The Overview Effect

What Astronauts Can Teach Us

Commemorating World Space Week (4–10 October 2026)

When the crew of Apollo 8 became the first humans to leave Earth’s orbit in 1968, commander Frank Borman found himself less struck by the Moon below than by the planet they’d left behind: “It looked so fragile from 240,000 miles… you have a hard time understanding there could be so much conflict when it looked so fragile.” His crewmate Bill Anders put it even more bluntly: “We came all this way to explore the Moon, and the most important thing is that we discovered the Earth.”

The sentiment hasn’t dated. In April 2026, Artemis II pilot Victor Glover, looking back at Earth from deep space, described being able to “really see the Earth as one thing” — a single, fragile whole, closer to home than the distance might suggest.

— Sources: Frank Borman, quoted in Phys.org (2016); Bill Anders, quoted by NASA (2024); Victor Glover, quoted in a CBS News interview, reported by TODAY.com (April 2026)

NASA photo

Look at almost any photograph of Earth taken from space, and you’ll notice something missing: borders. No red lines carving up continents, no fences, no flags — just a single blue-and-white sphere hanging in absolute black. For the small number of human beings who have seen that view with their own eyes rather than through a photograph, the experience has proven to be one of the most psychologically transformative available to our species. It has a name: the Overview Effect.

A Term Coined in 1987

Space philosopher Frank White gave the phenomenon its name in his 1987 book, “The Overview Effect: Space Exploration and Human Evolution”, describing a profound shift in perspective that many astronauts report when they see Earth in its entirety from orbit or beyond. The effect isn’t simply about scenery. It’s a cognitive and emotional reorientation — a sudden, visceral grasp of the planet as one fragile, interconnected whole, with national boundaries and political divisions revealed as human inventions rather than features of the world itself.

Apollo 14’s Edgar Mitchell put it memorably: seeing Earth from the Moon gave him an instant sense of global belonging, real frustration at the state of the world, and a felt need to do something about it. More recently, NASA astronaut Jasmin Moghbeli has described watching Earth’s thin blue atmospheric line from the cupola of the International Space Station and realising that every person she knows is sustained within that fragile margin — with no visible borders, no religious lines, no political boundaries at all.

What the Research Shows

This isn’t just poetic testimony; researchers have started taking the Overview Effect seriously as a measurable psychological phenomenon. Studies point to several recurring components: heightened compassion, a felt dissolution of the boundary between self and other (sometimes described as self-transcendence), a reordering of personal priorities, and a pronounced sense of awe. A 2020 study of space travellers found that many came home with a changed sense of Earth as something precious and easily damaged, and that this shift tracked with a greater likelihood of taking up environmental causes afterward.

The effect isn’t universal among astronauts. Personality factors seem to influence how strongly someone experiences it, but the broad pattern is consistent enough that researchers have begun trying to reproduce it by using virtual reality to see whether a simulated view of Earth from orbit can nudge people toward more pro-environmental behaviour. Results so far are mixed, but the very attempt says something about how much value we now place on this shift in consciousness.

The Deeper Lesson

Call it spiritual, call it cosmic perspective, call it what you like — what matters is that it’s awe grounded in something real. It doesn’t ask you to look beyond the physical world, only to see more of it at once: our actual situation as evolved, interdependent beings sharing one small planet.

It also offers a strikingly literal illustration of an idea that runs through a lot of moral philosophy: the expanding moral circle. Philosophers have long described moral progress as a gradual widening of who counts — from family, to tribe, to nation, to all of humanity, and for many of us today, onward to future generations, other species, and perhaps even minds we haven’t yet created. The Overview Effect seems to compress that entire expansion into a single glance. From orbit, the arbitrary lines that usually organise human loyalty and hostility simply vanish, and what’s left is one interdependent biosphere holding everyone we have ever loved or fought.

Carl Sagan reached for something similar without ever leaving Earth’s orbit himself, in his reflection on the “Pale Blue Dot” photograph of Earth taken from deep space — a single pixel suspended in a sunbeam, home to everyone who has ever lived. It’s one of the most quietly humanist passages in modern science writing precisely because it does what the Overview Effect does: it makes cosmic scale into an argument for kindness, rather than an argument for despair.

From Orbit to Action

The Overview Effect doesn’t always stay a private revelation. For some astronauts, it has become the founding motive for real-world projects back on Earth.

Ron Garan, a NASA astronaut who logged 178 days in space, traces his post-flight humanitarian work directly to a spacewalk during which he saw the International Space Station framed against Earth below. He went on to found the Manna Energy Foundation, which brought clean water treatment to villages in Rwanda through the world’s first UN-registered Clean Development Mechanism carbon-credit program for water treatment. He also created Fragile Oasis, a platform where a global community proposes and supports humanitarian and environmental projects — clean water, cross-cultural dialogue, solar technology — explicitly framed around the orbital perspective he brought home.

Franklin Chang Díaz, a veteran of seven shuttle missions, later founded Ad Astra Rocket Company, working on advanced plasma and hydrogen propulsion technologies. In interviews, he’s connected that work directly to the Overview Effect, describing how seeing Earth whole left him with a lasting concern about pollution and squandered clean energy.

Worth noting as a related but distinct case: the solar-powered vaccine refrigerators now used to protect medicine supplies in remote parts of the world weren’t founded by an astronaut, but by a former NASA Johnson Space Center engineer, David Bergeron, who adapted refrigeration technology developed for NASA’s Advanced Refrigeration Technology Team into a battery-free unit for vaccine storage. It’s a reminder that the space program’s humanitarian dividends flow through engineers and mission specialists as well as astronauts themselves.

Borrowing the View Without the Rocket

Most of us will never leave Earth’s atmosphere, and the researchers testing VR simulations are essentially asking a very humanist question: can we manufacture this shift in perspective without a spacecraft? Can the emotional logic of the Overview Effect — awe, interconnection, a felt sense of shared fragility — be reached by other means: through the philosophical exercise of imagining ourselves from a great distance, through science communication, through art and speculative fiction that puts readers on a lunar surface looking back at Earth?

I’d argue that’s exactly the imaginative work fiction can do — placing readers somewhere far enough from home that borders and tribal divisions become genuinely hard to see, and shared vulnerability becomes the only thing left in view. That’s not a bad description of what any good humanist story, or humanist philosophy for that matter, is trying to achieve here on the ground: a wider circle of concern, reached without ever needing to leave the Earth at all.


Bibliography

Author unknown, 2026. “Ron Garan.” Space for Humanity.

Canadian Space Agency, 2022. “The Overview Effect”, ASC-CSA Youth and Educators Toolkit: Mental Health and Isolation, 20 October.

Chow, Denise, 2011. “Earth From Space: An Astronaut’s Quest to Protect Our ‘Fragile Oasis’.” NBC News, 22 April.

Grimm, Linda E, 2025. “The Overview Effect: Astronaut Perspectives from 25 Years in Low Earth Orbit”, Johnson Space Center, NASA, 23 November.

Jones, Meg, 2016. “Apollo Astronaut Frank Borman Remembers the View.” Phys.org, 2016.

Lau, Graham, 2024. “The Overview Effect On Earth.” “Cosmobiota”, Substack, 10 October.

Lockney, Dan, 2013. “Solar Refrigerators Store Life-Saving Vaccines.” NASA Spinoff.

Moskowitz Clara, 2011. “Goodbye, Zero G: Astronaut Ron Garan Readapts Life on Earth.” Space.com, 10 October.

Parks, Kristine, 2026. “Artemis II Astronaut Marvels at ‘Beauty of Creation’ in Easter Message from Deep Space.” Originally a CBS News interview, 5 April; reported by TODAY.com, 8 April.

Pearson, Ezzy, 2026.”Astronauts Get a Weird Feeling Looking at Earth from Space. It’s the Overview Effect, and Here’s How It Works”, BBC Sky at Night Magazine, 6 February..

Rocchio, Laura E.P., 2024. “Remembering Bill Anders.” NASA Science, 14 June.

Sagan, Carl, 1994. Pale Blue Dot: A Vision of the Human Future in Space, New York: Random House.

Travers, Mark, 2024. “How ‘The Overview Effect’ Can Make You Feel Alive Again — By A Psychologist.” Forbes, 24 July.

van Horen F, et. al, 2024. “Observing the earth from space: Does a virtual reality overview effect experience increase pro-environmental behaviour?”, PLoS One. 19(5), National Center for Biotechnology Information, 29 May.

van Limpt – Broers, H Anna T, et al, 2020. “Creating Ambassadors of Planet Earth: The Overview Effect in K–12 Education”, Front Psychol. 11:540996, National Center for Biotechnology Information, 7 October.

White, Frank, 1987. The Overview Effect: Space Exploration and Human Evolution (various later editions).

Young, Chris, 2023. “Former NASA Astronaut’s Space Shuttle Flights Inspired New Hydrogen Technologies”, Interesting Engineering, 3 March.


©2026 Geoff Allshorn. I acknowledge the Wurundjeri-Willam people, the Traditional Custodians of the land on which this blog was prepared, and show my respect for Elders past and present. Research assisted by Claude AI.

The Herstory of Star Trek Fandom

Long before hashtags and social media streams, women like Shayne McCormack and Diane Marchant and Susan Batho built fandom as family: through letters, zines, and acts of solidarity that brought together a global network.

Long-time Star Trek fan Sue Batho introduces the background of Star Trek fandom in Australia:

“Star Trek was first shown in Australia in July 1967. It always rated well in Sydney, although not so well elsewhere. In 1968, GTV-9 (Melbourne) and NWS-9 (Adelaide) cancelled it due to poor ratings. However, they were forced to reinstate it after an avalanche of protest letters, spearheaded by a member of the Australian Star Trek Fan Club, based in Melbourne.

“The Australian Star Trek Fan Club was founded in 1968 by John Stepkowski of Melbourne as a result of publicity given to his efforts to save Star Trek after NBC in America cancelled it after its second season. As a result of such fan activity in America, the series was renewed. The ASTFC began with a membership of 98 and grew to 300 members by 1970. However, by then it had become rather inactive and ceased soon after.” – Batho, 1998.

It would therefore appear that the first formalised Star Trek fandom in Australia was born in Melbourne, but did not last long, and Stepkowski seems to have been lost to history. Star Trek briefly returned to Melbourne screens via ATV-0 (later Channel 10) in 1970, with Channel 9 quickly reclaiming its licensing option. In the early 1980s, HSV-7 also showed Star Trek, making it possibly the first TV franchise to appear on all three local commercial TV networks.

The history of Star Trek fandom (and aspects of Austrek history) correspond closely to the observations of Sue Kisenwhether:

“For nearly as long as there has been Star Trek, there have been stereotypes of Star Trek fans, as unflattering as they are false. The average Trekkie – or Trekker, if you prefer – is thought to be young (generally under 25), male, socially awkward, and unable to distinguish fantasy from reality. But in fact, the driving force behind Star Trek and Star Trek fandom – and modern science-fiction fandom in general – has always been women…

“By 1986, it’s estimated that close to 10,000 fans, predominantly women, had created over 30,000 Trek-related works (art, fiction, song, or otherwise), mostly appearing in fanzines. And as the fan community migrated to the internet in the mid- to late-1980s, so did the zines… “

This is not to say that only women were involved in Star Trek fandom, but that this fandom introduced many women to science fiction, and science fiction to many women. They took on roles within clubs and conventions – within the entire genre – that traditionally had been undertaken solely by men. In Australia, many women took up the call to be involved in this fandom. Two early fans helped lead the way for many others:

“Star Trek was finally cancelled after its third season in 1969 and Fans in America and Australia combined together to protest the cancellation. July 28, 1969 was designated Deluge Monday when everyone worldwide would phone NBC or write letters timed to arrive on that day. One of the organisers was Susan Smith (later Clarke)[now Batho], then a schoolgirl in Sydney’s Blacktown. Plans were made to combine local fans under Shayne McCormack, a stenographer from Auburn.

“Shayne was interviewed about her activities in TV Times in March of that year. As a result, she received over 75 letters from people wanting to help. This led to her forming D.U.S.K. (Down Under Space Kooks). The petition she helped organise measured 8 feet and contained over 2,200 signatures. D.U.S.K. published a fanzine, Terran Times, and organised irregular meetings and social outings before folding around 1970.” – Batho, 1998.

The first issue of Terran Times was published in October 1970. It would prove to be the first of hundreds of issues of Star Trek zines published in Australia.

Bruce Gillespie notes that Shayne’s activism began to impact the wider Australian SF community:

“… it was Shayne McCormack who became the first female fannish recruit of the 1970s. She and Sabina Heggie attended the 1970 Easter Convention. They were the first Star Trek fans to make contact with the mainstream of fandom. Sabina disappeared after a year or two, but Shayne began to publish some excellent fanzines. With Bob Smith, she organised Syncon II in 1972. It was the first hotel convention held in Australia, and was a great success, showing that a world convention could be held in Australia. By 1975, about half of the members of Aussiecon I were women.”

Meanwhile, Susan Batho, formerly Susan Smith-Clarke, was an influential member of the Australian science fiction community. Alongside Shayne, Nikki, Julie, Edwina and others, she established one of Austrek’s sister clubs, ASTREX. Susan wrote and produced numerous fanzines, and she chaired many conventions. Sue remains a friend and colleague of mine to this day.

While Sydney fans were running their first club, a Melbourne fan named Diane Marchant became involved down here:

“I was going through a bad time. My sister died and Mum was very ill. I was just coping, going to work, looking after Mum, eating and sleeping. The TV was permanently on in the background.

When Star Trek first came on it didn’t really register, but after a couple of weeks I found I was waiting for it to start every week.

Then I read in a magazine that five women in the USA were forming the Star Trek fan club.

I wrote to them and so became a founding member.” – Diane Marchant, quoted in 1978.

In 1972, Diane became the Australian representative – and for many years, the world representative outside of the USA – for the Star Trek Welcommittee, comprising fandom’s main information exchange to help fans connect with each other, and assisting newbies to find fellow fans, local fan clubs, fanzines, and conventions. In the in the days before the Internet and other modern digital social media, Diane’s pen pal exchange became vital in Australian Star Trek fandom.

Shayne, Diane, Susan, and many others helped to build the Australian Star Trek community.

Austrek New Year’s Day Party, 1 January 1979

In 2025, an early member of Austrek, Russ, accompanied me to an Austrek meeting, where we gave a talk on the club’s early days. During our talk, I showed an old photo of an Austrek party on New Year’s Day in 1979 – full of mainly young people having fun. The modern Austrek audience gasped at the photo, and someone exclaimed, “But there’s so many women!” Russ and I exchanged puzzled looks. Yeah, so?

The reality is that much of Star Trek fandom over the decades has featured women as leaders, committee members of clubs or conventions, authors of fan fiction, editors of fanzines, and much, much more. I recall early Austrek members who were a part of my childhood: Tessie, who graciously car pooled to provide free transport for many young fans; Elley, who provided a safe space for them to crash overnight or to enjoy alcohol-free all-weekend science fiction parties; Sue and Joan and Mandy and Helen and Katharine and Linda and Kathleen and Betty and Gail, who all wrote fan fiction, created artwork, or edited fanzines; Carol and Carol and Julie and Alison and Linda and Sharon and Jan, who served on committees; Majorie, who ran club charities. Plus many, many others.

This is not to say that men were not involved – of course we were. But in Austrek and in other clubs across Australia and around the world, fandom gave women opportunities for leadership, empowerment and active involvement. They made a difference in their own lives, and in the lives of others.

That was truly going where no man had gone before.


References:

Author Unknown, “Australian Fanzine Database: 1939 to 1975”, June 2010. p. 17 (Fanac).

Susan Batho (uncredited), “Star Trek Fandom in Australia”, the National Library of Australia, 20 May 1998 (archived on Wayback Machine 23 April 1999).

Bruce Gillespie, “The elder ghods, the johnny come lately, and the babes in arms; Fan Guest of Honour Speech, Aussiecon Three, 2 September 1999”, in Irwin Hirsh (ed.), The Incompleat Bruce Gillespie, 2004, p. 14.

Sue Kisenwhether, “A Brief Herstory of Women in Trek Fandom”, Journey Planet #42, pp. 5 & 6.

Eric Scott, “Carry on Trekking!” in TV Times, 8 July 1978, p. 36 (interview with Diane Marchant).


This blog ©2026 Geoff Allshorn, with some editorial and layout assistance from CoPilot AI. I show my respect for Elders past and present and acknowledge the Wurundjeri-Willam people, the Traditional Custodians of the Land on which this blog was prepared.

The Order of Things

Published to coincide with the 160th birthday of HG Wells (born 21 September 1866), the father of time travel stories.

I have been trying to write this story for many years, but its structure resisted me — for reasons that will, I hope, become clear.

CHAPTER 5: THE CROSSING

Dr Ashby appears where needed, not everywhere.

The corridor outside the experimental suite was lit only by the emergency strip along the floor. The main lights were off. The hum of the building felt louder than usual, as if the walls were listening.

Dr Ashby keyed in the override. The door slid open.

The core array was running at full power, its glow filling the room with a colour that didn’t belong to any known spectrum. Lena stood at the console, hands steady, eyes fixed on the readouts as if watching something only she could see.

“Lena,” Ashby said softly.

She didn’t turn, but spoke gently, “It’s ready.”

They stepped closer. The air was warm, metallic. Ozone clung to everything. “You should have waited.”

“I couldn’t. If I waited, I’d lose the nerve.”

The monitors told the truth: the sequence was already past the point where it could be safely aborted. The cascade had begun. The deck was already shuffling.

“You don’t have to do this,” Ashby said, and heard how thin it sounded even as they said it — the same thing they’d told a dozen students over the years, right before the ones who really meant it did it anyway.

She exhaled, a mixture of relief and resignation, “I do.”

The array brightened. The light folded in on itself, bending the air. It wasn’t white or blue or anything that belonged to the visible world. It was the colour of something that hadn’t been named yet.

Ashby reached toward the console.

“Don’t,” she finally looked at them, “You taught me to finish what I start.”

“I taught you a lot of things you shouldn’t have listened to.”

That almost got a laugh out of her — they saw it try to happen, saw her decide not to let it.

A tremor passed through the floor. Equipment racks rattled. Overhead fixtures flickered. The field was stabilising — or destabilising — they couldn’t tell. The numbers were meaningless now. Theory had reached the point where theory ended.

“Step back,” she pleaded.

They didn’t move. Twenty-six years they’d been doing this job, and they had never once managed to be the person who stopped a student from becoming a cautionary tale. They weren’t going to start tonight, either, whatever that said about them.

“Please.”

That word did it. Ashby stepped back.

Lena entered the field.

For a moment — a single, impossible moment — she was there and not there, her outline flickering like a reflection on disturbed water. The light wrapped around her. The air bent. Sound dropped away, replaced by a pressure felt in the bones more than the ears.

Then the light collapsed inward.

When Ashby’s vision cleared, the field was empty.

The monitors were blank. The hum of the building returned. The overhead lights steadied.

Ashby stood alone in the silence, already rehearsing what they’d tell the department in the morning, and already knowing none of it would be true.

CHAPTER 3: THE MENTOR

Lena noticed the cold the moment she stepped into Dr Ashby’s office — colder than the rest of the department, always. The shift in temperature, the faint hum of the old air-conditioning unit, the way the blinds were always half-closed even on bright days. It was a room designed for pragmatism, not comfort.

“Please sit,” Dr Ashby suggested, without looking up from the terminal.

Lena sat.

The silence stretched. Ashby finished typing, saved the file, and only then turned their attention fully to her. They had a way of looking at a student that made you feel like a dataset — not unkindly, just thoroughly.

“You’ve been running simulations outside your assigned hours.”

Lena kept her hands still in her lap. “Yes.”

“And you’ve been using equipment that isn’t allocated to your project.”

“Yes.”

“And you’ve been doing this without authorisation.”

She paused, “Yes.”

Dr Ashby leaned back in the chair. “Why?”

Lena opened her mouth, then closed it again. There was a true answer and there was an answer she could actually say out loud, and the gap between them felt enormous.

“Because I’m close.”

“Close to what?”

Lena swallowed, “A workable model.”

Ashby’s gaze sharpened. “A model of what?”

Lena didn’t answer.

Ashby stood, crossed to the whiteboard, and uncapped a marker. “Show me.”

Lena joined Dr Ashby. She drew the simplest version she could — the field geometry, the energy thresholds, the stabilisation curve. Not the whole thing. Not the part that mattered. Just enough to justify the hours she’d taken.

Dr Ashby watched her hand, not her face. That was the thing about Ashby — they always seemed to be reading the work instead of the person doing it, right up until the moment you realised they’d been reading both the whole time.

When she finished, they capped the marker and set it down with deliberate care.

“This is not a model,” Ashby noted, “This is an intention.”

Lena felt heat rise in her chest, “It’s more than that.”

“Not yet — ”

“It will be.”

Dr Ashby studied her for a long moment, then spoke softly, “You’re not sleeping.”

“I’m fine.”

“You’re not fine.” Their voice didn’t rise, “You’re cutting corners and isolating yourself. I’ve watched three students do exactly this before you, and I buried one of them, metaphorically speaking. I’d rather not make it literally.”

Lena looked away. “I don’t have time.”

“Time,” Ashby observed, “is not the problem you think it is.”

Lena’s breath caught — just for a moment — but Dr Ashby didn’t seem to notice… or at least, pretended not to.

They returned to the desk. On the corner, half-obscured by a manila folder, sat a small brown prescription bottle with a white label. Lena’s eye passed over it and moved on. Whatever it was, it wasn’t her business, and she was grateful — right then — not to have to make it her business.

Dr Ashby folded their hands. “You need to slow down and document things properly. You need to involve someone else in your process and this work. Perhaps most of all, you need to stop treating this department as if it exists to facilitate your private ambitions.”

Lena felt the words like a door closing.

“I’m not trying to cause trouble,” she protested quietly.

“I know,” Ashby replied, “But intention doesn’t change consequence.”

Lena stood, “I’ll be more careful.”

Ashby nodded once, “Good.”

Lena reached the door before Dr Ashby spoke again.

“Lena.”

She turned.

“Whatever you think you’re chasing,” Ashby suggested softly, “make sure it’s something you can live with.”

Lena didn’t answer. She stepped into the corridor, letting the cold air of the office fall away behind her.

Dr Ashby sat back down at the terminal, and did not immediately start typing.

CHAPTER 6: ARRIVAL

The first thing Lena noticed was the light.

Not brightness — quality. It was softer here, diffused, as if the air itself held memory. She stood very still, waiting for the dizziness to pass. The floor beneath her feet was solid.

Nothing in the room suggested a time.

The room was familiar in the way a dream is familiar: shapes she recognised, distances she didn’t.

All around her was a solid world: a desk, a window,the faint hum of an old ventilation unit. The smell of coffee — not burnt, not factory formula, but the good kind, the kind that lived in a bottom drawer.

Someone was standing with their back to her.

Lena knew the outline before she knew the name. The tilt of the head. The way the shoulders moved when they breathed. The small, unconscious gesture of pushing a sleeve up the forearm.

Roman — utterly, obliviously alive.

Lena didn’t move. She didn’t speak. If this was a memory, or a vision, or the last flicker of a mind coming apart, she didn’t want to be the one who found out by breaking it.

Roman reached for a mug on the counter — the chipped one, the one Lena had told them a hundred times to throw out, and the one they’d kept out of what Lena had always suspected was pure stubbornness rather than sentiment. Roman lifted it, inhaled the steam, and made a small face at the first sip, the way they always did, every single time, as though hot coffee were a personal betrayal they kept forgiving.

Lena had forgotten that. The face. Somewhere in the months since, she’d kept the big things — the voice, the arguments, the whiteboard — and let the small stupid ones slip. It was the small one that undid her now.

Roman turned slightly, just enough that Lena could see the line of their jaw, the familiar concentration as they read something on the counter. Probably the same three words they always reread when they were stalling before starting work. Roman was, Lena thought, constitutionally incapable of just getting on with things.

She didn’t speak the name. She didn’t need to.

The moment echoed: Roman a few feet away and a lifetime away, both at once, doing something as unremarkable as drinking bad coffee badly, entirely unaware that anyone was watching, or that anyone ever would be again.

And then the light shifted, as if the world were inhaling.

Everything waited.

CHAPTER 4: THE ARGUMENT

Lena found Dr Ashby in the lab long after midnight, standing at the central bench with a stack of printouts spread like a fan. The overhead lights were off; only the desk lamp was on, casting a narrow circle of clarity in a room full of shadows.

“You’ve been running it,” Dr Ashby observed, without turning, “The full sequence.”

Lena closed the door behind her, “Yes.”

Dr Ashby lifted one of the pages. The numbers were unmistakable — the energy curve, the stabilisation window, the threshold Lena had sworn she wouldn’t cross without supervision.

“You promised me,” Dr Ashby protested firmly.

“I know.”

“You said you would wait.”

“I know.”

Dr Ashby set the page down, “Then why didn’t you?”

Lena stepped forward, “Because waiting won’t change anything.”

“It will change everything,” Dr Ashby answered sharply, “It will give you time to think… to test and verify. And to make sure you’re not about to destroy yourself.”

Lena’s jaw tightened, “I’m not destroying anything.”

“You don’t know that.”

“I do.”

Dr Ashby turned then — fully, completely — and Lena felt the force of their attention like a physical pressure.

“You’re grieving,” Dr Ashby sighed softly, “and grief makes people reckless.”

“This isn’t about grief…”

“It’s entirely about grief. I’ve read your notes, Lena. Every equation on that whiteboard has Roman’s handwriting underneath it. You’re not chasing a breakthrough. You’re chasing a conversation you didn’t get to finish.”

Lena flinched — the first honest reaction she’d given all night, “That’s not fair!”

“It’s not meant to be fair, it’s meant to be true.”

The room felt smaller. The hum of the equipment seemed louder. Lena could feel the pulse in her throat.

“I can’t stop,” she exclaimed,. “I’m too close.”

“Close to what?” Dr Ashby demanded, “A breakthrough? A collapse?”

Lena didn’t answer.

Dr Ashby stepped closer. “Lena, listen to me. You are brilliant and capable. But you are not invincible. And this—” They gestured to the printouts, “This is not a controlled experiment. This is a gamble.”

“It’s not a gamble,” Lena responded quietly, “It’s the only chance I have.”

Dr Ashby froze. Something crossed their face — quick, unguarded, gone before Lena could name it. It looked almost like envy, which made no sense, and which Lena decided she must have imagined.

“You’re talking like someone who has already decided,” they suggested.

“I have.”

Dr Ashby exhaled slowly, “Then there’s nothing I can say.”

Lena stepped back. “I didn’t come here for permission.”

“I know.”

“I came to tell you because—” She stopped. The words were too heavy to lift.

Dr Ashby waited.

“Because you deserved to know,” Lena finished.

A long silence settled between them — the kind that isn’t really about waiting for the other person to speak, but about neither of them being ready for the conversation to be over.

Dr Ashby nodded once. “If you’re going to do this, at least do it cleanly. Document everything. Run the diagnostics twice. And don’t pretend you’re ready when you’re not.”

Lena swallowed, “Thank you.”

Dr Ashby looked at her — really looked — and for a moment seemed to be deciding whether thirty years of caution had ever actually stopped anyone from doing anything, or whether it had only ever made the leaving harder to watch.

They didn’t say so.

“Go,” Dr Ashby instructed, “Before I change my mind.”

Lena turned and left the lab.

Dr Ashby stood alone in the circle of lamplight, the printouts still fanned across the bench like a hand of cards no one had wanted to deal.

CHAPTER 2: BEFORE

The experiment that eventually changed everything began, as most things do, with an argument about coffee.

Roman had strong opinions. The coffee in the department common room was, in Roman’s view, a form of institutional violence — thin, burnt at the edges, served in cups that retained heat with the enthusiasm of wet paper. Lena had learned to drink it anyway. Roman never did, and never let her forget that she did.

So they worked late, the two of them, with a French press Roman kept in the bottom drawer of the filing cabinet and a bag of Ethiopian single-origin that cost more than either of them could reasonably justify on a postgraduate stipend. This was their ritual. Papers spread across the bench. The hiss of the kettle. Roman reading upside-down over Lena’s shoulder without being asked, correcting her arithmetic in a tone that suggested this was a great personal sacrifice on their part.

“That’s not right,” Roman would say, tapping the page. They were never wrong about this, which Lena found less endearing in the moment than she did later.

They had been working on the temporal displacement model for seven months by then — seven months of equations that looped back on themselves, of diagrams that looked like something between a circuit board and a nervous breakdown. The university didn’t fund it. The department didn’t know it existed. It lived in the margins of other projects, scrawled in notebooks, taking up space that officially belonged to something more respectable.

“Nobody has to know yet,” Roman had observed, in the beginning, with the particular confidence of someone who had never once in their life asked permission for anything they actually wanted to do.

“We’ll know,” Lena replied, “That’s enough.”

She had believed this. She still did, mostly, though “mostly” was doing more work in that concept than she liked to admit.

The night she thought about later — the one she turned over and over in her mind repeatedly — was a Tuesday in November. She remembered the rain, and Roman standing at the whiteboard with a marker, drawing the diagram that would eventually become central to everything: a deck of cards, fanned out, then gathered, then shuffled.

“Time isn’t a river,” Roman theorised, “Everyone thinks it’s a river because that’s how we experience it. One thing, then the next thing, then the next. But that’s just the order we’re dealt the cards. The cards exist all at once. The sequence is an illusion.”

“That’s not a new idea,” Lena replied.

“No.” Roman turned from the board, and there it was — that look Lena had learned to recognise and, later, to miss more than almost anything else about them: complete, unguarded attention, the kind Roman only gave to ideas they hadn’t yet decided were safe to believe in. “But it’s a solvable one.”

Lena had known, in that moment, that they were going to build it. Whatever it took.

What she hadn’t known — what she was careful, even now, not to let herself think about for too long — was what it would end up costing to find out.

“Lena.”

Just her name. Said the way Roman said things that mattered — quietly, without preamble, as though the important things didn’t need volume, only your attention. She looked up from the page.

“We’ll need more coffee.”

She went to put the kettle on. It was, she would think much later, the last completely ordinary thing either of them ever asked of her.

CHAPTER 1: THE DECK

Lena switched on the recorder because writing felt too slow. The lab was empty at this hour, the building quiet in the way only universities become quiet — a silence made of concrete, old wiring, and the faint echo of other people’s work.

“This is a note for the record,” she announced, “Not for publication. Just for accuracy.”

She paused, listening to the soft click of the machine, and found herself irritated at how steady her own voice sounded. She’d expected it to shake.

“People talk about time as if it moves. As if it flows. As if it carries us with it. But that’s just a metaphor we inherited from rivers, and rivers are only one way of thinking about sequence.”

She reached for the deck of cards on the bench: a cheap pack from the campus bookstore, the kind with a glossy finish and a faint chemical smell, the kind Roman would have complained about for a full minute before admitting it was fine, actually, and using it anyway. She fanned the cards out on the metal surface.

“Here,” she thought aloud, “This is time.”

She tapped the cards lightly with her fingertips.

“All the moments exist. All at once. The order we experience them in is just the order we’re dealt. One card, then the next, then the next. Chronology is not a property of time; it’s a property of perception.”

She gathered the cards into a neat stack, and it occurred to her, not for the first time, that she was explaining this as much to herself as to whoever might eventually be listening.

“If you deal them in order, you get a life that makes sense. Cause, effect. Before, after. A story with a beginning and an end.”

She shuffled the deck once — a clean, practiced motion, the kind of thing your hands remember even when the rest of you is exhausted.

“But if you shuffle them, the story changes. The same cards. The same events. Just… rearranged.”

She set the deck down.

“The experiment isn’t about travelling through time. That’s the wrong verb. It’s about changing the order of the cards. Changing the sequence in which a life is dealt.”

She paused. The hum of the equipment filled the space, and for a moment Lena let herself think about how strange it was to be doing something this large in a room this small and ordinary — the same bench she’d spilled coffee on a dozen times, the same flickering fluorescent tube nobody had ever bothered to replace.

“If this works, someone reading this later will have already seen the results. They’ll have seen the cards out of order. They’ll have seen the consequences before the causes. They’ll have watched the ending before the beginning.”

She exhaled slowly, and let herself, just for a second, imagine who that someone might be, before deciding it was better not to.

“And if they’ve reached this point — this chapter — then they’ll understand what to do next.”

She closed the deck, squared the edges, and placed it beside the recorder.

“Start again,” she declared, “This time in order.”

She switched off the machine, and sat for a while longer in the dark before she let herself leave.

©2026 Geoff Allshorn. I show my respect for Elders past and present and acknowledge the Wurundjeri-Willam people, the Traditional Custodians of the Land on which this blog was prepared. Editorial assistance from Claude AI.

Democracy Error 404: World Not Found

Noting International Day of Democracy — Tuesday, 15 September 2026

Image by George Dronov from Pixabay

Something is unsettling the democratic world, and it isn’t a coup. Instead there’s a slower, stranger phenomenon: millions of people, voting freely and correctly by every procedural measure, for outcomes that dismantle the norms and institutions upon which democracy depends. Brexit. MAGA. The rise of illiberal governments in Hungary, Poland, Italy, Argentina, and beyond. Dog whistling politicians in Australia. Distrust of vaccines and medical experts, science and scientists, the UN, the EU, NATO, and the very idea of expertise. Disregard for human rights except when used to support presumed individual privilege. A movement away from the collective, towards the individual.

So… is democracy dying? Not exactly. It might be worse than that: democracy may be working exactly as designed, while delivering results that erode the conditions it needs to survive.

What the data actually shows

Political scientists have a term for this: democratic backsliding — the gradual, often lawful weakening of checks on executive power, judicial independence, and press freedom by leaders who were themselves elected. According to the V-Dem Institute’s 2026 Democracy Report, nearly a quarter of the world’s countries were undergoing autocratization in 2025 — including several in Europe and North America, with growing pressure on media and journalists worldwide.

Crucially, this isn’t confined to fragile or new democracies. Harvard political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt, in their influential book How Democracies Die, argue that modern democracies rarely collapse in a single dramatic moment; instead, critical institutions like the judiciary and the press are worn down slowly, and long-standing political norms erode gradually — often at the hands of leaders who came to power through entirely legitimate elections.

Trust itself is also collapsing, and not just in governments. The 2026 Edelman Trust Barometer — a survey of nearly 34,000 people across 28 countries — found that seven in ten respondents are now unwilling or hesitant to trust someone with different values, backgrounds, or sources of information, a pattern the report calls “insularity,” cutting across income, gender, age, and nation. Edelman’s own framing is stark: trust has stopped being something people extend toward the common good, and started retreating into smaller, more homogeneous circles.

Strengthening the backlash

It would be intellectually lazy — and simply wrong — to treat every Brexit or MAGA voter as a passive dupe or a bad actor. There is real, well-documented material behind the backlash.

Political scientists Ronald Inglehart and Pippa Norris, in their widely cited analysis of populism’s rise, tested two competing theories: that populism is driven by economic insecurity among the “left behind,” or by a cultural backlash against rapid social change. Their research found the most consistent evidence for the cultural backlash thesis — but economic grievance is far from irrelevant. Harvard’s Weatherhead Center notes that political elites have channelled genuine public grievances — anxiety about the Great Recession, terrorism, and mass migration — into ethnoracial resentment and distrust of political institutions, resonating with voters who feel dishonest politicians and distant institutions have failed them.

This matters for how the essay should be read: the people voting for Brexit or for populist strongmen are not, in the main, uniquely narcissistic individuals. Many are responding — rationally, if not always accurately — to decades of deindustrialisation, stagnant wages, and institutions that talked past them rather than to them. Any honest account of “the death of democracy” has to hold that truth alongside the concern about where the backlash has been steered.

Putting the ‘Cult’ in Culture

A further shift beneath democratic backsliding is the way fractured information worlds begin to behave like cults. Not cults in the religious sense, but in the sociological one: closed belief systems, charismatic micro‑authorities, and rigid boundaries between insiders and outsiders. Research across political science, media studies, and sociology shows this pattern emerging when societies lose a shared factual world (Levitsky & Ziblatt, How Democracies Die, 2018; V‑Dem Democracy Report 2026; Edelman Trust Barometer 2026; Sunstein, #Republic, 2017).

Political scientists describe this as a breakdown in common reality. Media scholars show how algorithmic sorting creates insulated information loops. Sociologists studying cultic behaviour note that closed informational systems produce predictable dynamics: identity fused with belief, distrust of external authority, and moralised narratives that frame disagreement as betrayal (Elias–Lasch debate; ResearchGate 2013).

Across countries and political orientations, the same features recur. Information from outside the group is dismissed as biased or corrupt, while internal sources are treated as inherently trustworthy — a pattern reflected in Edelman’s 2026 finding that seven in ten respondents are unwilling to trust anyone with different values or information sources. Beliefs become markers of belonging, and changing one’s mind risks social exclusion rather than intellectual revision. Influencers, niche commentators, and partisan media gain more authority than institutions with formal expertise, a dynamic documented in studies of populist mobilisation (Inglehart & Norris, 2016). Political issues are reframed as purity contests or existential threats, and norm erosion accelerates when opponents are cast as enemies rather than competitors (Levitsky & Ziblatt). Criticism from outside is interpreted as validation — “If they attack us, it proves we’re right” — a pattern widely observed in research on conspiratorial movements (Weatherhead Center, 2016). Conformity is enforced through shaming, ostracism, or withdrawal of trust.

These dynamics matter because they block the basic mechanisms democracy relies on: persuasion, correction, and shared evidence. When information worlds become self‑sealing, citizens no longer revise beliefs in response to new facts. Institutions lose legitimacy not because they fail, but because they sit outside the group’s informational boundary. Elections still occur, but they no longer arbitrate between competing visions of the future; they arbitrate between incompatible realities.

This is the “cult in culture” problem: informational tribes that cannot be left without losing identity, community, and moral certainty. Once enough citizens inhabit these sealed worlds, democracy continues procedurally while losing the shared factual ground it needs to survive.

When “My Rights” Replaces “Our Rights”

Where something does seem to have shifted is in the language of rights itself — from a shared claim (“our rights,” exercised collectively, in solidarity with others) toward an individual one (“my rights,” asserted against the collective, including against public health measures, environmental limits, or the authority of experts).

The American historian Christopher Lasch anticipated a version of this decades ago in The Culture of Narcissism (1979), arguing that economic change — rising prosperity alongside a scarcity of meaningful work — had devalued the wisdom of experience and brought all forms of authority into disrepute, producing a self-absorbed character type more interested in personal validation than collective purpose. It’s worth being honest that Lasch’s thesis has always been contested: critics have called it an empirically unproven, conservative reaction to the social liberalisation of the 1960s and 70s rather than a rigorously demonstrated cultural shift. Lasch himself insisted narcissism wasn’t simply a synonym for selfishness, and blamed both the progressive left (for undermining family structures) and the market right (for dissolving traditional communities) — it was never a partisan diagnosis in his own telling, however it’s since been used.

Whether or not “narcissism” is the precise clinical term for it, something like this dynamic is visible in the data: the same Edelman survey found people increasingly unwilling to trust anyone outside their own circle, and institutions increasingly judged not by whether they serve the common good, but by whether they serve me.

The moment we are living through also exposes the old argument about isms: capitalism versus communism, collectivism versus individualism, authoritarianism versus narcissism. These debates have always been framed as contests between competing ideologies, each claiming to organise society more justly or efficiently than the others. But the present disruption suggests a different reading: the problem is not which ism wins, but what happens when any system — economic, political, or cultural — loses the shared factual world it depends on. Once that common world fractures, the isms stop being frameworks for organising society and start becoming identities people defend, perform, and weaponise. And that is the point at which democracy begins to undo itself.

What can actually be done

This is the harder question, and the honest answer is: nothing fast, and nothing purely rhetorical. But the research does point somewhere.

Cross-partisan coalitions, not culture war. Levitsky and Ziblatt argue that pro-democratic forces need to transcend the partisan divide, building broad coalitions across racial, ethnic, religious, and socioeconomic lines rather than treating democracy’s defence as one side’s project against the other’s. A coalition that only ever recruits from the already-convinced doesn’t reach the people whose trust has been lost.

Take the economic grievance seriously, not just the cultural one. Ziblatt and Levitsky’s reviewers note that economic and social reforms aimed at a more equitable distribution of wealth tend to reduce the polarization that feeds democratic decay. If status anxiety and economic precarity are real drivers of backlash politics, addressing the material grievance is not a concession — it’s part of the fix.

Rebuild trust deliberately, at the local and relational level. Edelman’s own recommendation, drawn directly from the 2026 data, is what they call “trust brokering” — recognising that trust is now rebuilt through relationships (employers, doctors, local voices) rather than declared by distant institutions, and that leaders who consult people with different values and engage constructively with critics can widen circles of trust rather than assuming those circles will widen themselves.

Defend the institutions without pretending they’re beyond criticism. The UN, the EU, NATO, and national governments are not sacred; they are flawed human structures that have, in real instances, failed the people now rejecting them. Defending democratic norms convincingly means acknowledging those failures honestly, not dismissing distrust as ignorance.

A humanist closing thought

None of this fixes itself, and none of it happens quickly. But there is something genuinely humanist in refusing both despair and easy blame — in holding, at once, that democratic backsliding is real and dangerous, that the backlash driving it often has legitimate roots, and that the antidote isn’t nostalgia for institutions as they were, but the same expanding circle of concern humanism has always argued for: one wide enough to take in the people who feel it has left them out.

—

Bibliography

“Democratic Backsliding.” Wikipedia, citing V-Dem Institute Democracy Report 2026.

Levitsky, Steven, and Daniel Ziblatt, How Democracies Die. New York: Crown, 2018.

“How Democracies Die.” Penguin Random House.

“A Discussion of Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt’s How Democracies Die.” University of Washington Department of Political Science.

“How Democracies Die: What History Reveals About Our Future.” Consilium (Council of the EU library blog).

“2026 Edelman Trust Barometer Reveals Trust Is In Peril As Society Slides from Grievance into Insularity.” Edelman, January 18, 2026.

“2026 Edelman Trust Barometer on How to Build Trust in Organizations.” Interfaith America, March 25, 2026.

Inglehart, Ronald F., and Pippa Norris. “Trump, Brexit, and the Rise of Populism: Economic Have-Nots and Cultural Backlash.” Harvard Kennedy School Working Paper RWP16-026, 2016.

“Background to Brexit: Populism, Nationalism, and the Politics of Resentment.” Harvard Weatherhead Center Epicenter, 2016.

“The Culture of Narcissism Summary.” SuperSummary.

“Narcissism or Informalization?: Christopher Lasch, Norbert Elias and Social Diagnosis.” ResearchGate.

Lasch, Christopher. The Culture of Narcissism: American Life in an Age of Diminishing Expectations, New York: W. W. Norton, 1979.

Bibliography — New Sources for “Putting the Cult in Culture”

Sunstein, Cass R. “Echo Chambers.” University of Chicago Public Law Working Paper, 2001.

Sunstein, Cass R. #Republic: Divided Democracy in the Age of Social Media. Princeton University Press, 2017.

Pariser, Eli. The Filter Bubble: What the Internet Is Hiding from You. Penguin, 2011.

Tufekci, Zeynep. “Engineering the Public: Big Data, Surveillance and Computational Politics.” First Monday, 2014.

Mozilla Foundation. “YouTube Regrets: How the Algorithm Drives Extremism.” 2021.

Vosoughi, Soroush, Roy, Deb, and Aral, Sinan. “The Spread of True and False News Online.” Science, 2018.

Trust Collapse and Insularity

Edelman. “2026 Edelman Trust Barometer: Society Slides into Insularity.”

Pew Research Center. “Political Polarization in the American Public.” 2014.

Pew Research Center. “Americans’ Trust in Government: 2022.”

Cult Dynamics, Identity Fusion, Group Psychology

Hogg, Michael A. “Uncertainty–Identity Theory.” Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 2007.

Langone, Michael. “Cults: Questions and Answers.” International Cultic Studies Association.

Singer, Margaret Thaler. Cults in Our Midst. Jossey-Bass, 2003.

Hassan, Steven. Combating Cult Mind Control. Freedom of Mind Press, 2015.

Populism, Identity, and Closed Belief Systems

Inglehart, Ronald F., and Pippa Norris. “Trump, Brexit, and the Rise of Populism: Economic Have-Nots and Cultural Backlash.” Harvard Kennedy School Working Paper RWP16-026, 2016.

Gidron, Noam, and Hall, Peter A. “Populism as a Problem of Social Integration.” Comparative Political Studies, 2020.

Mudde, Cas. The Far Right Today. Polity Press, 2019.


©2026 Geoff Allshorn. I acknowledge the Wurundjeri-Willam people, the Traditional Custodians of the land on which this blog was prepared, and show my respect for Elders past and present. Research assistance supplied by AI.