Discussing Collapse – with friends and colleagues, for a purpose

“Oh you’re looking a bit better today. Are you ready for your lunch?” The friendly carer had entered my father’s room with a bright bustle and spoke with high and energetic tones. Her phrasing and tone were what you might expect around someone recovering from surgery. But Dad wasn’t getting better. He was terminally ill, with weeks or months to live, depending on how fast the cancer would spread. Sitting in the corner of the room, I wondered what the carer might have meant beneath her words and manner. It’s a tough job, and perhaps more bearable if she maintains the appearance of working in a place of healing. Perhaps she actually thought Dad looked a bit better that day. Or perhaps she thought it is better for the patients to receive positive feedback that might improve their mood, and even their appetite. At the time my Dad grumbled slightly before a ‘knowing smile’ that might have meant: “not bad for a guy bedbound by bone cancer and looking forward to the next dose of morphine”. I wondered whether he was doing the emotional work of ‘keeping up appearances’ and avoiding an ‘unspeakable topic’, even in a nursing home — the topic of death. Soon after his terminal diagnosis, I had felt awkward discussing death with Dad, and it felt easier to leave him a book about the process of dying and how friends, relatives and others can behave as a loved one faces death. Later on, we talked more fully, in a way that felt like lifting a burden of silence and denial. That experience suggested a different quality of experience could be had in nursing homes if normalising the topic of dying and death would be part of how we showed care for the terminally ill. It also highlighted to me the benefits of talking about things which society has deemed taboo, or unspeakable. As you are reading my writing, you know that such topics have included environmental and societal collapse. That is why a new book on the topic is titled ‘unspeakable’. Its authors Richard Hill and Jean Renouf understand that as this taboo begins to be broken, we can benefit from clarifying for ourselves why we want to voice the unspeakable, and how to talk about it for positive outcomes. So I want to share with you how we have been approaching this in the peer mentoring of the Metacrisis Initiative, as the lessons can be applied elsewhere.

The philosopher and sociologist Michel Foucault showed that what a society permits to be said is bound up with power, so taboos are maintained, not natural. Some topics are rendered ‘unspeakable’ because speaking them threatens comfort, order, or hierarchical power. With that in mind, one could see a taboo around death in institutional settings as being enforced by others’ discomfort rather than the dying person’s need. That discomfort reflects a deeper aversion to death in a culture that has pushed many questions arising from the fact of our mortality to the side. A society of people more attentive to the fragility of life and therefore reverent to their own experience of life, might be a society with more unpredictable behaviours. As I’ve written before, many people who become ‘collapse aware’ begin to live more from their heart’s desires and feel more ‘wild’ about life. That, in itself, can seem a good reason for being ready to share our opinions on the matters of environmental destruction, metacrisis, and societal collapse. However, the first question we must ask ourselves when considering to speak the unspeakable is why – what are we trying to achieve for ourselves, the people we are talking to, and wider society. Only when that is clear can we move on confidently to questions about how to talk about this topic and with whom. Therefore, before presenting the container for discussions in the peer mentoring groups, I will share some reflections on the matter of our intention. 

Positive intentions for discussing collapse

There can be positive intentions for breaking social taboos, and speaking the unspeakable. As a taboo-breaker for some years, on the subject of societal collapse, I have come to recognise some negative ‘near neighbours’ or shadows to positive reasons for talking about it, as well as other taboo subjects. The first obviously positive reason to speak uncomfortable truths is to invite attention to reality. Only if we are prepared to discuss what might be true can we then reach greater understanding and find appropriate responses. The shadow to that could be wielding a truthful statement as a weapon, where “just being honest” is part of wanting to dominate or dismiss people. A second reason for breaking taboos can be to reduce the suffering of isolation that people feel in not having their situation and feelings validated. In contexts like nursing homes and hospices, it gives a terminally ill person the permission to accept their situation, with the potential for more connection, or even intimacy. The shadow to that would be if our prime interest is unburdening ourselves, not connection with someone we are in discussion with. A third benefit from speaking the unspeakable can be the enabling of mourning and repair. That’s because silence around any matter involving loss or damage can freeze the situation so that grief, accountability, learning and change cannot proceed. Perhaps the negative ‘near neighbour’ to that would be if we try to force a reckoning before those we are communicating with are ready. The fourth positive reason for breaking taboos that I know of is to try to protect people, especially when breaking taboos involves warnings of impending harm, so that people have the chance to prepare both individually and collectively. But because that desire to protect can involve our ego, it requires vigilance about a number of shadows. There can be a desire for expressing our courage, where we regard ourselves as the ones brave enough to say the unspeakable. There can also be a performance of profundity, where we wish to see ourselves as belonging to a group of more conscious or knowledgeable people. 

Whatever the topic, and depending on context, the same words can be an act of love, indifference, or cruelty. As many ancient wisdoms teach, intention and context are key. So rather than just thinking we are doing good by breaking taboos, whether that’s on death, or on capitalism, or on hidden psychological wounds, or on collapse, or on something else, we can check in on our intentions. We can ask the extent to which we are being other-directed, considering what the listener needs to hear. We can ask if we are being proportionate, with the amount, timing, and tone of our communications being suitable for the particular person and moment. And we can check whether we are accepting responsibility for potential consequences instead of hiding behind “it needed saying.”

These broad ideas on positive and negative reasons for breaking taboos are also useful to keep in mind when hearing the increasingly dramatic claims of commentators in broadcast and social media. A lot more people are on my screens claiming they are breaking taboos in telling me their new information, theory or views. I am also seeing a lot more pronouncements of impending doom than I did before. Perhaps that is just the algorithm targeting my own interests, but the people I speak with, and the opinion polls on the state of the world, all indicate societal collapse is a more widely discussed topic. That reflects something real. But whether the pundits are telling us that the threat is Artificial Intelligence, a political movement, a cultural shift, a foreign power, or an evil cabal, we can remain alert to whether they have our interests in mind. 

If you are discussing societal collapse with people, then I recommend taking a moment to reflect on why you are doing that  — both in general, and in the particular context of your audience (whether that is one person or a group, and written or verbal). Although we might not regard the topic of collapse as equivalent to giving a terminal diagnosis to our conversation partner or audience, it can be heard like that. Therefore, it can generate forms of anxiety associated with experiencing unsafety and remembering mortality. That potential response invites our caution. In my previous reflection on the emotional labour of “communicating collapse” in public, I explained that giving speeches and interviews involves special consideration of how we impact on others. However, discussions in small groups of friends, relatives and colleagues are far more normal occurrences in life. And those conversations can be powerful, even transformative, especially so when participating with that intention as part of an ongoing process. So let’s look at that a bit more. 

In the years after Deep Adaptation became known as an approach to our environmental situation, I gained some experience on how to host conversations on this emotionally challenging topic. In particular, there was a need to provide space and time for difficult emotions to surface, before moving into discussions about what to do in response. With my colleague at the Deep Adaptation Forum at the time, I co-wrote an academic paper on the methodology we developed, called ‘deep relating’. Since then I have come to see the potential of a more generic and generative framework for people to meet and support each other in these times of material decline, biophysical loss, social upheaval, and valid dread about the future. Therefore, I developed a framework for peer mentoring in the metacrisis, and have been piloting it with 8 groups over the past year. In the rest of this essay I will present the guidance we use for that peer mentoring. This guidance is suited for any type of group that meets for peer support, not just on the metacrisis. That’s because the guidance helps move participants in groups beyond the habits of mere information exchange. If it resonates with you, please bring it to any groups you are already part of. A fuller guide to the process will be released in 2027, after further refinements. If you want to create your own metacrisis peer mentoring group, outside of the framework of the Metacrisis Initiative, then I recommend you first participate in our peer mentoring to learn the process.

Principles and Guidance within the Peer Mentoring of the Metacrisis Initiative

In the Metacrisis Initiative, we gather to explore how to give and gain insight on living our lives more fully in the context of fracturing societies. The approach to peer mentoring is therefore guided by six working principles, which are outlined in an essay on why this approach breaks with traditional coaching methodologies.

1.  Beyond Individualism: we shift focus from individual self-actualisation to experiencing ourselves as a participant in collective reconnection and liberation.

2.  Contextual Awareness: we do not assume stability but actively support reflection and adaptation within volatile and uncertain conditions.

3.  Welcoming Emotions: grief, fear, and dread are not framed as obstacles but as understandable responses that can be sources of insight and solidarity.

4.  Critical Use of Frameworks: we maintain an ongoing awareness and critique of any frameworks used, preventing attachment to any single methodology.

5.  Acknowledging Perspective: we do not assume the neutrality of our peers, but recognise that the values and beliefs of all participants are part of the peer mentoring process.

6.  Democratising Support: we regard the ability to support others as something to be shared, so encourage participants to learn how to facilitate and bring practices learned in our peer mentoring to other groups.

We recognize the process of becoming our better selves in the current global context is not something we’ve got a blueprint for. Therefore our curiosity to learn from each other, no matter what our levels and types of experience, is key. That is also why we welcome a diversity of people within our groups, in terms of age, education and culture. We encourage each other to share our insights, strategies and philosophies as tools in our life, and as ways to relate to life, the world, and, perhaps, the divine. Nevertheless, we do not aim to persuade anyone. And though we aim to listen to everyone actively during our meetings, we don’t offer advice unless invited. To help all participants maintain that approach, the following four tips have proven to be helpful:

1. We each take a ‘soft’ responsibility for the whole group process. That means each participant should know the guidance on how the group is meant to function and be ready to gently remind others, including the (rotating) chairperson, if/when some parts of the process get overlooked. Some basics include that we keep to topic and time, hear from everyone, and be mindful about consent. 
2. We prefer to share from personal experience, not from a model, doctrine, or specific philosophy. Many frameworks can be very helpful, so we might share how a particular one has helped us. (I-statements can be helpful in keeping it personal.) If someone shares in a way that sounds like – “this is the truth”, or “this is what we all need to know”- we can invite them back to the personal, with a follow-up question, such as: “How does that work for you?” or “How do you use that in your life?”
3. We don’t give advice unsolicited. However, as we are aiming to help each other, some strategies that work better than giving advice include asking a question, such as “how do you deal with that,” or telling a story that might be relevant to the other person’s situation.
4. We can disagree gracefully. To hold space for differences is rare and very valuable. Instead of conforming to one way of thinking, and dismissing those who think differently, we appreciate different points of view as it challenges stuck ideas about a fluid reality. For people to feel safe to express, we agree to talk gently, respectfully and with care. This includes respecting the varying views on the nature of our predicament and the possibilities for positive action.*

Key for any group to be able to generate peer support is that there are some foundational principles and commitments amongst its participants. So, in the peer mentoring of the Metacrisis Initiative, we confirm that we recognise that our context is usefully described as either metacrisis or societal collapse. The list of participant commitments is outlined here.

As our peer mentoring involves everyone taking joint responsibility for the process, the role of chairperson rotates for each meeting. That also provides opportunities for people to develop their skills and experience in facilitating meetings. The organisers of each group help the volunteer chairperson prepare for their meeting, reminding them of some tips for when chairing, including the following:

1. Decide in advance how you will invite people to speak, rather than waiting for people to choose when. Remind people they can pass on any round of sharing. At the end of a round, come back to anyone who passed to gently check if they now wish to share.
2. Explain at the start how you will try to keep people to time. You might choose a hand gesture and/or use a timer and/or a device that makes a sound.
3. In the sessions with open discussion, try to hear from everyone, avoid replying to each person’s contribution, don’t assume that common themes need identifying, and delay sharing your perspective until many voices have been heard. 
4. Welcome it if a participant speaks up about the process. We all forget to do certain things, and the soft responsibility of every participant for the process means you can lean on them to point out if something isn’t being done as agreed or advised. 
5. If someone arrives late, wait for an appropriate break in process to then acknowledge them and recap what has been done and what comes next.

In addition to these general tips, individual meetings can use specific methodologies. Those methodologies can be chosen by a chairperson for one meeting, or draw from the options provided by the Metacrisis Initiative, such as the ‘clarity groups’. The discussions occur within an understanding of the type of qualities or orientations we wish to cultivate in ourselves as we face disruption and collapse. I mapped that out in the RECKON framework, as a personal development agenda that helps us free ourselves from the habits of oppressive ideology. Participants can also draw upon relevant frameworks for responding to metacrisis and collapse, including the 6Rs of Deep Adaptation and the ‘Rainbow Prepping’ list of action areas. The latter is particularly suitable for self-assessment and goal setting, as we do in the peer mentoring groups.

Observing how the first cohort of groups progressed over six months, I have been impressed by the way people have recognised the benefit of a structure that enables a focus on peer support for changing our lives positively in response to metacrisis and collapse. I have also noticed that on rare occasions a chairperson is not that well prepared, or misunderstands an aspect of the process, having mutual trust and shared responsibility means that someone can step up and correct the process. 

If you have read this far, and aren’t already a peer mentor, please look at the relevant commitments required of participants, and consider joining the next cohort, starting in November. To do so, you need to be a paying subscriber to this website, and complete your mentoring registration request by October 14th 2026. If you are already a member, then the links for signing up, or being reassigned to a new group, follow below (please act on that this week). If you are a young professional (under 35), or from the ‘Global South’, or have limited means, please request free membership here. Otherwise, it is $8 a month.

*Three of these emerged out of a local satsang group which I co-founded in Ubud, and I am grateful to Vasudev for clarifying them.