avoidant)
Whenever she meets new men she finds cute, she becomes awkward and distant. She engages in the freeze response. Because of her unmet needs, she feels a sense of sorrow for not speaking up more
She eventually makes regular contact with one man. John the forester. John, on occasion, traps dangerous wildlife and brings it to the vet office, establishing some sense of safety to her since he is a regular well mannered acquaintance. John had a crush on Becky in middle school, before her phase
John has experienced major traumas of his own; his brother was killed in a bear attack. It was undoubtedly tough to handle. But he has been able to reconcile with the trama
John and Becky end up spending some time together. She comes on trips in his truck to trap more animals. He expresses an interest in Becky. He is interested in her for the self-actualized values she holds (quiet, polite girl with the kindness an animal lover brings). This triggers her core "I'm unworthy for love" wounds. She finds herself subconsciously attracted deep down, but her fear makes her think he must be defective in her mind. "He is a truck guy, I hate truck guys" (flight response through judgement). He is not like the other men she has seen and (thought) were attracted to her. If men who were attracted to her persona always left, ones attracted to her true self are probably even worse. She is disgusted by displays of affection, but feels enough safety to still be around him with affection ignored
They spend one day picking up goods at his cabin a few months later. He ends up telling Becky his feelings for her again. She absolutely panics and threatens to leave. John becomes vulnerable. He mentions to her that she is free to leave without resistance, but would be sad since he hasn't bonded with someone like her for a while and feels it’s mutual. This sends her fear response awol (John distancing from her). She ends up trying to have sex with him (fight). But John is rather repulsed through her body language; he can sense how Becky is trying to use sex as she has with others. A tool to maintain control of others
Before they engage in sexual activity beyond kissing, John breaks it off and doesn't consent to sex. He feels uncomfortable. This breaks down Becky's trauma response even more. She ends up crying. John holds her and performs soothing motions. He is a little puzzled, but unconsciously understands it; this is the same way his mother behaved when his brother was killed
He soothes her and reminds her that she is okay to be as she is and he is not going to leave. This hits Becky in her core trauma wound. She starts crying more heavily. She spends the night on his couch
They end up spending a few more weeks together. Becky is embarrassed. But her traumas of the past are slowly dissolving. She learns it is okay for her to like John, okay for her to not be embarrassed to spend time with him
They go on truck trips like they normally do. After a few weeks, Becky becomes self-actualized, reconciled with her old traumas through an accumulation of inconsequential interactions with John. She realised he in a good man and they mutually respect each other. She ends up initiating affection for him. It was not like the last time; this time it's healthy
She ends up spending the night with John. He performs the same soothing motions he did with her before. She cries again. But not from a place of sadness or terror; these are tears of joy. Both John and Becky find their needs for intimacy and belonging in one another. They are fulfilled
The example above with Becky is how this theme can occur in the subconscious
But, with regular deep reflection, one can stem to the root of what they require to take steps towards a self-actualized life. Ironically enough, it's not the destination to achieve these things that bring fulfilment. It's the actions taken to achieve it alone. Each action taken towards how you'd like to meet the needs in your life, un-influenced by traumas, brings fulfilment. It is outcome independent
It's kind of tragic how rare it is for people to perform this. It makes sense why so many internet comment sections are angry, or why people join backwards populist movements (fear response of unmet needs through fight). It explains why some are disproportionately obsessed with being seen as busy, or being at the #1 school. It's a tool to feel justified in a lack of connection to others (fear response of unmet needs through flight, with distraction and disqualifying judgement). It explains why people sleepwalk through careers and marriages they hate, cracking jokes about how they are victims powerless to change (fear response of unmet needs through freeze). It's why people chase unrequited love in childish manners (fear response of unmet needs through fawning)
The best way I find to identify these traumas is whenever you feel a disproportionate negative reaction (stress, sadness, embarrassment) to an event or stressor (scoring low on a test, not getting a job, getting sick), ask yourself the question; do I feel this negative emotion because it has taken away a need I have, or that I have an unmet need I'm running from? If it's an unmet need, don't stop diving into why you feel what you do until you hit the bedrock, and figure out what actions you can take to work towards meeting them
It will take practice to get good at this. Fear and emotional suppression makes things murky for anyone. You likely won't get to the root of your needs the first time, and you'll feel very uncomfortable doing so. You will likely stop at a local minimum, missing 3 or 4 other "whys" to ask yourself. You'll try to logically rationalise that you're being immature and overemotional. I know as I did. But that's not true. Your logical over-rationalisation will make you lose sight of your needs. It's why it took me 5 years to nail down these themes
You may doubt your ability to do this while you read this, or think it's childish, or don't trust this random internet person. I'd argue this is vitally important to wellbeing, and anybody can do it with practice. This to be the best litmus test to start (and be honest with yourself reader): when someone you trust and respect has given you a genuine compliment (looks, career, personality, whatever), how do you feel? Assured? Repulsion? Overwhelming anxiety relief and validation? Does the reaction change depending on the subject matter? What unmet needs are those associated with?
Once you have been assured in some of your unmet need, you'll realise most in the modern world require other people to satisfy them. We are all able to feed ourselves
If you know them clearly, is it possible you can make yourself vulnerable stating your needs and emotional discomforts to them? Can they be conveyed in ways in which there is no obligation and judgement to the other; just clarifying if your values and needs are compatible to continue connection? Instead of fighting or running from people, how hard would it be to state:
"I never figured out how to break the ice right, I feel a little awkward rushing up to you (vulnerability, fear of social initiation), but I saw your presentation and would love to learn more about what you do and have learned (needs, interests/belonging)". If given into fear, you may have frozen instead
"I really like and respect you a lot, I have enjoyed these past few dates. But, I like to feel assured I'm giving heart to the right person (vulnerability, fear of intimacy and closeness). I still really want to see you, but are you okay taking it slow? (needs, love/belonging)". If given into fear, flight through superficial judgements as a casus belli could occur (his nails weren't cut, didn't feel "the spark")
"Hey, I'll go to that play with you. But I'm kind of hurt that you rejected my invite to the one I saw last week, saying you hated plays (vulnerability, fear of not being valued). I'm okay if you didn't want to go, but can we try just to be more honest with one another without judgement? (need, love/belonging)". If given into fear, you may have started a petty argument (fight)
It's funny. Look at the examples above. Imagine if you were turned down by any of them. How hurt would you feel? Perhaps much less than you think if you are self-assured with your fears and your needs. You are just testing to see if others you spend your time with share them. If they don't share them, could they meet your needs? Maybe they meet only some, but not all. And that's okay
Remember the story about Becky? Imagine if she communicated this way with John. Instead of running, giving into her fear response, imagine she identified and expressed her affection for him, but also the fear of closeness and intimacy. Their relationship would likely be much less turbulent
Remeber the scientist that commits suicide? Imagine if he was able to un-suppress his emotions to evaluate his unmet social needs and take action on it. He didn't. He ran from vulnerability since childhood. He doesn't even know what it is. He thinks vulnerability is fear, and fear is weakness. His life was built without it. Impenetrable walls with others, impenetrable walls in his own subconscious mind
If this style of communication is practiced with those who have earned trust, it leads to a large sorting effect. Those you share superficial bonds with leave. The ones with shared values grow stronger with more trust. Some you will realise have their own sorts of trauma which leads to patterns you can start to recognize (re: many on online dating apps, lol). Over a long enough timeline, communicating with vulnerability cultivates more relationships with others than before, all which are healthier than before
Funny how the best relationships are formed during childhood. I'd argue it's partially because it’s before we put up walls against others due to our traumas. Healthily raised children are fearless and self-actualized. "You like trucks? I like trucks! Let's play!"
I know this as I (and likely many) experienced this during the covid shutdowns. I'd reach out to those I haven't spoke to in a while, stating the awkwardness (vulnerability) but how I was reminded their company met a lot to me (needs). Free of expectation or obligation
Some I've reconciled with, good friends. The others were weirded out, and that's totally fair, they have their own needs. But I've been able to sort those who really mean something to myself closer into my life due to aligning needs and values
…in the context of the story, this is the realisation most make. The importance of vulnerability. How it’s essential for growth. The lack of work, material scarcity and social classism eradicates trauma coping mechanisms. They are now faced with the traumas themselves, naked, free of distraction
Okay, we went through some heavy focus on individuals. But remember the concept for the first 3 acts? You bet there was a reason for that. It all ties together now
Remember the board I mentioned in charge of the colony effort? Yup, they have been still meeting this whole time. Their mind are blown. They all fall into the same three categories normal citizens do; they are people too. But for the ones who don't fall into dispair are still focused on governing. They still feel purpose in building a successful, stable, healthy and happy colony, like they always have
But how? One of the defence ministers brings up a very valid question. With this new technology, what is stopping someone who falls into despair (think a school shooter) to construct a weapon to wipe out all of human existence?
Warning: the story starts to get real bizarre from here. But from my perspective, it really makes sense and is super coolThe board decides that people need to be separated into 3 partitioned lands. One for those comfortably self-actualized, one for those working through reconciliation, one for those broken beyond repair. Many indirect references to Dante’s Inferno and other ancient afterlife metaphors start to pop up here. For the sake of this article (will be named different in the story), I'll refer to the lands as heaven, purgatory and hell
Like Osiris, the Egyptian god of the afterlife, the board will be the judge of individuals to determine the fate of the rest of their existence into one of these 3 lands
Heaven is where people have unlimited access to this new tech without restriction. The garden of Eden. True liberty, no unresolved demons within them, respect for every citizen
Hell is an intense concept. Occupants are put in a chair with a needle stuck into the back of their brain. The needle is a closed-loop feedback system; it pumps them full of drugs and monitors brain activity to adjust the drug composition to induce as much pleasure as possible. It takes care of all health and nutrient concerns too. They are immobilised, sitting in the chair for eternity. Even though they achieve peak ecstasy for the rest of their life, they essentially have transitioned out of human existence. It touches upon a real interesting question; is achieving pure hedonistic pleasure, without ups and downs, the way to reach the most satisfaction one can in their life? Is this concept of hell a punishment or liberation? Is it preference?
Purgatory. It is essentially a commune mixed with an insane asylum. Those who are in purgatory are not insane or defective; it's just the bar for mental stability in heaven is much greater than what we see on earth. The population of heaven wishes to have complete security in their needs when interacting with others. There are rooms where people can have limited access to the post scarcity tech. Purgatory is populated with teams of psychiatric professionals, slowly working with its inhabitants to reconcile with their traumas. Once they are confident they have, they can be granted access to heaven. It asks an interesting question; how can we best approach understanding and forgiveness for those who have done wrong to themselves or others in the past?
Now, with heaven, there are many who reside there. Because this tech allows people to summon anything into existence, what happens if conflicts with a use of space occurs? What if there are disagreements of what the public buildings should look like? What if one does not wish to be neighbours with another?
It all ties together here dude! The board, like the founding of America, decide they need to write the constitution for heaven. They will reflect on all human history. They will reflect on previous actions they and others took during the colonisation effort. They will sort through where humanity got it right or wrong. Damn. That's cool
The rules in which disputes and means of communication are discussed deeply. They focus on how to create structures to minimise the occurrence of new traumas, how to offer outlets for those to reconcile if they occur, how to provide platforms to achieve further fulfilment in their self-actualization. Psychologists, childhood development specialists, etc, are heavily consulted. Even rules around dialect and dialog are changed
As an interesting theme, there are some new members who offer their insights to the board too. What's a demographic of people who live mostly unburdened with trauma, do not judge others, have no filters about being emotionally vulnerable and are self-actualized in their interests?
Healthy raised children. Putting our preconceived judgements aside (theme 2, lol), for the task at hand, children offer value with how to provide outlets to achieve self-actualization. Value adults have lost with time. The adults, experienced with tramas, focus more on how to eliminate new occurrences and promote reconciliation. Children focus on the sense of play, and how to bond with peers. They help adults get in touch with their inner child they neglected
While writing the constitution, it becomes apparent that some of the rules for the new world seemed so obvious and were totally possible to implement in the pre-scarcity world. It is for the audience to draw out which ones can be applied in our world today
Once the constitution is written, the story ends