When a Civilization Wears Down Its Own Mind

Across countries and age groups, more and more people describe the same thing: broken sleep, shrinking focus, a mind that loops around money, work, health, children, the future. They feel more tired without doing less. They lose words more often. They snap faster, regret it faster and recover more slowly.

---

What used to be an individual story of stress is turning into the mental climate of whole societies. We are living through a slow, uneven civilizational cognitive decline. By civilizational cognitive decline I mean something precise: a long-term, population-level erosion of attention, memory, empathy and executive function, driven not by genes or age but by the way our economies, technologies and politics are organized. It is what happens when the conditions of life make it harder and harder for ordinary people to live up to basic ideals of human dignity and solidarity. The daily experience of that erosion is what I call the bandwidth crisis: too many demands, too many signals, too many actual or perceived threats for a finite human nervous system to process.

The same forces that are heating the planet and widening economic gaps are also eroding attention, empathy and hope across entire populations. Inequality does not only divide incomes. It divides mental bandwidth: who has the surplus to follow politics, plan long term, care about strangers – and who is forced to spend almost all of their cognitive energy on surviving the month. On that eroded and unequal mental ground, populism and division build their house.

We are addressing a systemic issue: the stories and scenes in this text are not special cases but examples of a pattern that now affects millions. If they sound familiar, it is because the system is working exactly as designed.

In the midst of cognitive decline

We usually talk about cognitive decline as something that belongs at the end of life or in a medical file. Look around. Forgetfulness, mental fog, shorter attention, broken sleep, thinner patience with other people’s needs – these are no longer marginal symptoms. They are becoming the background climate inside which we all try to function. We are not standing outside, observing a trend. We are in the midst of it.

On the surface it looks banal. You reread the same paragraph. You lose the thread in conversations that once felt effortless. You feel your temper shorten. The mind circles the same small cluster of worries again and again. It is easy to interpret this as personal weakness or just “getting older”. It is neither. It is what happens when too many threats are run in parallel for too long.

We are forced into multi-tasking all the actual and perceived threats that crowd our days. The human brain can handle a concrete danger: a storm, a conflict at work, a sick relative. It was never built to process all of it at once. Today the same narrow strip of working memory is asked to juggle rent increases, interest rates, melting ice sheets, war footage, school results, ageing parents, our own health, our children’s future. Each of these claims urgency. Each insists on attention now.

The result is a kind of civilian war zone in the nervous system. Many of us live in physical safety, yet our stress system behaves as if we are under constant attack. Sleep fractures. Concentration frays. Deep lines of thought are replaced by short loops of worry. Over time this does not only make us tired. It changes what kind of people we are capable of being.

This reality sits on several levels at once.

On the biological level, years of raised stress hormones, interrupted sleep and constant micro-distractions do not leave the brain untouched. Circuits for deep focus weaken. Circuits for scanning, checking and reacting grow stronger. A teenager who has spent their formative years in permanent distraction will not have the same cognitive profile as someone who grew up with long stretches of undisturbed reading and play. The nervous system remains plastic, but there is no reset button that takes us back to a mythical “before”.

On the biographical level, the damage is measured in time. Years that could have gone into learning, craft, relationships and reflection are eaten by firefighting and survival. No reform can give those specific hours and seasons back.

On the societal level, the consequences are even more serious. Institutions rest on human bandwidth. A school is not its building; it is the collected attention, memory and patience of teachers and pupils. A hospital is not its equipment; it is the presence, judgement and emotional stability of its staff. A democracy is not its constitution; it is the capacity of citizens to follow arguments, remember history, weigh trade-offs and still care about the common good.

When cognitive and emotional capacity is eroded in millions of individuals at the same time, the load-bearing structures of society weaken even if the formal architecture remains. Things still function on paper, but on thinner and thinner ice. You can already see it in burned-out healthcare workers, teachers who can no longer prepare as they once did, journalists caught in the same attention economy they are supposed to examine, voters who can manage slogans but not sustained debate.

We understand ecological tipping points. Destroy enough wetland or warm the oceans enough and parts of the system will not bounce back within any relevant timescale. There are cognitive and civic tipping points as well. A society can lose so much attention, so much trust and so much capacity for “we” that recovery is no longer a matter of a quick policy shift or a few digital detox weekends. Some of the damage is irreversible, and that weakens the structure and integrity of the entire society.

The bandwidth crisis

What we are living through can be described as a bandwidth crisis: a systemic overload that erodes attention, memory, empathy and hope across whole populations. The bandwidth crisis is the mechanism. Civilizational cognitive decline is the long-term outcome.

We are constantly asked to update, respond, absorb, adjust. The economy injects chronic insecurity. The climate crisis sounds a permanent background alarm. The political climate produces outrage and fear. The digital environment interrupts every attempt at deep focus. All of these forces compete for the same limited cognitive and emotional resources.

A nervous system forced into near-continuous alert narrows its field of concern. You focus on your own bills, your own family, your own future. You become angrier, more reactive, less patient with other people’s problems. It is not that you suddenly stop caring about the wider world. It is that your internal resources are running on empty.

The mental surplus needed for solidarity, climate responsibility and democratic engagement is quietly consumed by the effort of just getting through the week. From the outside this can look like apathy or selfishness. In reality it is a civilization draining the very capacities it needs to save itself.

And this decline is not evenly distributed. Mental surplus has become a question of class. Behavioral economists have shown that poverty itself acts like a kind of bandwidth tax: living with too little money or too little time forces the brain into constant juggling, reducing the capacity for long-term thinking, self-control and problem solving. Scarcity does not just hurt the wallet. It eats into the mental resources needed to escape it.

Those with money can still buy pockets of calm: better housing, quieter neighborhoods, work with more autonomy, access to therapists, time in nature, weeks without notifications. They can shield their children from some of the worst digital environments, or at least surround them with counterweights.

Those without this buffer are left to carry the heaviest cognitive load. Precarious jobs. Shift work. Several part-time contracts instead of one secure role. Aggressive debt collection. Unstable housing. Food that fills the stomach but does little for long-term health. Cheap entertainment that is addictive by design. Bureaucracies that punish any mistake with time-consuming penalties. The same climate shocks and price spikes that the affluent can treat as “signals” show up as existential threats at the bottom.

The cruel irony is that the people most affected by political decisions often have the least mental surplus to fight them. Their bandwidth is consumed by immediate survival. Mental capital is being extracted from exactly the groups whose voices we most need in the room if we are serious about justice and transition. Inequality becomes self-reinforcing: those with the least power also have the least cognitive space to organize for more.

We have learned to talk about energy poverty. We need to start talking about bandwidth poverty: a lack of reliable access to the cognitive and emotional resources needed to navigate an increasingly complex world – and to defend your own interests in it. In an unequal society, bandwidth poverty is not a side effect. It is a tool of control.

The attention war and the hollowing of social fabric

Part of our bandwidth is simply stolen. Social media and gaming platforms are not neutral tools that we happen to overuse. They are designed as battlefields for our attention. Every scroll, notification and “suggested” clip is part of an architecture that earns money by keeping our nervous system slightly tense and never fully satisfied.

For adults this means evenings that never really become rest and nights that never fully become nights. For children and teenagers it means growing up in environments like Roblox, Fortnite and endless short-form video streams where aggression, status, humiliation and self-promotion are woven into the logic of the game. These spaces do not only extract time and money. They train emotional reflexes. They normalize comparison without context, conflict without repair, visibility without real intimacy.

Bit by bit, thicker forms of belonging are replaced by something synthetic. We are “connected” all the time, yet lonelier than ever. The body does not get what it needs. We need physical presence, human touch, the feeling of being seen, heard and understood in rooms where no algorithm measures our engagement. Without that, the nervous system never fully calms.

The result is a population that is at once overstimulated and undernourished: flooded with signals, starved of real contact. The cost is visible in rising anxiety, self-harm, addiction and attention problems, especially among the young. It is visible in weaker communities, thinner friendships, declining willingness to engage with people outside our own bubble.

Politically this produces citizens who are easy to agitate and difficult to organize. Quick to react, hard to mobilize for anything that requires patience, nuance or trust. That is ideal terrain for outrage entrepreneurs and conspiracy peddlers, and a deeply hostile environment for long-term climate policy and social reform.

When empathy thins, division pays

One of the first casualties of structural overload is our collective emotional intelligence. Empathy is not a soft add-on or a private virtue. It is intensive work for the brain and basic infrastructure for any humanist society. It demands time, safety and a certain inner spaciousness to imagine another person’s reality and let it matter.

When people live in mental survival mode for years, that space collapses. The nervous system quietly reorders its priorities. Protect your own. Shrink your circle. Save energy. You do not stop caring in principle, but in practice there is less left over. Everyday kindness becomes harder. The benefit of the doubt becomes rarer. The social fabric that once held different lives together wears down thread by thread.

This is the emotional ground modern populism builds on. When empathy is weakened, it becomes far easier to sort people into “us” and “them”, to blame rather than understand, to see your own security as dependent on someone else’s loss. The same forces that drain our cognitive capacity also drain our willingness to see complexity in other human beings.

Populism does not need to create fear and anger; those feelings are already produced by economic insecurity, climate anxiety and the attention economy. What populism does is give these feelings a target. Migrants. “Elites”. Welfare recipients. Environmentalists. Brussels. Any group will do, as long as it can be painted as the reason why you feel unsafe and exhausted.

The rise of polarization is not a bug in the system. It is a business model built on exhausted minds. A population with weakened empathy will not instinctively search for common ground. It will look for someone to blame.

For climate and justice politics this is disastrous. Any serious transition requires trust, patience and a willingness to share burdens in a way that feels fair. A society running on thin emotional and cognitive margins will not automatically choose fairness. It will choose apparent simplicity. It will choose whoever promises quick relief and a clear scapegoat.

Breakfast in Oslo

All of this crystallizes in a scene from a breakfast table in Oslo.

At that table sit a young researcher and her partner. She spends her days looking at data on violence, online harm and the psychological cost of our digital systems. She sees the cracks in our civilization from close range. Over coffee and bread they have made a decision: despite everything they know, they will try to become parents.

The decision is not wrapped in easy optimism. It comes with mixed feelings: quiet happiness braided with worry, calculation, even a kind of moral doubt. She knows too much about the climate crisis, about democratic backsliding, about the mental health of her own generation to pretend that bringing a child into this world is simply “natural”. To say yes to a child today is to say yes in full knowledge of the odds.

For her generation, this emotional landscape is new. When many in the previous generation became parents, they had worries, of course, but under them lay a fairly solid assumption that the future would be more or less manageable, perhaps even better. For those in their thirties today, that assumption has fractured. To decide for a child now is, in itself, an act of courage, almost of defiance.

The point is not that they should have chosen differently. On the contrary, decisions like theirs may be exactly the stubborn commitment to life that we will need. But the emotional texture around that decision has changed. Parenthood is no longer sheltered by an automatic belief in progress. It has become a moral and cognitive weight that sits on an already overloaded nervous system.

Multiply that feeling by millions and you get something you can see in the statistics. Birth rates falling well below replacement in country after country.

Enormous state efforts to encourage childbearing, with limited success. Behind the financial calculations lies a quieter message: many people no longer trust the future, the system, or their own energy enough to bring children into this story.

That is what civilizational cognitive decline and loss of hope look like when expressed in demography.

The generational cost

Look twenty or thirty years ahead along the current trend line and the picture sharpens.

We are raising one generation in constant distraction and low-grade threat. We are asking another generation to spend its best years juggling burnout economies, climate dread and political chaos instead of building skills, communities and institutions. We are staffing schools, hospitals and media organizations with people who have never known a world with stable attention and rising hope as the backdrop.

We would be fooling ourselves if we assumed that such a civilization will have the same democratic reflexes, the same capacity for solidarity, as the one that built our post-war structures. We are changing not only what we know, but what we are capable of caring about and sustaining.

The deeper risk is that while we argue about climate goals, tax reforms and security doctrines, we are burning through the mental capital that any such project would need in order to succeed. We design politics as if people had the attention of a monk and the nervous system of a tank. They don’t. They have ordinary, overloaded human minds.

Inequality sharpens the trap. The young and the poor are asked to adapt to climate chaos, unstable labor markets and a rigged housing market while carrying the heaviest bandwidth tax. They are told to “take responsibility for the future” from a starting position of sleep debt, financial fear and constant digital distraction. The result is a generation that sees the risks more clearly than their parents did, but has less surplus attention and stability with which to act on that knowledge.

We talk about the climate crisis and the inequality crisis as if they were separate from our inner lives. They are tightly coupled: the same dynamics that heat the atmosphere and concentrate wealth are also exhausting the minds that would have to organize resistance and build alternatives.

Mental infrastructure a political project

If this diagnosis is anywhere near the truth, mental bandwidth and empathy cannot be left to the wellness industry. They are not private lifestyle issues. They are public infrastructure. A society that calls itself humanist cannot be content with formal rights on paper if people’s minds are too exhausted to use them.

Schools, libraries and cultural spaces are not decorative. They are our remaining training grounds for deep attention and shared meaning. Treating them as optional is like treating drinking water as a lifestyle product. Access to nature is not a luxury. It is a proven way to let nervous systems recover. Predictable housing and fair work conditions are not only economic questions. They create or destroy the background sense of safety on which emotional availability depends.

Regulating the most predatory attention technologies is not paternalism. It is protection of a common resource. When a handful of platforms can unilaterally shape the daily mental load of hundreds of millions, they are in practice managing part of our civilization’s cognitive climate. That cannot be left entirely to business models built on maximizing engagement; it suits those models too well when people are tired, angry and divided.

Climate and inequality policy also need to be seen through this lens. Measures that reduce chronic insecurity, toxic stress and daily chaos are not soft sidetracks to the “real” work of transforming energy systems and markets. They are preconditions. If we ignore the bandwidth crisis, climate policy will keep crashing into the same wall: people who are already at their cognitive limit. If we ignore bandwidth poverty, inequality will deepen not only in income and health, but in the basic ability to think clearly, plan long-term and participate in democracy. We will end up with a small, over-represented class that has both money and mental surplus – and a large, underrepresented class that is kept too tired and too worried to challenge them.

People have already stretched themselves more than the systems around them deserve. Nurses, teachers, parents, young people on insecure contracts – they are not under-performing, they are over-coping. The next move is not another call for “resilience training”. It is to redesign work, welfare, school and the digital environment so that an ordinary nervous system can once again afford empathy, curiosity and hope.

We have treated mental bandwidth as if it were endless. It is not. If we keep spending it as we do now, we will discover that a civilization can lose its future long before the last glacier melts or the last institution formally collapses. It can lose it in bedrooms at 3:17am, in classrooms where no one can concentrate, in breakfast conversations where having a child feels more like a moral gamble than a natural step.

That is the point we are approaching. Naming it is the first step away from it.