I met a traveller from an antique land, Who said — “Two vast and trunkless legs of stone Stand in the desert. . . . Near them, on the sand, Half sunk a shattered visage lies, whose frown, And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command, Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Yes, the grieving process must be travelled through to the end to reach ‘acceptance’ of our human ecological overshoot predicament. Some are just beginning this process and as such display the very typical denial and bargaining stages, thinking quite adamantly that human ingenuity and our technological prowess will triumph over any and everything that Nature has in store for us story-telling apes. In fact, it’s not unlikely that the vast, vast majority of people are not even remotely aware of the human ecological dilemma and attribute growing signs of ‘collapse’ to socioeconomic and sociopolitical factors solely.
For myself, it took a number of years to move through these grief stages and I still get bogged down in some ‘hopefulness’ periodically that we can avoid what is for all intents and purposes inevitable (I think mostly because I have children whom I’d like to think can ‘dodge’ the ramifications of the coming storm).
Aside from this psychological journey of grieving, I wrote a series of Contemplations (starting here: https://olduvai.ca/?p=66237) about a number of other cognitive aspects that impact our belief systems and thinking about this, concluding that:
“The collapse that always accompanies overshoot seems baked in at this point with little if anything we can do about it.
Personally, I’d like to see our dwindling fossil fuels dedicated to decommissioning safely those significantly dangerous complexities we’ve created (e.g., nuclear power plants, biosafety labs, chemical storage, etc.) and relocalising as much potable water procurement, food production, and regional shelter needs as possible rather than attempting to sustain what is ultimately unsustainable given the fossil fuel inputs necessary. Perhaps, just perhaps. by doing these things a few pockets of humanity (and many other species) can come out the other side of the bottleneck we’ve created for ourselves.”
Your call for focusing on a ‘graceful landing’ immediately had me think about Dr. Kate Booth and Tristan Sykes ‘Just Collapse’ initiative (see here: https://justcollapse.org/). They describe it as “an activist platform dedicated to socio-ecological justice in face of inevitable and irreversible global collapse…[that] advocates for a Just Collapse and Planned Collapse to avert the worst outcomes that will follow an otherwise unplanned, reactive collapse…[and] advocates for localised insurgent planning and mutual aid.” And this avenue may be the best path to follow at this point, particularly since it appears that most of our reactionary attempts to stave off the symptom predicaments of our overshoot are serving to exacerbate our issues.
great read, it contains many aspects I discuss with my students, particularly the more philosophical ones ("learning to mourn your losses then move on", "becoming aware that you are neither invulnerable nor going to live forever"). big TQ
I must admit, this almost seems like it came straight from the WEF handbook. The only thing you didn't express was how there needs to be a culling of billions of people so the rest of 'us' can get along in some new nirvana.
While personally I am skeptical of many things, and do not disagree with some particulars in this piece, the human condition is one that is far more complex and adaptable than ever given credit. absent a literal nuclear war that destroys everything, which alas we cannot rule out, I would argue you are too pessimistic by half. In fact, simply consider that all those fossil fuels were being created over a billion years which implies that there is still quite a bit left lying around. the question of accessing it economically is exactly what the invisible hand describes, pricing it appropriately for the most efficient use cases.
while civilzation is likely to continue to evolve over the next hundreds and thousands of years, the changes of which you speak will not happen in anyone who is reading this blog's lifetime, nor likely their children's nor grandchildren's. That is not to say that things cannot be done better, but betting against humankind is a bad bet and has been since Homo sapiens separated themselves from the rest of the animal kingdom.
It's not a question of 'financing'. It's a question of energy return on energy invested.. ie you are using more energy to extract than you are getting.
Open systems are either growing or collapsing. There is no steady state.
The canary in the coalmine for collapse of industrial civilization is the rate of change of global energy consumption. This has been in decline for over twenty years
The boys in WEF et al know all this which is why they are implementing a control grid to manage degrowth. (All of course sold as for the greater good)
Jared Diamond in Collapse talks about 26 human civilizations that have previously collapsed, your comment that "betting against humankind is a bad bet and has been since Homo sapiens separated themselves from the rest of the animal kingdom" seems naive.
This presumption takes the last several hundred years and applies it representatively to human history. Almost all of human history we have been just chilling as hunter gathers - and arguably we were much happier for it, - this was the status quo for several hundred thousand years and our population never exceeded 1 billion people world wide. Yes, thanks to agriculture and fossil fuels we have been able to greatly increase the complexity of our society in a short period of time as compared to our, mostly stagnant, total history. But this was obviously the exception, not the rule. My dad was born in 1950 when the population was 2.5 billion. In his continuing lifetime, the world wide population has tripled. - This is not a natural, or a desirable, condition.
The error, I think, is in the presumption that the natural world is linear - it's not, is it? It is cyclical. A human is born, they increase in complexity for a bit - both physically and in their relationships to society, they decline - both physically and in their relationships to society, and they ultimately die.
A civilization comes together, persists for a bit, declines, and dies.
A star comes together, persists for a bit, declines, and dies.
Where does this pattern not hold in our reality?
This pattern allows variability. If society has gone off on a predatory self destructive tangent, no worries, it won't last forever. Society will eventually collapse, it's not linear, and people can try something else (or the same thing) next time.
I was going to reply with the analogy of the individual tree and the forest and the ecosystem that enables that growth and then continues from there but you already presented the problem (which I don't see as a problem, just life) in that way so...
I too very much see everything in terms of systems and by the look of it I detach my own biased human thinking from the system far more than many of you here. The error that many of you still seem to be attached to is that humans are the center of all things and the cause of all damage and destruction to mother Earth and so on and so forth.
If we step back a little further, are we not merely a tiny insignificant ball of dirt floating around an insignificant speck of a solar system that forms part of the Milky Way galaxy, again, an insignificant member of the billions of galaxies club in our known universe?
So, why all the fuss?
And why the bias towards human activity and whatever adolescent phase they happen to be going through at this moment?
The planet can shake us off any time it wants. We're resilient but not that resilient. A few hunter gatherers and subsistence farmers could survive a cataclysm as they have done in the past but only if that's already their established way of life.
Everyone else would perish.
I've said this before and I'll say it again... it's obvious to me that humanity as a force of nature is going through its caterpillar phase, consuming and developing in preparation for some kind of transformation whereby a new form of life comes forth that streamlines the requirements necessary for the next chapter in human/machine development. Whatever that looks like, it will live gently on the Earth while exploring the solar system.
All life forms explore their surroundings and branch out into new areas when possible to establish colonies. The human / machine superorganism is acting like a fungus at this point after having gone through other forms of organization - ape phase, herd mammal phase, insect city phase, and so on.
To some, this fungal phase is repugnant and apparently selfish and destructive in nature. I see it as a perfectly natural response to signals that we must branch out or die off.
That said, I'm not saying that modern techno-humanity as an organism will pull off this transformation and some part of what we are will continue to exist for thousands or millions of years. As we all know, most species have simply become extinct when their time is up, but if one species can get to the next level it's this one and I still think that's a project worth pursuing instead of throwing our collective hands in the air and saying there's nothing we can do.
And before anyone jumps in with the usual mantras along the lines of supply chain issues, economies of scale math, Jevon's Paradox etc etc. I don't see why these issues can't be solved. It would require (at some point after a major economic shock) a complete restructuring of the global system into something more focused, more purposeful other than raising the boats of billions of people and manufacturing more trinkets for them. That may irk some people but I think if we get down to brass tacks we can all agree that endless production of humans to support endless consumption of goods has come to its zenith and that's why I look to the signs that we are putting out tendrils in new directions that will lead to new forms of life that will be be able to sustain themselves in novel ways as regards energy use and materials science.
And all of that will necessarily entail a new streamlined form of economic thinking that resembles the military establishment more than the usurious economic order of endless growth and consumption that in a roundabout way also enabled the technical knowledge required for transformation.
I didn't say or suggest "beneficial" evolution. Those are your words. I just observe life unfolding and suggest it may continue in ways that we currently don't yet understand.
Just because we were chilling as hunter gatherers for a while does not mean it was the optimal way of life (according to who or what?). Obviously, we adapted and evolved beyond that state and any further judgement on what we have become is purely coming from a position of narrow-minded prejudice that doesn't align with a big picture perspective.
On the contrary, the explosion in population is totally natural. An organism gorging itself on available resources for whatever reason nature deems fit is 100% natural. It irks some people because they separate human activity from "nature." I don't. It's all a natural process unfolding.
What is desirable is in the eye of the beholder.
Not linear? Do you ascribe to the theory of evolution? Adaptation? Cycles yes, but overall a linear explosion and growth of life on this planet.
Again, individual trees and forests die but have overall continued for millions of years.
The universe may implode at the end of "time" but that doesn't mean that all lifeforms should lie down and die because there is no point to anything.
Our activity is not predatory. It is survival until adaptation and evolution allows for a more "desirable" way or life (in human terms) or a more resilient and expansionary form of life if nature (and human consciousness) wills it so.
Uh huh, the old humans are natural, therefore the extinction event we're inflicting on the planets biosphere is natural, so sit back an chill meme. Hunter gathering was optimal for a species in a time and place, with the resources at hand. This optimisation allowed survival of our species over 100 000s of years and through population bottlenecks. Techno/industrial man looks like a 200 year project. The explosion may be a natural consequence of resource abundance, the means is not. No other species on Earth could replicate it.
1. The masses are fed hopium (e.g. renewables - EVs - mining asteroids) because they otherwise would fall into despair - and when the herd is in despair they lose interest in working studying investing etc... and that would prematurely collapse BAU.
2. Interestingly I read something that indicated the units of energy stored in a lithium battery has increased from lead acid to around 300 - and that if progress can continue that by 2050 we might reach 500 --- the units of energy stored in diesel is a whopping 13,000!
3. You are being played on the global warming thing. The reason they pound the drum on this is because they need to vilify fossil fuels to provide impetus for a 'solution' that pumps out hopium... they cannot say 'we are running out of oil and coal -- so we need to transition to renewables' -- that would panic the herd... so instead they tell us oil and coal are evil -- the solution is renewables
They obviously know the transition is impossible as there are not enough resources to make it happen + the intermittency problems cannot be solved (they know that in countries like Germany they run to power generation systems ... cuz they need power at night and when the sun doesn't shine... and that of course drives costs through the roof. They KNOW this. They spend billions on hopium --- because they need to convince the mob of the transition
Global Warming is BS... Leo is building a sea level resort in Belize... Obama bought a 10M mansion on the beach in Hawaii... they all fly in private jets to the GW conferences...
Footprints to singularity: A global population model explains late 20th century slow-down and predicts peak within ten years
Conclusions: Hyperexponential population growth implies a dynamic system with two intrinsically growing quantities, human impact and technology. In a closed system, growth of one quantity implies depletion of another. Knowledge depletes ignorance, and the humansphere depletes the ecosphere. The quantities that are being depleted affect each other in a negative feedback loop leading to a sharp peak followed by a collapse of humansphere and knowledge. The timing of the collapse was determined by fitting the global limits to population in the context of hyperexponential growth. Population is predicted with 80% confidence to be 7.0 to 7.5 billion in 2020, and to peak between years 2018 and 2023 at a value of between 7.2 and 7.6 billion people.
You might also be interested to know (or already know) that asteroids are useless to mine because they do no contain ores. The asteroids in our solar system come from within our solar system. Ores are only form on geologically active planets. So any useful asteroids would have to have come from a smashed up planet.
Asteroids are essentially what geologists call 'shit rock'
Honestly, Luxon and his merry band of ignorant fundimentalist wackos are more of a threat than Shaw and his team of social engineers. Team Green are the children of neoliberal globalism, the opposite of the roots of the Green movement. Can't really blame them for their ignorance. They've been emersed in yeast training school their whole lives.
Funnily enough, I came to the complete opposite conclusion. I'm pretty happy with National/Act. I want to keep more of my own money to do what I think is best for the future. I want less regulation and centralization, so local communities can do more themselves without big govt interfering. We also need to think about our national security in terms of fossil fuel supply - something Labour failed on.
Plus as a woman/feminist, I just could never condone Labour or the Greens who allow violence towards women (e.g., standing down the police at womens rallies) and spout utter nonsense that men can become women etc.
Keep more of your own money? Sounds great. Only NACT lied about their ablity to deliver their bribe. Less centralistation? Sounds great. Less regulation? Great. No big Gov interfering? Brilliant. As Gov steps back from governing, big biz can fill the vacuum and feed us whatever makes the most profit for shareholders. Hottest year on record, what does big biz offer? Extra longhaul flights. https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/business/506701/extra-long-haul-flights-boom-would-blow-climate-targets-campaigner-says
Fossil fuels frying the planet what do NACT offer?
I take it you are conservative rather than Libertarian, otherwise what other people choose to identify with would be considered their business rather than yours? Don't get me wrong, the left are full of BS as well , it's just NACT are the Mt Everest of BS!
I'm an extreme swing voter with no political identity (i.e., I have and will vote for any party). I also accept that no political party is going to do what really needs to be done. But goodness me I have been incredibly disappointed by the last 6 years under Labour. As a person trying to do the 'right' things for the metacrisis, it has all got harder for me under Labour :-(
One of the primary things is having the freedom to speak the truth. I was shocked at how gutless our leaders and professionals were under Labour. Already under National, people are regaining their confidence to express their opinions. Allowance for truth seeking has to be the basis for good governance. Anyway, let's reflect back in three years and compare stats between Nat and Lab.
Did you bother to read the article? I haven't seen even the tiniest indication that NACT sense an overshoot/pollution/depletion problem, only the strongest desire to intensify it rapidly!
What is three years of NACT likely to deliver? Mass immigration, house price inflation, gridlocked infrastructure, less water in our nitrates, big transgenics biz flooding the zone with product, fossil energy second wind, the return of big mining, more airport runways, waste incinerators greenlighted to spew dioxins around....... the list is long and depressing, but that's what happens when you turn one dimensional industrialists, with their Anthropocentric exceptionalist, 1800s' extractivist mentality loose by accepting fake bribes. There will be endless press conferences that end with "we care about the environment".
That makes the assumption that the global economy still functionally exists in three years?
What would be more convincing is if you had managed to find a single article that shows Labour has had a demonstrable positive impact on the environment (with supporting data). All you've shared are news articles about changes in policy direction.
That's why I'm saying come back in 3 years and compare empirical data of environmental outcomes.
I did appreciate Labour's ban on plastic. But other than that, and causing a recession (which reduces carbon emissions), I can't think of anything they've achieved for the environment sorry. Maybe you have some outcomes to share?
Can I point out positive environmental achievements during the Labour tenancy of the Beehive? Off hand, not really. Ban on new offshore oil/gas, EV subsidy, shut borders(until the flood) and lots of jawboning, with little substance, but honestly, are their hands not tied by the Business round table, who have the power through private media to shout down any policy running counter to their interests? Remember the howls over plastic bags? I'm surprised the world didn't end there? Can you expect ANY positive environmental outcomes from team evangelical? If you believe labours policy constipation is best replaced by right wing strip mining of the NZ environment, well NACT are for you.
Hi Keith. I pretty much resigned myself to the fact that no party is going to run on over-shoot aware policies. Because any such policies would make people poorer and worse off (that's the future we are getting whether we do it in a planned way or not). So, now all I want is parties that get out of my way and leave me alone so I can prepare myself and my local community as best I can. The only New Zealand leader I have ever seen publicly speak honestly about our predicament is Mike Joy - and look how his University treated him.
I remember how Jim Salinger was treated also, trying to raise public awareness and fired for it. Can't have anyone rattling the Round table and their NACT political arm. Mind, JK did say in parliment climate change is a hoax, so the writing was on the wall!
If we expect to be healthy in the coming collapse it must include the availability of meat and animal products. As a former vegan I destroyed my own health in a matter of 3 years. This will be possible by families raising their own animals such as goats , chickens, rabbits, etc.
Veganism is not possible in a primitive lifestyle. Also not healthy for humans.
When I was a young lad it was called vegetarianism and the vegetarians allowed themselves a little dairy, eggs, and even some seafood along with all the beans and lentils.
Their main gripe was with the treatment of mammals and chickens on factory farms and the Vegans have taken that to the enth level and beyond.
Meat is not necessary if one follows the ways of the old veggies (mostly harmless hippies). The current virulent Vegan strain will die off due to malnutrition unless they wise up.
Where's the nuance bro? Not a pollutant for earth, sure. Big problem for humans whose civilization is dependent on the current climate. Sure seems like pollutant for us.
So what do you (B or anyone) see as the ultimate goal of humanity? Just to survive as long as possible going through these periods of progression followed by regression? A reversion to some sort of subsistence existence? In the article taking one example of something that humanity could let go of more easily than other things- long distance travel- is that something humanity can really give up? Can people know that there is a diverse and beautiful world out there and be fine? I’ve always thought humanity was on the same page moving towards an existence of comfort, pleasure and consumption for everyone where the only hierarchy is taste and all production is handled by technology so we can ALL bask in absolute leisure. But that’s not an option now- and I personally don’t want any of the lesser options- so is it just basically give up?
Thank you B🙏
Yes, the grieving process must be travelled through to the end to reach ‘acceptance’ of our human ecological overshoot predicament. Some are just beginning this process and as such display the very typical denial and bargaining stages, thinking quite adamantly that human ingenuity and our technological prowess will triumph over any and everything that Nature has in store for us story-telling apes. In fact, it’s not unlikely that the vast, vast majority of people are not even remotely aware of the human ecological dilemma and attribute growing signs of ‘collapse’ to socioeconomic and sociopolitical factors solely.
For myself, it took a number of years to move through these grief stages and I still get bogged down in some ‘hopefulness’ periodically that we can avoid what is for all intents and purposes inevitable (I think mostly because I have children whom I’d like to think can ‘dodge’ the ramifications of the coming storm).
Aside from this psychological journey of grieving, I wrote a series of Contemplations (starting here: https://olduvai.ca/?p=66237) about a number of other cognitive aspects that impact our belief systems and thinking about this, concluding that:
“The collapse that always accompanies overshoot seems baked in at this point with little if anything we can do about it.
Personally, I’d like to see our dwindling fossil fuels dedicated to decommissioning safely those significantly dangerous complexities we’ve created (e.g., nuclear power plants, biosafety labs, chemical storage, etc.) and relocalising as much potable water procurement, food production, and regional shelter needs as possible rather than attempting to sustain what is ultimately unsustainable given the fossil fuel inputs necessary. Perhaps, just perhaps. by doing these things a few pockets of humanity (and many other species) can come out the other side of the bottleneck we’ve created for ourselves.”
Your call for focusing on a ‘graceful landing’ immediately had me think about Dr. Kate Booth and Tristan Sykes ‘Just Collapse’ initiative (see here: https://justcollapse.org/). They describe it as “an activist platform dedicated to socio-ecological justice in face of inevitable and irreversible global collapse…[that] advocates for a Just Collapse and Planned Collapse to avert the worst outcomes that will follow an otherwise unplanned, reactive collapse…[and] advocates for localised insurgent planning and mutual aid.” And this avenue may be the best path to follow at this point, particularly since it appears that most of our reactionary attempts to stave off the symptom predicaments of our overshoot are serving to exacerbate our issues.
If you watch these clips ... you may actually welcome the demise of the cruel violent species that commits these atrocities:
Industrial Farm Cruelty
https://t.me/leaklive/11666
https://cubeoftruth.com/av
Horrifying Animal Experimentation
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AuKaHh3ZKIk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nNKRgwHJumM
Yes, as I have argued before our removal from this planet may actually be cheered on by the other species given our destructive tendencies.
We are clearly the problem .. how do you solve a problem? You eliminate it.
I tried to have this conversation with the corporate whore James Shaw, former NZ climate change minister, who chooses to be wilfully ignorant.
When the ongoing collapse pans out the kids will lynch him!
https://kevinhester.live/2019/09/05/collapse-the-only-realistic-scenario/
Shaw couldn't even be honest about his own credentials, let alone the meta-crisis. He's so disappointing, as are the rest of the so-called Greens :-(
great read, it contains many aspects I discuss with my students, particularly the more philosophical ones ("learning to mourn your losses then move on", "becoming aware that you are neither invulnerable nor going to live forever"). big TQ
I must admit, this almost seems like it came straight from the WEF handbook. The only thing you didn't express was how there needs to be a culling of billions of people so the rest of 'us' can get along in some new nirvana.
While personally I am skeptical of many things, and do not disagree with some particulars in this piece, the human condition is one that is far more complex and adaptable than ever given credit. absent a literal nuclear war that destroys everything, which alas we cannot rule out, I would argue you are too pessimistic by half. In fact, simply consider that all those fossil fuels were being created over a billion years which implies that there is still quite a bit left lying around. the question of accessing it economically is exactly what the invisible hand describes, pricing it appropriately for the most efficient use cases.
while civilzation is likely to continue to evolve over the next hundreds and thousands of years, the changes of which you speak will not happen in anyone who is reading this blog's lifetime, nor likely their children's nor grandchildren's. That is not to say that things cannot be done better, but betting against humankind is a bad bet and has been since Homo sapiens separated themselves from the rest of the animal kingdom.
It's not a question of 'financing'. It's a question of energy return on energy invested.. ie you are using more energy to extract than you are getting.
Open systems are either growing or collapsing. There is no steady state.
The canary in the coalmine for collapse of industrial civilization is the rate of change of global energy consumption. This has been in decline for over twenty years
The boys in WEF et al know all this which is why they are implementing a control grid to manage degrowth. (All of course sold as for the greater good)
If someone has not read the great reset here are some excerpts being read for you:
https://rumble.com/v3z7ia7-the-great-reset-and-the-multipolar-world-order-by-iain-davis.html
Every exit of the slave farm is the slave farm.
"They" are certainly not stupid.
Thinking you are smart can be...
well, I do not know how to continue here....
Jared Diamond in Collapse talks about 26 human civilizations that have previously collapsed, your comment that "betting against humankind is a bad bet and has been since Homo sapiens separated themselves from the rest of the animal kingdom" seems naive.
We're still here and there's 8 billion of us... for now.
And we are pushing forward, never backwards.
The comment is correct based on the available evidence... again, for now.
I disagree...
8 billion as proof of beneficial evolution?
This presumption takes the last several hundred years and applies it representatively to human history. Almost all of human history we have been just chilling as hunter gathers - and arguably we were much happier for it, - this was the status quo for several hundred thousand years and our population never exceeded 1 billion people world wide. Yes, thanks to agriculture and fossil fuels we have been able to greatly increase the complexity of our society in a short period of time as compared to our, mostly stagnant, total history. But this was obviously the exception, not the rule. My dad was born in 1950 when the population was 2.5 billion. In his continuing lifetime, the world wide population has tripled. - This is not a natural, or a desirable, condition.
The error, I think, is in the presumption that the natural world is linear - it's not, is it? It is cyclical. A human is born, they increase in complexity for a bit - both physically and in their relationships to society, they decline - both physically and in their relationships to society, and they ultimately die.
A civilization comes together, persists for a bit, declines, and dies.
A star comes together, persists for a bit, declines, and dies.
Where does this pattern not hold in our reality?
This pattern allows variability. If society has gone off on a predatory self destructive tangent, no worries, it won't last forever. Society will eventually collapse, it's not linear, and people can try something else (or the same thing) next time.
I was going to reply with the analogy of the individual tree and the forest and the ecosystem that enables that growth and then continues from there but you already presented the problem (which I don't see as a problem, just life) in that way so...
I too very much see everything in terms of systems and by the look of it I detach my own biased human thinking from the system far more than many of you here. The error that many of you still seem to be attached to is that humans are the center of all things and the cause of all damage and destruction to mother Earth and so on and so forth.
If we step back a little further, are we not merely a tiny insignificant ball of dirt floating around an insignificant speck of a solar system that forms part of the Milky Way galaxy, again, an insignificant member of the billions of galaxies club in our known universe?
So, why all the fuss?
And why the bias towards human activity and whatever adolescent phase they happen to be going through at this moment?
The planet can shake us off any time it wants. We're resilient but not that resilient. A few hunter gatherers and subsistence farmers could survive a cataclysm as they have done in the past but only if that's already their established way of life.
Everyone else would perish.
I've said this before and I'll say it again... it's obvious to me that humanity as a force of nature is going through its caterpillar phase, consuming and developing in preparation for some kind of transformation whereby a new form of life comes forth that streamlines the requirements necessary for the next chapter in human/machine development. Whatever that looks like, it will live gently on the Earth while exploring the solar system.
All life forms explore their surroundings and branch out into new areas when possible to establish colonies. The human / machine superorganism is acting like a fungus at this point after having gone through other forms of organization - ape phase, herd mammal phase, insect city phase, and so on.
To some, this fungal phase is repugnant and apparently selfish and destructive in nature. I see it as a perfectly natural response to signals that we must branch out or die off.
That said, I'm not saying that modern techno-humanity as an organism will pull off this transformation and some part of what we are will continue to exist for thousands or millions of years. As we all know, most species have simply become extinct when their time is up, but if one species can get to the next level it's this one and I still think that's a project worth pursuing instead of throwing our collective hands in the air and saying there's nothing we can do.
And before anyone jumps in with the usual mantras along the lines of supply chain issues, economies of scale math, Jevon's Paradox etc etc. I don't see why these issues can't be solved. It would require (at some point after a major economic shock) a complete restructuring of the global system into something more focused, more purposeful other than raising the boats of billions of people and manufacturing more trinkets for them. That may irk some people but I think if we get down to brass tacks we can all agree that endless production of humans to support endless consumption of goods has come to its zenith and that's why I look to the signs that we are putting out tendrils in new directions that will lead to new forms of life that will be be able to sustain themselves in novel ways as regards energy use and materials science.
And all of that will necessarily entail a new streamlined form of economic thinking that resembles the military establishment more than the usurious economic order of endless growth and consumption that in a roundabout way also enabled the technical knowledge required for transformation.
Just to add... (there's a lot to unpack here)
I didn't say or suggest "beneficial" evolution. Those are your words. I just observe life unfolding and suggest it may continue in ways that we currently don't yet understand.
Just because we were chilling as hunter gatherers for a while does not mean it was the optimal way of life (according to who or what?). Obviously, we adapted and evolved beyond that state and any further judgement on what we have become is purely coming from a position of narrow-minded prejudice that doesn't align with a big picture perspective.
On the contrary, the explosion in population is totally natural. An organism gorging itself on available resources for whatever reason nature deems fit is 100% natural. It irks some people because they separate human activity from "nature." I don't. It's all a natural process unfolding.
What is desirable is in the eye of the beholder.
Not linear? Do you ascribe to the theory of evolution? Adaptation? Cycles yes, but overall a linear explosion and growth of life on this planet.
Again, individual trees and forests die but have overall continued for millions of years.
The universe may implode at the end of "time" but that doesn't mean that all lifeforms should lie down and die because there is no point to anything.
Our activity is not predatory. It is survival until adaptation and evolution allows for a more "desirable" way or life (in human terms) or a more resilient and expansionary form of life if nature (and human consciousness) wills it so.
Uh huh, the old humans are natural, therefore the extinction event we're inflicting on the planets biosphere is natural, so sit back an chill meme. Hunter gathering was optimal for a species in a time and place, with the resources at hand. This optimisation allowed survival of our species over 100 000s of years and through population bottlenecks. Techno/industrial man looks like a 200 year project. The explosion may be a natural consequence of resource abundance, the means is not. No other species on Earth could replicate it.
1. The masses are fed hopium (e.g. renewables - EVs - mining asteroids) because they otherwise would fall into despair - and when the herd is in despair they lose interest in working studying investing etc... and that would prematurely collapse BAU.
2. Interestingly I read something that indicated the units of energy stored in a lithium battery has increased from lead acid to around 300 - and that if progress can continue that by 2050 we might reach 500 --- the units of energy stored in diesel is a whopping 13,000!
3. You are being played on the global warming thing. The reason they pound the drum on this is because they need to vilify fossil fuels to provide impetus for a 'solution' that pumps out hopium... they cannot say 'we are running out of oil and coal -- so we need to transition to renewables' -- that would panic the herd... so instead they tell us oil and coal are evil -- the solution is renewables
They obviously know the transition is impossible as there are not enough resources to make it happen + the intermittency problems cannot be solved (they know that in countries like Germany they run to power generation systems ... cuz they need power at night and when the sun doesn't shine... and that of course drives costs through the roof. They KNOW this. They spend billions on hopium --- because they need to convince the mob of the transition
Global Warming is BS... Leo is building a sea level resort in Belize... Obama bought a 10M mansion on the beach in Hawaii... they all fly in private jets to the GW conferences...
You need to wake up
The only thing "they" need is that you think "they are in control".
The "form of control" you think of does not matter a shit for "them".
Oh btw - they won't just allow us to unhinge once BAU goes down ... and rape kill and eat each other... they have a plan to prevent this https://www.headsupster.com/forumthread?shortId=220
Footprints to singularity: A global population model explains late 20th century slow-down and predicts peak within ten years
Conclusions: Hyperexponential population growth implies a dynamic system with two intrinsically growing quantities, human impact and technology. In a closed system, growth of one quantity implies depletion of another. Knowledge depletes ignorance, and the humansphere depletes the ecosphere. The quantities that are being depleted affect each other in a negative feedback loop leading to a sharp peak followed by a collapse of humansphere and knowledge. The timing of the collapse was determined by fitting the global limits to population in the context of hyperexponential growth. Population is predicted with 80% confidence to be 7.0 to 7.5 billion in 2020, and to peak between years 2018 and 2023 at a value of between 7.2 and 7.6 billion people.
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0247214
Dear B. Great article.
You might also be interested to know (or already know) that asteroids are useless to mine because they do no contain ores. The asteroids in our solar system come from within our solar system. Ores are only form on geologically active planets. So any useful asteroids would have to have come from a smashed up planet.
Asteroids are essentially what geologists call 'shit rock'
Honestly, Luxon and his merry band of ignorant fundimentalist wackos are more of a threat than Shaw and his team of social engineers. Team Green are the children of neoliberal globalism, the opposite of the roots of the Green movement. Can't really blame them for their ignorance. They've been emersed in yeast training school their whole lives.
Funnily enough, I came to the complete opposite conclusion. I'm pretty happy with National/Act. I want to keep more of my own money to do what I think is best for the future. I want less regulation and centralization, so local communities can do more themselves without big govt interfering. We also need to think about our national security in terms of fossil fuel supply - something Labour failed on.
Plus as a woman/feminist, I just could never condone Labour or the Greens who allow violence towards women (e.g., standing down the police at womens rallies) and spout utter nonsense that men can become women etc.
Keep more of your own money? Sounds great. Only NACT lied about their ablity to deliver their bribe. Less centralistation? Sounds great. Less regulation? Great. No big Gov interfering? Brilliant. As Gov steps back from governing, big biz can fill the vacuum and feed us whatever makes the most profit for shareholders. Hottest year on record, what does big biz offer? Extra longhaul flights. https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/business/506701/extra-long-haul-flights-boom-would-blow-climate-targets-campaigner-says
Fossil fuels frying the planet what do NACT offer?
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/506674/national-led-government-officially-cancels-auckland-light-rail-plans
https://www.stuff.co.nz/motoring/133125500/electric-vehicle-rebate-and-ute-tax-set-to-be-killed-off-in-december#:~:text=Instead%20of%20subsidising%20EV%20purchases,a%20cost%20of%20%24257m.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/130434710/national-confirms-end-to-offshore-oil-and-gas-ban-if-elected-in-2023
I take it you are conservative rather than Libertarian, otherwise what other people choose to identify with would be considered their business rather than yours? Don't get me wrong, the left are full of BS as well , it's just NACT are the Mt Everest of BS!
I'm an extreme swing voter with no political identity (i.e., I have and will vote for any party). I also accept that no political party is going to do what really needs to be done. But goodness me I have been incredibly disappointed by the last 6 years under Labour. As a person trying to do the 'right' things for the metacrisis, it has all got harder for me under Labour :-(
One of the primary things is having the freedom to speak the truth. I was shocked at how gutless our leaders and professionals were under Labour. Already under National, people are regaining their confidence to express their opinions. Allowance for truth seeking has to be the basis for good governance. Anyway, let's reflect back in three years and compare stats between Nat and Lab.
Did you bother to read the article? I haven't seen even the tiniest indication that NACT sense an overshoot/pollution/depletion problem, only the strongest desire to intensify it rapidly!
What is three years of NACT likely to deliver? Mass immigration, house price inflation, gridlocked infrastructure, less water in our nitrates, big transgenics biz flooding the zone with product, fossil energy second wind, the return of big mining, more airport runways, waste incinerators greenlighted to spew dioxins around....... the list is long and depressing, but that's what happens when you turn one dimensional industrialists, with their Anthropocentric exceptionalist, 1800s' extractivist mentality loose by accepting fake bribes. There will be endless press conferences that end with "we care about the environment".
That makes the assumption that the global economy still functionally exists in three years?
What would be more convincing is if you had managed to find a single article that shows Labour has had a demonstrable positive impact on the environment (with supporting data). All you've shared are news articles about changes in policy direction.
That's why I'm saying come back in 3 years and compare empirical data of environmental outcomes.
I did appreciate Labour's ban on plastic. But other than that, and causing a recession (which reduces carbon emissions), I can't think of anything they've achieved for the environment sorry. Maybe you have some outcomes to share?
Can I point out positive environmental achievements during the Labour tenancy of the Beehive? Off hand, not really. Ban on new offshore oil/gas, EV subsidy, shut borders(until the flood) and lots of jawboning, with little substance, but honestly, are their hands not tied by the Business round table, who have the power through private media to shout down any policy running counter to their interests? Remember the howls over plastic bags? I'm surprised the world didn't end there? Can you expect ANY positive environmental outcomes from team evangelical? If you believe labours policy constipation is best replaced by right wing strip mining of the NZ environment, well NACT are for you.
Hi Keith. I pretty much resigned myself to the fact that no party is going to run on over-shoot aware policies. Because any such policies would make people poorer and worse off (that's the future we are getting whether we do it in a planned way or not). So, now all I want is parties that get out of my way and leave me alone so I can prepare myself and my local community as best I can. The only New Zealand leader I have ever seen publicly speak honestly about our predicament is Mike Joy - and look how his University treated him.
I remember how Jim Salinger was treated also, trying to raise public awareness and fired for it. Can't have anyone rattling the Round table and their NACT political arm. Mind, JK did say in parliment climate change is a hoax, so the writing was on the wall!
https://www.nature.com/articles/news.2009.410
If we expect to be healthy in the coming collapse it must include the availability of meat and animal products. As a former vegan I destroyed my own health in a matter of 3 years. This will be possible by families raising their own animals such as goats , chickens, rabbits, etc.
Veganism is not possible in a primitive lifestyle. Also not healthy for humans.
When I was a young lad it was called vegetarianism and the vegetarians allowed themselves a little dairy, eggs, and even some seafood along with all the beans and lentils.
Their main gripe was with the treatment of mammals and chickens on factory farms and the Vegans have taken that to the enth level and beyond.
Meat is not necessary if one follows the ways of the old veggies (mostly harmless hippies). The current virulent Vegan strain will die off due to malnutrition unless they wise up.
https://substack.com/profile/100124894-steven-berger/note/c-47003924
CO2 is not a pollutant.
Where's the nuance bro? Not a pollutant for earth, sure. Big problem for humans whose civilization is dependent on the current climate. Sure seems like pollutant for us.
Nature will find a way... or not. But it's up to her in the end. We cannot control the climate.
Sir, you have been discovered by lunatics.
So what do you (B or anyone) see as the ultimate goal of humanity? Just to survive as long as possible going through these periods of progression followed by regression? A reversion to some sort of subsistence existence? In the article taking one example of something that humanity could let go of more easily than other things- long distance travel- is that something humanity can really give up? Can people know that there is a diverse and beautiful world out there and be fine? I’ve always thought humanity was on the same page moving towards an existence of comfort, pleasure and consumption for everyone where the only hierarchy is taste and all production is handled by technology so we can ALL bask in absolute leisure. But that’s not an option now- and I personally don’t want any of the lesser options- so is it just basically give up?