For some time now, I have been promoting hypercomplexity in my comments on the Web, my books and my own Substack. Those who read my writings know this. I have gotten some pushback as well as arguments from the troll populace, but it is still to my advantage to make this delineation, something B does not do yet. YET! He may get there soon enough since he is an astute analyst and is able to follow where his own argument leads.
In a nutshell, the US and UK are not just complex societies; they are hypercomplex in their growth economies, which also translates into their societal functions. This is based on the acceleration of acceleration of their growth models (the third derivative, or "jerk" in calculus parlance) and comes from the NECESSITY to go faster and faster just to stay in place on a treadmill that is not just increasing in speed, but actually rising in its incline, so the speed at which the economy and society in general is moving needs to constantly accelerate its acceleration. Other countries, like France and Germany are accelerating their growth economies but not increasing their acceleration. In fact, they are contracting AND they seem to be managing their contraction. (And yes they could do a better job of it. C'est la vie.
The US and UK need everyone to not only consumer more and work more, but also increase their consumption and work at a constantly increasing pace. This argues against their ability to work within any form of limits and manage their coming contraction. Therefore they will just crash.
I have mixed feelings about the analogy of an economy or a society to an individual organism. It is well known in the study of ancient cultures that people just vote with their feet rather than go down with the ship. Also, the autophagy example is suspect too, as autophagy is a regular process that eats up the depleted cells and the toxins that have been freed. In B's analogy, the autophagy process eats up everyone.
In real terms, we just don't know how this collapse will play out beyond some broad strokes. The best adaptation is to be adaptable. Since industrial agriculture depends heavily on globalized phosphorus reserves that require control of source, plus massive amounts of fossil fuels to build the tractors and combines, plus massive amounts of fossil fuels to manufacture fertilizer, plus massive amounts of fossil fuels in production and transport, it is unlikely that die-off can be put off in any appreciable manner. In other words, as many of us have been saying for sometime; it is not a question of IF there is a die-off. It is a question of WHEN. Then it is all a crap shoot and no amount of airy-fairy design work will see you through. You will have to adapt to survive.
What I and many other sustainable farmer types have been doing for some years is developing alternate strategies. These can be tested right now AND they actually provide a favorable EROI for food production. It is not a question of whether it is sustainable in some rarified academic treatise; it is a question of how many people we can save now and in the future.
I get a lot of flack from computer jockeys who want to argue about what sustainable means or if agriculture is "bad" or some other bullshit. What I work on is growing potatoes, beans, wheat, etc. with lowered energy inputs. Once you get on that particular train, you have more places to jump off before the train goes over the cliff.
My understanding ( I have only planted small vegetable gardens where success was not critical) is that low tech farming and animal husbandry (chickens) is hard work and fraught with failure especially for the novice. Crop failures, predators, theft, disease, etc. At 71 with no family or help, I would fall below self-sufficiency in a low tech scenario.
Against the backdrop of declining ore and energy grades combined with accelerating fossil fuel depletion from renewables, even as the last gasp burst in production conceals the longer term drop off awaiting us down the road, the productive, can-do people (middle class) will be caught in a political and economic vise.
Our society (middle class) is carrying an incredible parasitic burden. I describe it as the parasitic pyramid. The oligarchs on the top have captured political control, the money supply, the means of production for example corporate monocrop farming, beef, hog and chicken industry, distribution, etc.
From the bottom, we have all these people who lacking initiative have relied on getting government jobs for their pensions and paychecks, with little value added productive skills or service compared to what the private sector could offer. Even worse are the hoards of welfare recipients. I hear the remark over and over again to members of our military "thank you for your service." Yes, if you join the armed forces, you risk being killed or even worse, crippled. I get that. But for the rest, it's more about what benefits they can get from joining the military---not serving your country. That's all I hear from members of the military at the gym. Sorry, but I call them as I see them.
So getting back on topic, I see a political upheaval in the future. I would not get too comfortable on a nice suburban mansion requiring 20 mile commutes to a job that might not exist in ten years, even if you are like me who thinks this AI is yet another hoax to siphon off wealth from pension funds and ultimately the taxpayer so that the elites can build a digital prison around us.
My first concern these days would be how quickly can I relocate. Hopefully the roads would still be passable and the trucks still running so I could load up and move, but that too may be wishful thinking.
Some good points. Since you already have some experience growing food, you are ahead of the game. Think of prepping for the long term. A bug-out bag is just a preliminary step to get you to a safe place. Well, how about getting to a safe place well ahead of die-off and building up relationships in that community? Relocation is a key concept. After building up our soil and establishing a 60-tree orchard on our little farm in Washington state, we were able to sell off our sweat equity and have enough to move to France in 2018. Now I have about an acre to work with in the foothills of the Pyrenees, which is plenty. As for self-suffiency, none of us sustainable farmers either here or back in the states grow everything we need. The key is to grow a surplus so you can trade, either now or after the Dark Ages return. It is likely that Homo erectus was able to make the first move out of Africa because of humans trading with each other. So there is a long precedent for trade.
My family have lived in the Pyrenees for many centuries, being Basques. Our family name comes from a tiny hamlet, a cluster of 5 houses recorded in ta records as early as the 12thc, and which was abandoned in the 1960s when nearly everyone moved to own as Spain grew wealthier.
Good for you for doing something and making a go of it, but the reality in the past, into the mid-20th c, was a very harsh,, uncertain life, frequent famine or near-famine, and rampant TB, typhus, and the diseases of malnutrition, etc.
They were very tough people in a way no one in the West is anymore, even the small sheep farmers who survive here and there in Europe.
This is not meant to be a negative comment in any way, and I hope you enjoy where you are and your orchard is fruitful!
I grew up on a dairy farm in southern Minnesota in the US. We had to move to town in the 1960s too. In Willard Cochrane's Development of American Agriculture (1979), he gives some numbers on US farmers moving off the land. The largest number was in the 1960s, much more so than in the 1970s after Nixon's recession and the move to "get big or get out." Living in the Occitan, we see much more peasant agriculture than we did in the US. This also translates into more hand tools to collect at les vide greniers (flea markets in French), as well as more local food and more markets. We have lots of old neighbors, some of whom were children during the Nazi occupation. Good luck to you.
Observation about the unsustainable push for renewable energy. It has been mentioned that building out renewable energy infrastructure consumes vast resources and we don’t have enough energy nor resources to fully transition to renewables. Now, consider that every piece of that renewable energy generation will need complete replacement within 50 years.
If renewable energy can’t be built out once, then how will it be completely replaced every 50 years? And don’t say it will be “recycled”. Some of the metals will be recycled, but even that takes energy. Solar panels can’t be recycled, nor can wind turbine blades, etc. Realistically, just a tiny percentage of the energy and resources which went into building that renewable infrastructure will carry forward to its replacement.
The very first modern wind turbine - Tvindkraft, look it up - has been running WELL past the 50yr mark. I was part of the restoration team around 2003, that patched the rust spots, and also repaired parts of the blades.
The difference between THAT project and the mega-corps build-outs, is that it was completely hand built. The machinery was repurposed WW1 battleship parts, it was built with ease of access in mind, and electronics are an absolute minimum - it had a pre-pentium laptop monitoring it inside the turbine, and that was a new addition.
Such genuine community projects can keep running long after the corporate installations have collapsed into ruin. Nor were any 'rare earths' used.
Needless to say, its output is considerably lower than more modern turbines too. But it paid back the 'energy costs' (Most of which were in the colossal amounts of concrete used in construction) after 20 years, and has been effectively 'free energy' since.
How long it can be kept running is impossible to know. Concrete of course has a finite lifespan (They used industrial concrete, of course, even cutting edge 60s anti-nuclear hippies were not yet aware of the problems and possibilities in that field back then), and sooner or later even the iron shell will be unable to be safely patched.
Solar panels will fail sooner, and be less 'repairable'.
Passive solar heating can last for centuries, but will not of course power your phones, or PCs.
Economic Liberalism is predicated on growth - unlimited resources, unlimited landspace etc.
Fascism is about taking that growth from others (Either external 'Lebensraum', or internally from the workers).
Communism is about autarky for the community.
Social Liberalism is by the far the nicest social system to live under, based as it is on Individual Rights, rather than rigid hierarchy (right), or communal enforcement (left).
Ergo, the pleasant possible future would be social liberalism, economic autarky as far as possible as resources decline, and a 'hierarchical' impulse into genuine defence against the marauding nations/peoples (Currently by far the "West").
Chances of this happening?
<1% is my guess, what with the "Christian" religion and other monotheisms abounding and armed to the teeth.
(Of course, they are pro oil and gas, pro growth, pro industry, who cares about the natural world, etc. so keep that in mind when reading.)
I remember once listening to an interview with Simon Michaux when he was telling a story about presenting his findings to leaders in Europe and how they simply didn't understand materials and energy (relative to his expectation, anyway). The various dependencies Europe has on other parts of the world, and their attempts to decouple themselves, which then lead to withdrawal of industry and therefore increasing other dependencies, is fascinating. Between your articles and the BSJ, an interesting picture emerges.
It is not a question of controlling a complex system. It is a question of controlling yourself and your immediate situation. If you can control that small circle and then build out into increasing concentric circles (family, community, larger community, bioregion, etc.), you will be doing more positive than negative.
From what I can tell, the math, physics, geology, astronomy and climatology aspects to our civilization are relatively simple, at least in terms of the basic causes and effects.
The complexity arises when humans are introduced, with their habits of greed, lying, binary thinking, etc. As the "Decline" of modern standards of living continue, the "human factor" will dwarf the materialistic and physical arrangement of the planet in terms of influencing how we bump along the path to acceptance.
A century ago, many Americans still lived on farms without indoor plumbing, electricity or communications (telephone, radio) with the outside world. 50 years ago, the collapse began from the "peak" of middle class wealth, but many aspects of mitigation related to the multiple predicaments of resource depletion were put off by additional poor decisions. Now many reasonable options to guide society to the path of the future are off the table.
It seems quite probable the next 50 years brings a collapse back to the mid 1920s in terms of energy use, population, etc., but getting there will be a much bumpier ride than on the way up. While we have some ability to re-localize ourselves and make better choices, it seems clear to me that much of our lives will be at risk from .gov, domestic violence, and other factors outside of our control. Buckle up.
Exactly as the fully referenced archeology of Easter Island tells us summarized in the 2003 Massey Lectures book "A Short History of Progress" (Wright) (122 pages of text and 55 pages of bibliographic references - Easter island as the central example as it follows its rise and fall with little "contamination" i.e. influence, via contact with other "civilizations").
For some time now, I have been promoting hypercomplexity in my comments on the Web, my books and my own Substack. Those who read my writings know this. I have gotten some pushback as well as arguments from the troll populace, but it is still to my advantage to make this delineation, something B does not do yet. YET! He may get there soon enough since he is an astute analyst and is able to follow where his own argument leads.
In a nutshell, the US and UK are not just complex societies; they are hypercomplex in their growth economies, which also translates into their societal functions. This is based on the acceleration of acceleration of their growth models (the third derivative, or "jerk" in calculus parlance) and comes from the NECESSITY to go faster and faster just to stay in place on a treadmill that is not just increasing in speed, but actually rising in its incline, so the speed at which the economy and society in general is moving needs to constantly accelerate its acceleration. Other countries, like France and Germany are accelerating their growth economies but not increasing their acceleration. In fact, they are contracting AND they seem to be managing their contraction. (And yes they could do a better job of it. C'est la vie.
The US and UK need everyone to not only consumer more and work more, but also increase their consumption and work at a constantly increasing pace. This argues against their ability to work within any form of limits and manage their coming contraction. Therefore they will just crash.
I have mixed feelings about the analogy of an economy or a society to an individual organism. It is well known in the study of ancient cultures that people just vote with their feet rather than go down with the ship. Also, the autophagy example is suspect too, as autophagy is a regular process that eats up the depleted cells and the toxins that have been freed. In B's analogy, the autophagy process eats up everyone.
In real terms, we just don't know how this collapse will play out beyond some broad strokes. The best adaptation is to be adaptable. Since industrial agriculture depends heavily on globalized phosphorus reserves that require control of source, plus massive amounts of fossil fuels to build the tractors and combines, plus massive amounts of fossil fuels to manufacture fertilizer, plus massive amounts of fossil fuels in production and transport, it is unlikely that die-off can be put off in any appreciable manner. In other words, as many of us have been saying for sometime; it is not a question of IF there is a die-off. It is a question of WHEN. Then it is all a crap shoot and no amount of airy-fairy design work will see you through. You will have to adapt to survive.
What I and many other sustainable farmer types have been doing for some years is developing alternate strategies. These can be tested right now AND they actually provide a favorable EROI for food production. It is not a question of whether it is sustainable in some rarified academic treatise; it is a question of how many people we can save now and in the future.
I get a lot of flack from computer jockeys who want to argue about what sustainable means or if agriculture is "bad" or some other bullshit. What I work on is growing potatoes, beans, wheat, etc. with lowered energy inputs. Once you get on that particular train, you have more places to jump off before the train goes over the cliff.
My understanding ( I have only planted small vegetable gardens where success was not critical) is that low tech farming and animal husbandry (chickens) is hard work and fraught with failure especially for the novice. Crop failures, predators, theft, disease, etc. At 71 with no family or help, I would fall below self-sufficiency in a low tech scenario.
Against the backdrop of declining ore and energy grades combined with accelerating fossil fuel depletion from renewables, even as the last gasp burst in production conceals the longer term drop off awaiting us down the road, the productive, can-do people (middle class) will be caught in a political and economic vise.
Our society (middle class) is carrying an incredible parasitic burden. I describe it as the parasitic pyramid. The oligarchs on the top have captured political control, the money supply, the means of production for example corporate monocrop farming, beef, hog and chicken industry, distribution, etc.
From the bottom, we have all these people who lacking initiative have relied on getting government jobs for their pensions and paychecks, with little value added productive skills or service compared to what the private sector could offer. Even worse are the hoards of welfare recipients. I hear the remark over and over again to members of our military "thank you for your service." Yes, if you join the armed forces, you risk being killed or even worse, crippled. I get that. But for the rest, it's more about what benefits they can get from joining the military---not serving your country. That's all I hear from members of the military at the gym. Sorry, but I call them as I see them.
So getting back on topic, I see a political upheaval in the future. I would not get too comfortable on a nice suburban mansion requiring 20 mile commutes to a job that might not exist in ten years, even if you are like me who thinks this AI is yet another hoax to siphon off wealth from pension funds and ultimately the taxpayer so that the elites can build a digital prison around us.
My first concern these days would be how quickly can I relocate. Hopefully the roads would still be passable and the trucks still running so I could load up and move, but that too may be wishful thinking.
Some good points. Since you already have some experience growing food, you are ahead of the game. Think of prepping for the long term. A bug-out bag is just a preliminary step to get you to a safe place. Well, how about getting to a safe place well ahead of die-off and building up relationships in that community? Relocation is a key concept. After building up our soil and establishing a 60-tree orchard on our little farm in Washington state, we were able to sell off our sweat equity and have enough to move to France in 2018. Now I have about an acre to work with in the foothills of the Pyrenees, which is plenty. As for self-suffiency, none of us sustainable farmers either here or back in the states grow everything we need. The key is to grow a surplus so you can trade, either now or after the Dark Ages return. It is likely that Homo erectus was able to make the first move out of Africa because of humans trading with each other. So there is a long precedent for trade.
My family have lived in the Pyrenees for many centuries, being Basques. Our family name comes from a tiny hamlet, a cluster of 5 houses recorded in ta records as early as the 12thc, and which was abandoned in the 1960s when nearly everyone moved to own as Spain grew wealthier.
Good for you for doing something and making a go of it, but the reality in the past, into the mid-20th c, was a very harsh,, uncertain life, frequent famine or near-famine, and rampant TB, typhus, and the diseases of malnutrition, etc.
They were very tough people in a way no one in the West is anymore, even the small sheep farmers who survive here and there in Europe.
This is not meant to be a negative comment in any way, and I hope you enjoy where you are and your orchard is fruitful!
I grew up on a dairy farm in southern Minnesota in the US. We had to move to town in the 1960s too. In Willard Cochrane's Development of American Agriculture (1979), he gives some numbers on US farmers moving off the land. The largest number was in the 1960s, much more so than in the 1970s after Nixon's recession and the move to "get big or get out." Living in the Occitan, we see much more peasant agriculture than we did in the US. This also translates into more hand tools to collect at les vide greniers (flea markets in French), as well as more local food and more markets. We have lots of old neighbors, some of whom were children during the Nazi occupation. Good luck to you.
My typing: should be 'tax records' and 'moved to town'.
The world still has plenty of resources left to feed, house and clothe its residents
8B+ are fed with petro chemicals... there can be no petro chemicals when our industrial society collapses.
8B+ will starve (and eat each other along the way)
https://fasteddynz.substack.com/p/financial-system-supply-chain-cross
https://fasteddynz.substack.com/p/collapse-and-cannibalism
Spent fuel pond cancer will kill the few survivors
https://fasteddynz.substack.com/p/the-utter-futility-of-doomsday-prepping
This is an extinction event
Good post Walter, but there is one glitch, Fossil fuels does not exist...It's a lie
Observation about the unsustainable push for renewable energy. It has been mentioned that building out renewable energy infrastructure consumes vast resources and we don’t have enough energy nor resources to fully transition to renewables. Now, consider that every piece of that renewable energy generation will need complete replacement within 50 years.
If renewable energy can’t be built out once, then how will it be completely replaced every 50 years? And don’t say it will be “recycled”. Some of the metals will be recycled, but even that takes energy. Solar panels can’t be recycled, nor can wind turbine blades, etc. Realistically, just a tiny percentage of the energy and resources which went into building that renewable infrastructure will carry forward to its replacement.
The very first modern wind turbine - Tvindkraft, look it up - has been running WELL past the 50yr mark. I was part of the restoration team around 2003, that patched the rust spots, and also repaired parts of the blades.
The difference between THAT project and the mega-corps build-outs, is that it was completely hand built. The machinery was repurposed WW1 battleship parts, it was built with ease of access in mind, and electronics are an absolute minimum - it had a pre-pentium laptop monitoring it inside the turbine, and that was a new addition.
Such genuine community projects can keep running long after the corporate installations have collapsed into ruin. Nor were any 'rare earths' used.
Needless to say, its output is considerably lower than more modern turbines too. But it paid back the 'energy costs' (Most of which were in the colossal amounts of concrete used in construction) after 20 years, and has been effectively 'free energy' since.
How long it can be kept running is impossible to know. Concrete of course has a finite lifespan (They used industrial concrete, of course, even cutting edge 60s anti-nuclear hippies were not yet aware of the problems and possibilities in that field back then), and sooner or later even the iron shell will be unable to be safely patched.
Solar panels will fail sooner, and be less 'repairable'.
Passive solar heating can last for centuries, but will not of course power your phones, or PCs.
Economic Liberalism is predicated on growth - unlimited resources, unlimited landspace etc.
Fascism is about taking that growth from others (Either external 'Lebensraum', or internally from the workers).
Communism is about autarky for the community.
Social Liberalism is by the far the nicest social system to live under, based as it is on Individual Rights, rather than rigid hierarchy (right), or communal enforcement (left).
Ergo, the pleasant possible future would be social liberalism, economic autarky as far as possible as resources decline, and a 'hierarchical' impulse into genuine defence against the marauding nations/peoples (Currently by far the "West").
Chances of this happening?
<1% is my guess, what with the "Christian" religion and other monotheisms abounding and armed to the teeth.
Today's post from the Brawl Street Journal about Europe's energy woes is a good pairing with your article today, B.
https://brawlstreetjournal.substack.com/p/built-for-calm-weather
(Of course, they are pro oil and gas, pro growth, pro industry, who cares about the natural world, etc. so keep that in mind when reading.)
I remember once listening to an interview with Simon Michaux when he was telling a story about presenting his findings to leaders in Europe and how they simply didn't understand materials and energy (relative to his expectation, anyway). The various dependencies Europe has on other parts of the world, and their attempts to decouple themselves, which then lead to withdrawal of industry and therefore increasing other dependencies, is fascinating. Between your articles and the BSJ, an interesting picture emerges.
You should write a book!
Everything can never be completely under control because complex adaptive systems are never static. What are complex adaptive systems? Everything.
It is not a question of controlling a complex system. It is a question of controlling yourself and your immediate situation. If you can control that small circle and then build out into increasing concentric circles (family, community, larger community, bioregion, etc.), you will be doing more positive than negative.
It is very complicated yet very simple as well.
From what I can tell, the math, physics, geology, astronomy and climatology aspects to our civilization are relatively simple, at least in terms of the basic causes and effects.
The complexity arises when humans are introduced, with their habits of greed, lying, binary thinking, etc. As the "Decline" of modern standards of living continue, the "human factor" will dwarf the materialistic and physical arrangement of the planet in terms of influencing how we bump along the path to acceptance.
A century ago, many Americans still lived on farms without indoor plumbing, electricity or communications (telephone, radio) with the outside world. 50 years ago, the collapse began from the "peak" of middle class wealth, but many aspects of mitigation related to the multiple predicaments of resource depletion were put off by additional poor decisions. Now many reasonable options to guide society to the path of the future are off the table.
It seems quite probable the next 50 years brings a collapse back to the mid 1920s in terms of energy use, population, etc., but getting there will be a much bumpier ride than on the way up. While we have some ability to re-localize ourselves and make better choices, it seems clear to me that much of our lives will be at risk from .gov, domestic violence, and other factors outside of our control. Buckle up.
Exactly as the fully referenced archeology of Easter Island tells us summarized in the 2003 Massey Lectures book "A Short History of Progress" (Wright) (122 pages of text and 55 pages of bibliographic references - Easter island as the central example as it follows its rise and fall with little "contamination" i.e. influence, via contact with other "civilizations").