The Man Who Cut Through the Noise

In the 14th century, a Franciscan friar named William of Ockham wielded an intellectual tool so sharp it still slices through modern delusions: Ockham’s Razor. His principle—“Entities are not to be multiplied beyond necessity”—was a rebellion against medieval scholasticism’s tangled webs of abstraction. As the Church fractured under rival popes—each justifying their authority with layers of theological jargon—Ockham’s Razor would have cut through the pretense, like so: “If God is truly omnipotent, why does He need your bureaucracy?” (His defiance would cost him; he was excommunicated in 1328, but history would prove his blade sharper than their dogma.) Born during the chaotic aftermath of the Black Death, which wiped out a third of Europe’s population, Ockham developed his philosophy in an era when grand institutions clung to complexity while failing their people. Feudal lords enforced labyrinthine land laws to squeeze starving peasants; Ockham’s insistence on minimal assumptions would have retorted: “When the plague renders your contracts void, what survives but the simplest truth—that men must eat?” Seven centuries later, we face a parallel evasion of reality: as of April 2025, NOAA data reveals atmospheric CO₂ concentrations surged at a record-breaking rate in 2024—3.75 parts per million, the highest annual jump ever recorded. Yet the Trump administration suppressed the findings, burying them in social media posts instead of the agency’s usual press releases. Here, Ockham’s Razor cuts through the noise: the simplest truth—that we are losing the fight against climate collapse—is being obscured by institutional cowardice and bureaucratic sleight-of-hand (Environmental Integrity Project 2025; Friedman 2025).

Our current predicament reveals an even deeper irony: we now spend trillions subsidizing fossil fuels while pouring billions into “high-tech renewables” that, according to J.P. Morgan’s Heliocentrism report, have increased global solar capacity without displacing fossil fuel dependence. The renewable energy revolution has become its own kind of scholasticism—a complex theology of lithium batteries, rare earth minerals, and solar panels made in coal-fired factories. These technologies, while reducing direct emissions, simply replace one form of extraction with another:

• Cobalt mines where children work in toxic pits to power electric vehicles

• Lithium extraction that drains Andean groundwater for grid-scale batteries

• “Green” hydrogen projects that consume more electricity than they produce

Ockham would see this as the same old pattern: multiplying entities (new mines, new supply chains, new waste streams) rather than addressing the root problem—our refusal to reduce consumption. The J.P. Morgan report confirms this: despite $9 trillion spent on renewables since 2010, the renewable share of final energy consumption crawls forward at 0.3%-0.6% annually, while fossil fuels still power 80%-85% of industrial production (Cembalest 2025). The razor’s judgment is clear: no technology can sustain infinite growth on a finite planet.

The Jevons Paradox: Efficiency as a Trojan Horse

The report’s data exposes a brutal truth: the Jevons Paradox is alive and well. As solar and wind become cheaper, energy demand grows, swallowing efficiency gains. For example:

• Solar capacity doubled from 2021–2024, yet fossil fuel consumption rose in absolute terms.

• Battery storage additions (38 GW by 2027 in the U.S.) are outpaced by data center and AI energy demand, forcing utilities to add more natural gas capacity (Cembalest 2025).

This paradox undermines the core promise of renewables: that they will replace fossil fuels. Instead, they enable greater energy use, reinforcing the status quo. Ockham’s Razor demands we ask: Why layer complexity (renewables + storage + grid overhauls) when the simplest solution is to consume less?

The Collapse as a Failure of Parsimony

Modernity is a cathedral of complexity. We have built systems so convoluted that even their architects no longer understand them—financial markets that turn survival into speculation, supply chains that strangle the planet to deliver a smartphone, governments that draft climate agreements in the passive voice while approving new oil leases. Kafka’s The Trial captures this perfectly: a bureaucracy that demands participation but offers no justice, a labyrinth where every turn leads deeper into absurdity.

Consider the modern environmental movement’s obsession with “solutions” that create more problems than they solve. Carbon offset programs allow corporations to continue polluting while claiming neutrality, relying on hypothetical future carbon sequestration that may never materialize. The European Union’s taxonomy for “sustainable” energy includes natural gas and nuclear power, demonstrating how complexity serves to obscure rather than illuminate. Even renewable energy infrastructure—wind turbines, solar panels, electric vehicles—depends on global supply chains that exploit child labor in Congo’s cobalt mines and poison Indigenous lands with lithium extraction, all while failing to displace fossil fuels (European Parliament 2022; Amnesty International 2016).

Ockham would see this not as an inevitability but as a choice—a refusal to adhere to the simplest, most brutal truth: civilization is eating itself alive because it refuses to acknowledge limits. The climate crisis is not a puzzle to be solved with more complexity—more committees, more algorithms, more financial instruments—but a boundary condition to be respected. The simplest explanation for ecological collapse is that we have exceeded planetary thresholds. The simplest solution is to retreat from those thresholds. Everything else is noise.

The Myth of Industrial Agriculture’s Necessity

A common rebuttal to calls for simplification is the belief that only modern, industrial agriculture can sustain today’s population of 8 billion people. This argument, often presented as an immutable fact, is precisely the kind of unnecessary assumption Ockham’s Razor would challenge. The claim rests on several layers of complexity:

• The assumption that current population levels are sustainable or desirable—never mind that our food system already fails to nourish billions while wasting 30-40% of what it produces (UNEP 2021).

• The belief that yield-per-acre is the only metric that matters—ignoring that industrial farming destroys topsoil 10-100 times faster than it forms, making its “productivity” inherently temporary (Montgomery 2007).

• The reliance on fossil fuel inputs—from synthetic fertilizers to global distribution networks, the system is fundamentally extractive.

Ockham would ask: What is the simplest way to feed people? The answer lies not in doubling down on a failing system, but in:

• Reducing food waste (which could feed 2 billion people)

• Shifting from grain-fed meat to regenerative practices

• Localizing food systems to minimize transport losses (UNEP 2025)

Here, capitalism’s structural barriers emerge. The current system incentivizes waste through perverse mechanisms: supermarkets reject imperfect produce to maintain aesthetic standards; “just-in-time” supply chains discard surplus to protect prices; processed foods dominate because they’re more profitable than whole foods. Yet even within these constraints, examples of parsimony exist. France banned supermarket food waste in 2016, redirecting edible surplus to charities. South Korea’s compulsory composting program reduced food waste by 98%. These prove waste reduction is possible—but requires dismantling capitalism’s cult of artificial scarcity. The simplest solution (stop wasting food) clashes with the system’s need to manufacture demand. Ockham’s Razor thus exposes a deeper truth: our inability to reduce waste isn’t technical but ideological—a refusal to challenge the profit motive’s tyranny over basic needs.

The Fossil Fuel Paradox

Capitalism’s addiction to fossil fuels presents Ockham’s Razor with its sharpest test. The system’s survival depends on a resource that guarantees its demise—a contradiction so glaring that even the International Energy Agency acknowledges the impossibility of both maintaining growth and limiting warming to 1.5°C. The trillions spent annually subsidizing oil, gas, and coal (estimated at $7 trillion in 2025, per the IMF) aren’t an economic necessity but a political choice to preserve complexity (Black et al. 2023). These subsidies distort markets, undercut renewables, and trap nations in what anthropologist Jason Hickel calls “fossil fuel neocolonialism”—where debt forces Global South countries to exploit their own resources for foreign creditors.

The J.P. Morgan report underscores this: Europe’s “renewable transition leader” status masks its reliance on LNG imports and soaring energy prices, while the U.S. achieves “energy independence” only by doubling down on fracking (Cembalest 2025). Disentanglement would require:

• Letting energy prices reflect reality—a carbon tax covering extraction, pollution, and health impacts would make renewables instantly competitive (oil would need to cost ~$200/barrel to account for externalities).

• Degrowth of superfluous sectors—phasing out fossil-fueled industries like fast fashion, industrial meat, and private jets—which exist solely to fuel consumption, not meet needs.

• Public control of utilities—as in Denmark, where community-owned wind farms bypass profit-driven energy markets.

This isn’t utopian. During WWII, the U.S. retooled its auto industry for tanks in six months. Ockham would note that our paralysis stems not from inability, but from an ideological refusal to simplify—a preference for the familiar agony of collapse over the uncertain pains of adaptation. The razor cuts through the pretense: fossil fuels sustain only capitalism’s growth imperative, not human thriving (CAN Europe 2024; Woolfenden 2023).

The Healthcare Contradiction

Modern healthcare presents a grotesque paradox under Ockham’s Razor: a system designed to heal that simultaneously sickens the very bodies and ecologies it claims to protect. The U.S. healthcare sector accounts for 8.5% of national carbon emissions—more than the entire UK economy—with single-use plastics, petrochemical-derived pharmaceuticals, and energy-guzzling hospitals as its pillars. Like industrial agriculture, this system thrives on artificial complexity:

• Disposable medicine—a single hysterectomy generates 20 lbs of plastic waste; IV bags, syringes, and PPE are designed for landfill, not reuse. The justification—”sterility”—collapses when met with Ockham’s Razor: glass and stainless steel served hospitals for decades before the 1960s plastic boom.

• Profit-driven waste—for-profit healthcare incentivizes overtreatment: the U.S. spends $935 billion annually on unnecessary tests and procedures, while 30 million remain uninsured (Shrank, et al. 2019). Ockham would slash this excess, asking: What is the least invasive way to achieve health? Cuba’s preventative, community-based model delivers longer life expectancy than the U.S. at 1/10th the cost.

• Consider hospital-acquired infections: the U.S. healthcare system spends $28 billion annually treating MRSA and sepsis—diseases spread by its own unsanitary practices—while lobbying against mandatory nurse-to-patient ratios that would prevent outbreaks. Profits multiply where prevention should suffice. Ockham’s Razor dissects the madness: Why layer on costly treatments (antibiotics, extended stays) when the simplest solution—adequate staffing—would cut the problem at its root? The answer, as in Ockham’s day, is that complexity enriches systems, even as it fails those they’re built to serve.

Disentanglement would require:

• Re-materializing medicine: Germany’s re-sterilizable surgical tools prove single-use plastics are a choice, not a necessity.

• Degrowth of parasitic sectors: 30% of U.S. healthcare administrative costs ($1.1 trillion/year) stem from insurance bureaucracy—a complexity that serves capital, not patients.

• The simplest solution—adequate staffing—is rejected because it dissolves the revenue stream built on treating (rather than preventing) harm. Complexity (layered treatments) persists not because it’s needed, but because it pays.

Ockham’s verdict would be brutal: a system this convoluted exists not to heal, but to profit. The razor cuts through its justifications to reveal a simpler truth—health cannot be manufactured in a dying world (Eckelman, et al. 2020; Shrank, et al. 2019).

Empiricism Over Ideology

Ockham was a nominalist, meaning he rejected abstract universals in favor of concrete, observable realities. He would have little patience for the ideological frameworks that dominate modern discourse—capitalism’s faith in “innovation,” environmentalism’s hope in “green growth,” or transhumanism’s fantasies of digital immortality. These are metaphysical constructs, untethered from the physical evidence before us: topsoil eroding ten times faster than it forms, aquifers drained beyond recovery, forests shrinking while CO₂ concentrations rise.

John Gray’s icy nihilism—his insistence that progress is a myth and collapse is inevitable—aligns somewhat with Ockham’s empiricism. But where Gray sees futility, Ockham might see clarity. The data does not demand despair; it demands adaptation. Indigenous philosophies, like the Iroquois Seventh Generation Principle, already embody this simplicity: act today with the seventh generation in mind. No need for hyperobjects or existential dread—just a direct, intergenerational contract with reality.

Modern environmental policy, by contrast, operates in a realm of abstraction. The Paris Agreement’s target of limiting warming to 1.5°C relies on speculative technologies like carbon capture and storage (CCS), which has yet to be deployed at scale despite decades of research. The J.P. Morgan report mocks this as the “highest citation-to-usage ratio in the history of science,” noting that planned CCS capacity is just 2.5% of current emissions (Cembalest 2025). Ockham would dismiss such wishful thinking and focus on what we know works: reducing emissions at the source, protecting intact ecosystems, and scaling down unsustainable consumption.

Agency in an Age of Diminishing Returns

The modern world oscillates between two poles: Camus’s defiant absurdism (“we must imagine Sisyphus happy”) and Gray’s resigned realism (“entropy always wins”). Ockham offers a third path: pragmatic reduction. If the systems we’ve built are too complex to sustain, then the answer is not to build more systems (Mars colonies, AI governance) but to strip down to what is essential.

This is not a call for primitivism, but for intelligent simplification. Consider modern agriculture: a Rube Goldberg machine of synthetic fertilizers, genetically modified crops, and global supply chains that degrade soil and drain rivers. The simplest solution? Agroecology—farming methods that work with ecosystems rather than against them. No need for lab-grown meat or blockchain-tracked sustainability credits. Just observation, humility, and local adaptation.

Similarly, Ockham would dismiss the idea that we need “breakthrough technologies” to solve climate change. The simplest way to reduce emissions is to stop extracting fossil fuels. The fact that this is politically unimaginable does not make it untrue—it just reveals how deeply we’ve entangled ourselves in unnecessary complexities.

The Razor’s Edge: Between Hope and Nihilism

What, then, is Ockham’s verdict on collapse? Not despair, not optimism, but a ruthless focus on the obvious. The labyrinth of modernity—with its financialized ecosystems, its performative activism, its delusional faith in techno-fixes—is not a puzzle to be solved but a trap to be escaped. The way out is not more complexity, but less.

This is where Ockham’s Razor meets Camus’s absurdism. The rock will roll back down the hill, the glaciers will keep melting, the bureaucracies will keep churning out empty pledges. But we can choose to act in ways that align with the simplest truths: reduce harm, share resources, protect what remains. These are not grand solutions, but they are real ones—unburdened by the weight of collapsing systems.

In the end, Ockham’s greatest lesson might be this: collapse is not the problem. Denial is. The longer we multiply entities—new technologies, new policies, new ideologies—the further we stray from the only truth that matters: we are creatures of a finite world, and we must live within its limits. The razor cuts away everything else. The choice is ours.

The Madness of the Machine

The modern world is not just unsustainable—it is insane.

Consider the facts: we know fossil fuels are cooking the planet, yet we subsidize them with trillions while starving truly sustainable solutions. We watch topsoil vanish and oceans acidify, yet double down on industrial farming. We build hospitals to heal while filling them with single-use plastics that choke the biosphere. This is not rational behavior—it is the logic of a cult, one that worships complexity as a god and sacrifice as its sacrament.

Ockham’s Razor, in this light, is more than a tool—it is an intervention. The principle that “entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity” exposes modernity’s central delusion: that we can outrun collapse by adding more—more technology, more bureaucracy, more layers of abstraction between ourselves and the physical world. But insanity, as Einstein noted, is doing the same thing while expecting different results. Our systems are now so convoluted that they’ve become self-cannibalizing, like a snake eating its own tail and calling it growth.

The insanity is most visible in our rituals of false solutions:

• Carbon offsets that let executives fly private jets guilt-free

• “Green” products shipped across oceans in oil-burning tankers

• Algorithms calculating “acceptable” extinction rates while ecosystems unravel

These are not mistakes. They are incantations—spells cast to ward off the simple truth that Ockham’s Razor lays bare: we must consume less, share more, and live within limits. That we refuse to do so is not because we lack alternatives (Cuba’s healthcare and Denmark’s energy grids prove otherwise), but because we’ve been conditioned to fear simplicity itself.

The razor’s true power lies in its ability to diagnose this madness. When every “solution” creates three new problems, when institutions prioritize self-preservation over function, when we’re told extinction is more plausible than economic reform—we are no longer dealing with reason, but pathology. Ockham would recognize this as medieval scholasticism reborn: a theology of obfuscation where the answer to every failure is more complexity, more deferral, more faith in systems that have already broken their promises.

There is a way out—but it requires embracing the razor’s edge. It means:

• Calling waste by its true name: theft from the future

• Rejecting technologies that exist only to sustain the unsustainable

• Building lifeboats—local food networks, community clinics, mutual aid—outside the crumbling cathedral

As the 21st century unfolds into multiplying crises, Ockham’s Razor becomes more than a philosophical tool—it becomes a survival strategy. Around the world, grassroots movements are already putting this into practice: mutual aid networks that bypass broken institutions, permaculture projects that restore degraded land, communities relearning how to live within their means. These are not utopian experiments but pragmatic adaptations, grounded in the same empirical realism Ockham championed seven centuries ago.

The madness will not end gracefully. Those profiting from complexity will fight to keep their labyrinths intact. But as the walls crack, the choice becomes stark: cling to the sinking ship of business-as-usual, or grab the razor and start cutting ropes.

In the end, Ockham’s Razor offers no false comforts—only the clarifying shock of cold steel against delusion. The truth was always simple: we were never too stupid to survive, only too clever by half.

Reference List:

1. Amnesty International. 2016. This Is What We Die For: Human Rights Abuses in the Democratic Republic of the Congo Power the Global Trade in Cobalt. London: Amnesty International. https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/afr62/3183/2016/en/.
2. Black, Simon, Antung A. Liu, Ian W.H. Parry, and Nate Vernon-Lin. 2023. IMF Fossil Fuel Subsidies Data: 2023 Update. IMF Working Paper WP/23/257, August 24, 2023. International Monetary Fund. https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WP/Issues/2023/08/22/IMF-Fossil-Fuel-Subsidies-Data-2023-Update-537281.
3. CAN Europe. 2024. EU Fossil Fuel Subsidies on the Rise Again. June 7, 2024. https://caneurope.org/content/uploads/2024/06/EU-Fossil-fuel-subsidies_2024.pdf.
4. Cembalest, Michael. 2025. Heliocentrism: Objects May Be Further Away Than They Appear. 15th Annual Energy Paper, March 4, 2025. J.P. Morgan Asset & Wealth Management. https://privatebank.jpmorgan.com/nam/en/insights/latest-and-featured/eotm/annual-energy-paper.
5. Eckelman, Matthew J., Kaixin Huang, and Robert Lagasse. 2020. “Health Care Pollution and Public Health Damage in the United States: An Update.” Health Affairs 39, no. 12 (December): 2071–79. https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.2020.01247.
6. Environmental Integrity Project. 2025. “Environmental Groups Sue Trump Administration over Removal of Climate and Environmental Justice Websites and Data.” April 14, 2025. https://environmentalintegrity.org/news/environmental-groups-sue-trump-administration-over-removal-of-climate-and-environmental-justice-websites-and-data/.
7. European Parliament. 2022. “Taxonomy: MEPs Do Not Object to Inclusion of Gas and Nuclear Activities.” News, July 6, 2022. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-room/20220701IPR34365/taxonomy-meps-do-not-object-to-inclusion-of-gas-and-nuclear-activities
8. Friedman, Lisa. 2025. “Trump Administration Minimized Federal Climate Scientists’ Findings of Record CO2 Growth.” CNN, April 22, 2025. https://www.cnn.com/2025/04/22/climate/noaa-co2-record/index.html.
9. Montgomery, David R. 2007. “Soil Erosion and Agricultural Sustainability.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 104, no. 33 (August 14): 13268–13272. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.0611508104.
10. Shrank, William H., Teresa L. Rogstad, and Natasha Parekh. 2019. “Waste in the US Health Care System: Estimated Costs and Potential for Savings.” JAMA 322, no. 15 (October 7): 1501–09. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/2752664.
11. Soussana, Jean-François, revised by Olanike Adeyemo, Mohamed Ait Kadi, Sjoukje Heimovaara, Thomas Hertel, and Marta Huga. 2021. Policy Brief: Accelerating the Transition to Sustainable Food Systems through Policy Coherence and Integration. United Nations Food Systems Summit Action Track 2. https://www.unfoodsystemshub.org/docs/unfoodsystemslibraries/sac/sac-theme-2-policy-brief.pdf?sfvrsn=73a9da4e_1.
12. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). 2021. UNEP Food Waste Index Report 2021. Nairobi: UNEP. https://www.unep.org/resources/report/unep-food-waste-index-report-2021.
13. Woolfenden, Tess. 2023. The Debt-Fossil Fuel Trap: Why Debt Is a Barrier to Fossil Fuel Phase-Out and What We Can Do About It. London: Debt Justice. July 2023. https://debtjustice.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/Debt-Fossil-Fuel-Trap-Report_2023.pdf.