BLACKOUT SELECTION AND THE ANTI-DARWINIAN REGIME OF EXTRACTION

Excerpt from L. Poenaru, LOST IN SELF-CONSUMPTION. Blackout Selection and the Anti-Darwinian Regime of Extraction (in press, Cambridge Scholars)

What kind of system selects individuals only to erode the very capacities it depends on? What form of selection no longer aims at preservation, stabilization, or reproduction, but instead organizes the progressive depletion of those it identifies as most functional? And what does it mean, biologically and structurally, to live within an environment where visibility has replaced viability as the primary condition of existence?

The Blackout Challenge offers a critical point of entry into this question. It should not be understood merely as an isolated pathological practice or as a marginal digital aberration. Rather, it functions as an extreme model of the system’s deeper logic, making visible in concentrated form what ordinarily remains distributed across less spectacular behaviors. The Blackout Challenge can be defined as a socially mediated, visibility-oriented practice of voluntary oxygen deprivation, in which the pursuit of attention and recognition overrides basic self-preservation mechanisms, exposing participants to severe neurological and fatal risks. Thus, the search for attention and visibility overtakes the organism’s most basic protective orientation. The challenge stages, in condensed and brutal form, a degeneration of vital instincts for the sake of appearing. What is exposed here is not simply reckless conduct, but a structural inversion in which self-preservation is subordinated to the imperative of visibility. The Blackout Challenge is therefore not outside the system; it is one of its most radical revelations.

If selection is no longer oriented toward survival, then its logic must be reconsidered from the ground up. Classical evolutionary frameworks assume that traits are retained because they confer stability across time — resistance to stress, reproductive advantage, metabolic efficiency (Darwin, 1859). Yet the contemporary environment operates according to a different criterion. What is retained is not what endures, but what performs under conditions of continuous activation. The capacity to remain responsive, visible, and productive under pressure becomes the decisive variable. However, this capacity is not consolidated. It is mobilized and consumed.

The organism, under such conditions, does not regulate itself toward equilibrium but toward sustained engagement. The mechanisms described in physiological terms as allostatic processes — designed to adapt to short-term demands — are no longer intermittent. They become chronic. Stress response systems remain activated beyond their functional horizon; attentional systems are continuously solicited (Citton, 2016); affective regulation is destabilized by repeated cycles of stimulation and depletion. The result is not adaptation, but wear. Not resilience, but erosion. This condition aligns with what has been conceptualized as allostatic load: the cumulative biological burden imposed by chronic stress and repeated adaptation demands (McEwen & Stellar, 1993; McEwen, 2007).

Within this configuration, selection follows a paradoxical logic. Individuals capable of sustaining elevated levels of performance, visibility, and cognitive load are preferentially retained — not because they exhibit long-term viability, but because they remain immediately operational within a regime governed by urgency and short temporal horizons. The criterion is not durability, but usability under pressure. What is selected is therefore not biological fitness in any evolutionary sense, but a capacity for exploitation under constraint.

The regime of selection by destruction follows a binary imperative: perform or disappear. There is no stable middle ground. One must accelerate, produce, respond, circulate — or risk invisibility and functional exclusion. Existence becomes conditional upon continuous activation, and progressively, visibility itself begins to function as a proxy for existence. The Blackout Challenge represents the extreme threshold of this logic: a situation in which visibility no longer merely competes with survival, but overrides it.

This imperative organizes the system along a structural polarity. The term “bipolar” is used here in a formal, non-clinical sense. It designates an oscillatory architecture between two poles: hyperactivation and collapse. At the pole of hyperactivation, intensity is valorized. Speed, productivity, emotional amplification, and uninterrupted responsiveness become markers of value. Temporal compression dominates: delay is deficiency, rest is weakness, withdrawal is failure. This dynamic aligns with analyses of accelerated temporality and attention capture within digital environments (Rosa, 2013; Citton, 2017).

Yet this phase is metabolically costly. Sustained activation of stress-response systems, without adequate recovery, leads to cumulative physiological strain. Allostatic load increases, regulatory systems destabilize, and the organism’s capacity to maintain performance declines (McEwen, 2007). From this degradation emerges the opposing pole: collapse. Burnout, fatigue, disengagement, and withdrawal are not anomalies but structured outcomes of prolonged overactivation. Empirical research on occupational burnout consistently shows that prolonged exposure to high demands without recovery leads to emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and reduced efficacy (Maslach et al., 2001; Schaufeli et al., 2009).

At this point of collapse, a further inversion appears. The drive for visibility does not simply disappear; it intensifies and fuses with the very condition of existence. When recognition becomes the primary index of being, its loss produces not only disengagement but a contraction of meaning. In extreme configurations, the pursuit of visibility can escalate toward forms of risk-taking where exposure itself becomes the last available proof of existence. Empirical work on social media risk behaviors suggests that visibility-driven environments can amplify engagement with harmful or extreme content through reinforcement dynamics linked to attention and reward systems (Nesi et al., 2018; Orben & Przybylski, 2019). Under such conditions, mortal risk can emerge as an ultimate threshold of intensity — not as an inherent drive toward death, but as a structural consequence of an environment where visibility and existence converge. The Blackout Challenge marks this limit with particular clarity: it is the point at which the organism’s vital safeguards are suspended in exchange for maximal exposure. This is the darkest consequence of the anti-Darwinian logic, when the will to appear displaces the instinct to survive.

To formalize this dynamic, the model can be represented schematically as follows:

Figure 1. Blackout Selection: The Anti-Darwinian Regime of Extraction

This schema makes explicit that selection occurs at the level of activation and visibility, not long-term viability. Individuals enter the system with available physiological and cognitive reserves, are mobilized under conditions of sustained engagement, accumulate biological and psychological strain, and eventually reach collapse. From there, one path leads to re-engagement through intensified attempts to recover visibility, sometimes through escalating risk; the other leads to exclusion and replacement. The continuity of the system is therefore secured not by preserving subjects, but by extracting from them and substituting them when depleted.

This oscillation is intrinsic to the tempo of the environment. Intermediate states — reflection, ambivalence, recovery — are systematically devalued because they interrupt output. Temporal slack disappears. Without slack, regulation becomes impossible. The result is a compression of viable subjectivities into a narrow band of high activation, reducing adaptive variability and increasing systemic fragility.

This produces a structural inversion of Darwinian logic. Selection no longer filters variability to preserve advantageous traits; it amplifies certain traits only to accelerate their exhaustion. High-performing individuals are driven toward thresholds of breakdown. Burnout, cognitive fatigue, affective volatility, and disengagement are not anomalies within this system but predictable outcomes (Maslach et al., 2001).

The continuity of the system does not depend on the preservation of individuals, but on their replacement. As capacities are depleted, new subjects enter the cycle, bringing fresh reserves of attention, energy, and adaptability. This extractive dynamic resonates with analyses of modern power in which individuals internalize systemic demands through continuous self-regulation (Foucault, 1979).

At the species level, this dynamic does not imply immediate biological extinction. What is being selected is not genetic survival, but modes of being — patterns of attention, forms of subjectivity, and structures of social relation. If left unchecked, such dynamics may progressively reshape well-being, social bonds, and mental health, not through direct extinction, but through cultural and behavioral selection pressures (McEwen, 2007; Orben & Przybylski, 2019). The issue is therefore not simply what survives biologically, but what kinds of subjectivity and social life are being made more probable.

This is why the concept at stake cannot be reduced to an extension of eugenics. There is no stabilization of traits, no consolidation of a “fitter” population. What emerges instead is a form of selection that undermines its own conditions of possibility. A selection that identifies functional capacities only to exhaust them. A selection whose endpoint is not survival, but depletion and escalating destruction, culminating — at its most extreme, as exemplified by the Blackout Challenge — in the possibility of death through self-induced hypoxia, where visibility and intensity are prioritized over survival.

The consequence is a regime in which life is continuously mobilized against itself, in a dynamic comparable to an auto-immune process. The very traits that enable participation — attention, responsiveness, endurance, self-monitoring — become the vectors of their own degradation. What sustains engagement simultaneously accelerates erosion. In this configuration, exhaustion is not an unintended by-product but a structured outcome. The system does not simply generate depletion; it organizes and reproduces it. Selection is thus reconfigured into a mechanism of extraction.

Within this oscillatory structure, the two poles fulfill complementary functions. The hyperactivated pole extracts — mobilizing attention, energy, and cognitive resources at maximum intensity. The collapsed pole discards — removing those who can no longer sustain output and replacing them with new subjects entering the cycle. Between them, endurance is consumed.

Selection by destruction therefore operates not as a stabilizing evolutionary mechanism but as a destabilizing one. It amplifies activation beyond sustainable limits and treats collapse as individual pathology rather than systemic feedback. The oscillation persists because its biological costs are displaced onto individuals, while its functional benefits are retained at the level of the system.

This model essentially critiques a system that selects for short-term intensity — attention, productivity, aesthetic salience, visibility — at the expense of long-term survival and flourishing. It inverts evolutionary logic by privileging immediate operability rather than durable viability. This opens the broader question of who benefits from such selection, what political and economic structures perpetuate it, and how long-term thriving might be redefined beyond the mere compulsion to be seen. The challenge, then, is to reintroduce criteria systematically excluded by the current regime: subjectivity, temporal depth, recovery, meaning, and connection.

Liviu Poenaru

Apr. 2026

References

Citton, Y. (2016). The ecology of attention. Polity Press.

Darwin, C. (1859). On the origin of species by means of natural selection. John Murray.

Foucault, M. (1979). The history of sexuality: Volume 1: An introduction. Vintage Books.

Maslach, C., Schaufeli, W. B., & Leiter, M. P. (2001). Job burnout. Annual Review of Psychology, 52(1), 397–422. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.397

McEwen, B. S. (2007). Physiology and neurobiology of stress and adaptation: Central role of the brain. Physiological Reviews, 87(3), 873–904. https://doi.org/10.1152/physrev.00041.2006

McEwen, B. S., & Stellar, E. (1993). Stress and the individual: Mechanisms leading to disease. Archives of Internal Medicine, 153(18), 2093–2101. https://doi.org/10.1001/archinte.1993.00410180039004

Nesi, J., Choukas-Bradley, S., & Prinstein, M. J. (2018). Transformation of Adolescent Peer Relations in the Social Media Context: Part 1-A Theoretical Framework and Application to Dyadic Peer Relationships. Clinical child and family psychology review, 21(3), 267–294. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10567-018-0261-x

Orben, A., & Przybylski, A. K. (2019). The association between adolescent well-being and digital technology use. Nature Human Behaviour, 3(2), 173–182. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-018-0506-1

Rosa, H. (2013). Social acceleration: A new theory of modernity. Columbia University Press.

Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A. B., & Van Rhenen, W. (2009). How changes in job demands and resources predict burnout and engagement. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30(7), 893–917. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.595

VISIT THE MENTAL FORECAST

https://www.thementalforecast.world/