There has been a slew of articles recently from many commentators I follow on the topic of acceptance (you can read them here, here and here). Since I was traveling the better part of last week, please allow me to share only a short reflection on this topic, as opposed to my usual long rants on the technutopian madness pouring in on all channels.
Good to see some honest writing on this point emerging alongside other sources. Hopefully this will encourage a tipping point in thinking by society on what is acceptable going forward.
Hey, Fast Eddy! I am glad that you have your own blog now. It means that there is a good chance that you will vent on your blog rather than polluting everyone else's with your sometimes goofy theories.
I do anticipate a contraction of human society. But as you say, the return to an integrated existence with nature that keeps us sustainable (with a smaller population overall) will be a step-wise process that probably will unfold over many decades into the future. Not that a sudden collapse or nuclear war can ever be ruled out.
I keep thinking you are not factoring in the 450+ nuclear power plants and the thousands of spent fuel ponds? I'm not so optimistic about future humanoid foraging.
That could increase our mutation rate, and thus, our progress of adaptation via evolution, a process that seems to have stopped, since fossil sunlight has made it possible for all but a very tiny minority of us can live long enough to reproduce. In other words, there is no selection pressure these days.
This well expresses some of what I feel, however, I am old enough to have lived a full life. I will not live as long as my parents with the impending collapse of oil, agriculture, and supply chains, but that's okay. However, the reality of the suffering and violence those endure from collapse of this artificially pumped up civilization bothers me a lot. My daughter, just in her early 20s, is likely to have a shortened, difficult life. I also wonder if our species will survive at all, not that it matters in the great scheme of things. Climate change could make agriculture untenable, and wipe out the last stragglers trying to adapt. Every species eventually outstrips its resources and ends in collapse. Too bad just a few of us have recognized this and been unable to change the inevitable.
To a considerable degree technology got us into this ecological crisis. It is a simple wisdom to avoid expectation that some technology will get us out. Rather, the problem is centered on the difficulty of governing what is called "the economy". To date ecological health has been an "externality" to the economy. We haven't yet figured out how to make ecological health the paramount goal of the economy. Finding that path is the task which will provide hope. It is time to get serious about that problem.
This is the beginning of what I will post in a few hours, B.
I am perplexed by a problem, which I believe to be our common problem, which has as its best "solution" our cooperative efforts over the next decade and beyond, which must be based upon honest and open sharing of information, and societal work to enable societal survival. The lack of such widespread, honest and informed effort will lead to societal collapse, in my best estimation. I laid that out succinctly in my last post, Propaganda Misservices, at the very end https://drjohnsblog.substack.com/p/propaganda-traps-and-misservices It is one step more than the terminal decline of oil, now underway since the end of 2018, and it is 2 steps beyond the war of genocide against native Palestinian people in the mideast, and the brotherly war of Slavs against Slavs in Ukraine. We have created a human societal ecosystem which mimics an Apex-Predator ecosystem of predation upon grazing animals, to prevent overgrazing, while eliminating the weakest members of the grazing herd, facilitating survival of the fittest and healthiest herd members. The human apex predators of other grazing humans are the "elites", who have been "kings" in the past, and I often refer to as "owners" these days. For all of written history these elites have turned one group of grazing humans against another group to reduce the human herd size through war, allowing the "winners" to thrive after the war on captured farms. During the Industrial Revolution this took on an accelerated character, as transport ships, guns and cannons allowed global conquest, then steam-engines and the Haber-Bosch process of nitrogen-fixation created the green-revolution of highly productive mechanized agriculture. Something like 90% of global human population depends upon nitrogen fertilizer these days. There is no easy way around that hard fact. If we look at human populations before the burning of coal for heat freed up English forests to make fleets of ships, we can surmise that a stable global population might be 500 million, not the 8 billion who currently live here. The dip before that restabilization would probably be much lower. I sure wouldn't survive long. Here is that short summary of what I see as the big threat to our species, and our world, copied from my last blog post. We need to cooperate to end parasitic wars, to share remaining resources cooperatively, and to transcend the apex-predator ecosystem model, in order to survive as a species, without losing all of the advances we have developed over the last 300 years of "investing" the one-time fossil-fuel inheritance on this "pulse" of growth in our numbers and knowledge of how things work in the physical world.
Ben Davidson has patched together 48 minutes of videos to present the Solar Catastrophe 12,000 Year Cycle in one video. Several concepts are repeated.
The gist is that there is a galactic current sheet rotating from the galactic center with positive and negative sinusoidal undulations, which passes our way with a polarity reversal every 12,000 years. This is supported by fossil evidence of changes on 12,000 year markers.
Another thing that happens, apparently each 12,000 year repetition, is a solar micronova, caused by the accretion of dust (carried by the galactic current sheet and now increasing in our solar system) onto the sun's surface, which is then explosively thrown off, creating "nova isotopes" which are in evidence in sediments on earth, with no other explanation. The magnetic field change "kick" is the other thing shown to trigger various sized nova events.
Stars in the approach path of the galactic current sheet have displayed these phenomena over the past 50 years, in appropriate succession, and our solar system is next, already experiencing weakening magnetic fields and wandering magnetic poles.
The flux of energy from the micronova is variable and comes in an initial flash, then arrival of charged particles, then arrival of high speed energized debris, with nova-isotopes.
This may be, and apparently has sometimes been, enough energy transmitted into the mantle layer below the tectonic plates to loosen them, and facilitate a 90 degree shift of rotational poles, with north and south poles becoming equatorial, and two equatorial areas becoming rotational poles. From what I read polar ice cores go back more than 24,000 years, so this particularly devastating event is not every 12,000 year cycle. The expected arrival of this event is before 2050.
Ben's presentation style may irritate you, It irritates me. The content is worthy of your consideration.
I took a good look at that resource, and it is heavily flawed. He does not accurately represent "Limits to Growth," and leans heavily on discredited critics of LtG, like Bjorn Lombard, who is a political science major with no training in hard science or ecology.
He appears to believe that "technology" will continue to conquer all the problems that infinite growth on a finite world will present, without even considering that, as a direct artifact of energy, technology itself is subject to limits.
I read every word, and even explored the few of his "references" that I was unfamiliar with. Few of his references actually backed his assertions, and those that did were from the popular press, not from scientists.
So I remain unconvinced. Malthus wasn't wrong; he had no way of knowing that fossil sunlight would send us far into overshoot. Perhaps Little Green Men from Proxima Centauri will descend to Earth and give us another secret to "unlimited" energy.
That's a fair appraisal. And the reason I dropped it in here. There are many different takes on what happens next and no one has all the answers. The best we can do is guess. But basing scenarios on what went before and projections based on garbage computer models is sure to fail. Even the most sure bets based on common sense and available data extrapolated out into the next hundred years is likely off.
Max represents the most extreme of techno optimists which of course finite worlders will shame and ridicule but without these kinds of minds we wouldn't have made it out of mud huts. And yes people here think that would have been best for our species but I believe that's a very limited mindset coming from a tiny minority that hates humanity.
You all repeat the mantra of infinite growth on a finite planet as if that somehow magically wins the argument which of course it doesn't. It's just a mantra and just like any religious belief utterly unhinged and far removed from reality.
The jab of "little green men" just proves even further that you don't have any real arguments. You are simply desperately clinging to your fantasy of reducing human activity to that of apes again so that the planet can be "saved."
So much indoctrination, brainwashing, and fatalistic dogma on show. It's a shame.
Humanity will most likely go through a process of transformation and that's why it's difficult for most people to grasp. There is no pattern to be recognized. There is nothing from the past that maps onto the result of this process. So logical minds conclude that it's all going to end.
Religious apocalyptic catastrophists and finite worlders have a lot in common.
You criticize my language as being of a "very limited mindset," and then go on to talk about "garbage computer models?"
Pot, meet kettle!
The Limits to Growth World3 model has undergone rigorous review, with at least a dozen follow-on studies, validations, and re-calibrations. Anyone can download it and run it on their desktop computer.
There have also been a large body of scientific work, from Howard Odum to William Catton to Joseph Tainter, and many, many others, who clearly see the obvious problems in the "limitless growth" model humanity appears to be on.
Then, there's obvious personal observation, to anyone with eyes that see, for anyone who are not enticed by endless graphs that continue upward and to the right. Species are going extinct at a far faster then at any time in the past 65 million years. Humans and their domestic biomass now out-weigh all other terrestrial animals by a large margin. We are currently using about 40% more energy than that gathered by all the photosynthesizing plants on Earth. Weather is increasingly unpredictable, with bigger floods and longer droughts than at any time in human history.
As a farmer, I kept meticulous records. Over a fifteen-year period, I could easily see longer growing seasons, later "first frost," earlier "last frost," and most alarmingly, increased irrigation needs.
But most are in a "consensus trance," caressing their iThingies and too obsessed with popular culture to even notice what's going on.
And you claim "indoctrination!" My gawd, it's like pulling teeth to get anyone to look up from their screen long enough to even notice what's going on! It is the promise of endless growth that has "indoctrinated" civilization.
I don't want to "save the planet." You're just projecting your growthist bias on me. My training is in ecology, and I have never seen another species behave like ours without crashing.
The planet will be just fine. I'm just not sure there will be any humans on it, unless we change our ways.
There is absolutely no reason to hold the position that you seem to be attached to. Nature and nature alone is responsible for the world as it is today. Obviously, humans are not something other than a natural process. We are not removed from the natural world. We use the available materials in our environment to enhance our ability to survive much as every species does. Everything we do follows the behavioral patterns of life seen at all levels on Earth. If other species reached our capability they would be doing exactly the same because all life follows the same drives.
Is it good behavior? Is it bad? I would say neither. Every species is simply trying to survive and thrive utilizing the methods handed down by the process of adaptation.
There is no perfect blueprint for how life should be or for where it should begin and end. It simply is and humans apply their bias to the patterns wishing for homeostasis and a certain equilibrium that may or not have existed at some time. For example you appear to want the climate to always remain in the sweet spot so that you can farm and then bitch about supposed swings up or down because then you won't be able to continue with your hobby.
Well... who said that things have to stay the same way just because you like them that way?
Where is it written that humans must be stewards of the planet and safeguard the lives of all other species?
The points you make from a position of childish desperation make you sound a little spoiled... like a brat stomping his feet because he can't get what he wants.
I'll let you in on something... you'll never get what you want no matter how much you stomp your feet... because it's not about you... or me. Nature is going to do whatever she damn well wants and there's nothing you or I can do about it. You are not going to keep the climate in check by changing human behavior. You are not going to solve any of the problems that, of course, are not actually problems, just life unfolding as it always does.
Lets imagine a scenario... in a flash there are zero humans on planet Earth. All human activity goes to zero. Immediately, there would be noticeable warming as global dimming from contrails cease to exist but lets say things even out as all other emissions grind to a halt too. What then? Would the rest of the biosphere magically bounce back? Would all other animal life flourish as it does in areas where there is reduced human activity (Chernobil deadzone)? Maybe. For a while. But we know that entire species were wiped out before without human intervention so in the end what difference does it make?
We are here making the most of what we have been given with the "programming" that emerged from adaptation and evolution. Trying to improve on this using human logic and reasoning has no place. It's a fool's game and surely to be lost.
Enjoy the ride. It can all be over in the blink of an eye. I would rather spend my time awestruck with natures unfolding patterns (however odd they may seem to my human bias) than bellyaching about how it's not exactly how I want things to be and bullying others into joining the bellyaching cult of doom in some mass virtue signalling exercise.
And I'm not arguing. There's nothing to argue about. No one knows what happens next. If it does all go to shit I wish you a good time for as long it lasts.
I didn't criticize your language. I said people "here" have a limited mindset.
Garbage computer models refers to "garbage in garbage out" when it comes to computer modelling which I'm sure you're aware of.
Rigorous review doesn't amount to much when you know how crooked the peer review system is. It's garbage.
If we collapse now then we won't have endless graphs up and to the right.
Species going extinct is perfectly natural. Increased rates are perfectly natural too. Not sure why you think otherwise. Should it be some other way?
Your other comparisons are just silly. We are not separate from nature. The self-organizing system has no dividers.
Weather and climate do not stay where you want them to. Get used to it.
Fifteen years of farming records. Well, that settles it then, I guess. you need to think in terms of millions if not billions of years.
I agree with you about ithingys but that can change in the blink of an eye.
What is going on?
Nothing out of the ordinary if you take a long term view.
I don't have a growthist bias. I actually think the human experience as we know it is going to collapse but I can see ways that breakaway elements can continue in a transformed state.
You have never seen another species like ours because there has never been another species like ours. That doesn't mean that humans are special or that we will overcome certain issues that pertain to our survival. It simply means that we stand a good chance of solving problems as they arise even after a breakdown of the current system. Admittedly, the result has always been extinction up to now but who knows.
Why do you think that changing our ways will have any effect whatsoever on the outcome? Some things are simply the way they have to be.
"The only type of civilization (if you want to use that term), which proved to be more or less sustainable so far, was a basic hunter-gatherer society…"
Perhaps we don't need to go that far back.
Between hunter-gatherer and agriculture was a thousand or two years of pastoralism. I think that could work, if the population levels are small enough that personal land ownership goes away.
It begins with scale. Current systems create vast externalities because they're convoluted behemoths. Not least of which is because the systems for putting people in charge at scale are inept.
I totally agree with you on this topic. A clear and refreshing viewpoint! I am very weary of the well-meaning handwringers who think they can stop this juggernaut by forcing us to change our home appliances and taking away incandenscent lightbulbs and our automobiles. It will all rectifiy itself sooner or later, and we are essentially powerless to affect the course.
Good to see some honest writing on this point emerging alongside other sources. Hopefully this will encourage a tipping point in thinking by society on what is acceptable going forward.
Good article. Is that a typo: 4 billion of us?
Roughly half the population can be considered sustained by synthetic fertilizer.
Nice stuff... one mistake - there will be no future generations ... we end here.
https://www.headsupster.com/forumthread?shortId=220
Hey, Fast Eddy! I am glad that you have your own blog now. It means that there is a good chance that you will vent on your blog rather than polluting everyone else's with your sometimes goofy theories.
Thank you B🙏
I do anticipate a contraction of human society. But as you say, the return to an integrated existence with nature that keeps us sustainable (with a smaller population overall) will be a step-wise process that probably will unfold over many decades into the future. Not that a sudden collapse or nuclear war can ever be ruled out.
I keep thinking you are not factoring in the 450+ nuclear power plants and the thousands of spent fuel ponds? I'm not so optimistic about future humanoid foraging.
That could increase our mutation rate, and thus, our progress of adaptation via evolution, a process that seems to have stopped, since fossil sunlight has made it possible for all but a very tiny minority of us can live long enough to reproduce. In other words, there is no selection pressure these days.
Increase our mutation rate? Might be the least of your worries as the core meltdowns turn the planet into Venus..
The wreckage of Fukushima is held together by mud kept frozen by diesel generators. It was built below the known tsunami high-water marks.
This well expresses some of what I feel, however, I am old enough to have lived a full life. I will not live as long as my parents with the impending collapse of oil, agriculture, and supply chains, but that's okay. However, the reality of the suffering and violence those endure from collapse of this artificially pumped up civilization bothers me a lot. My daughter, just in her early 20s, is likely to have a shortened, difficult life. I also wonder if our species will survive at all, not that it matters in the great scheme of things. Climate change could make agriculture untenable, and wipe out the last stragglers trying to adapt. Every species eventually outstrips its resources and ends in collapse. Too bad just a few of us have recognized this and been unable to change the inevitable.
To a considerable degree technology got us into this ecological crisis. It is a simple wisdom to avoid expectation that some technology will get us out. Rather, the problem is centered on the difficulty of governing what is called "the economy". To date ecological health has been an "externality" to the economy. We haven't yet figured out how to make ecological health the paramount goal of the economy. Finding that path is the task which will provide hope. It is time to get serious about that problem.
This is the beginning of what I will post in a few hours, B.
I am perplexed by a problem, which I believe to be our common problem, which has as its best "solution" our cooperative efforts over the next decade and beyond, which must be based upon honest and open sharing of information, and societal work to enable societal survival. The lack of such widespread, honest and informed effort will lead to societal collapse, in my best estimation. I laid that out succinctly in my last post, Propaganda Misservices, at the very end https://drjohnsblog.substack.com/p/propaganda-traps-and-misservices It is one step more than the terminal decline of oil, now underway since the end of 2018, and it is 2 steps beyond the war of genocide against native Palestinian people in the mideast, and the brotherly war of Slavs against Slavs in Ukraine. We have created a human societal ecosystem which mimics an Apex-Predator ecosystem of predation upon grazing animals, to prevent overgrazing, while eliminating the weakest members of the grazing herd, facilitating survival of the fittest and healthiest herd members. The human apex predators of other grazing humans are the "elites", who have been "kings" in the past, and I often refer to as "owners" these days. For all of written history these elites have turned one group of grazing humans against another group to reduce the human herd size through war, allowing the "winners" to thrive after the war on captured farms. During the Industrial Revolution this took on an accelerated character, as transport ships, guns and cannons allowed global conquest, then steam-engines and the Haber-Bosch process of nitrogen-fixation created the green-revolution of highly productive mechanized agriculture. Something like 90% of global human population depends upon nitrogen fertilizer these days. There is no easy way around that hard fact. If we look at human populations before the burning of coal for heat freed up English forests to make fleets of ships, we can surmise that a stable global population might be 500 million, not the 8 billion who currently live here. The dip before that restabilization would probably be much lower. I sure wouldn't survive long. Here is that short summary of what I see as the big threat to our species, and our world, copied from my last blog post. We need to cooperate to end parasitic wars, to share remaining resources cooperatively, and to transcend the apex-predator ecosystem model, in order to survive as a species, without losing all of the advances we have developed over the last 300 years of "investing" the one-time fossil-fuel inheritance on this "pulse" of growth in our numbers and knowledge of how things work in the physical world.
Ben Davidson has patched together 48 minutes of videos to present the Solar Catastrophe 12,000 Year Cycle in one video. Several concepts are repeated.
The gist is that there is a galactic current sheet rotating from the galactic center with positive and negative sinusoidal undulations, which passes our way with a polarity reversal every 12,000 years. This is supported by fossil evidence of changes on 12,000 year markers.
Another thing that happens, apparently each 12,000 year repetition, is a solar micronova, caused by the accretion of dust (carried by the galactic current sheet and now increasing in our solar system) onto the sun's surface, which is then explosively thrown off, creating "nova isotopes" which are in evidence in sediments on earth, with no other explanation. The magnetic field change "kick" is the other thing shown to trigger various sized nova events.
Stars in the approach path of the galactic current sheet have displayed these phenomena over the past 50 years, in appropriate succession, and our solar system is next, already experiencing weakening magnetic fields and wandering magnetic poles.
The flux of energy from the micronova is variable and comes in an initial flash, then arrival of charged particles, then arrival of high speed energized debris, with nova-isotopes.
This may be, and apparently has sometimes been, enough energy transmitted into the mantle layer below the tectonic plates to loosen them, and facilitate a 90 degree shift of rotational poles, with north and south poles becoming equatorial, and two equatorial areas becoming rotational poles. From what I read polar ice cores go back more than 24,000 years, so this particularly devastating event is not every 12,000 year cycle. The expected arrival of this event is before 2050.
Ben's presentation style may irritate you, It irritates me. The content is worthy of your consideration.
The Catastrophe Evidence https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-sGPCMIQZLw
And on the other side of the fence...
Limits of Limits to Growth
The fatal flaws in Malthusian thinking
https://maxmore.substack.com/p/limits-of-limits-to-growth
I took a good look at that resource, and it is heavily flawed. He does not accurately represent "Limits to Growth," and leans heavily on discredited critics of LtG, like Bjorn Lombard, who is a political science major with no training in hard science or ecology.
He appears to believe that "technology" will continue to conquer all the problems that infinite growth on a finite world will present, without even considering that, as a direct artifact of energy, technology itself is subject to limits.
I read every word, and even explored the few of his "references" that I was unfamiliar with. Few of his references actually backed his assertions, and those that did were from the popular press, not from scientists.
So I remain unconvinced. Malthus wasn't wrong; he had no way of knowing that fossil sunlight would send us far into overshoot. Perhaps Little Green Men from Proxima Centauri will descend to Earth and give us another secret to "unlimited" energy.
I'm not holding my breath on that one.
That's a fair appraisal. And the reason I dropped it in here. There are many different takes on what happens next and no one has all the answers. The best we can do is guess. But basing scenarios on what went before and projections based on garbage computer models is sure to fail. Even the most sure bets based on common sense and available data extrapolated out into the next hundred years is likely off.
Max represents the most extreme of techno optimists which of course finite worlders will shame and ridicule but without these kinds of minds we wouldn't have made it out of mud huts. And yes people here think that would have been best for our species but I believe that's a very limited mindset coming from a tiny minority that hates humanity.
You all repeat the mantra of infinite growth on a finite planet as if that somehow magically wins the argument which of course it doesn't. It's just a mantra and just like any religious belief utterly unhinged and far removed from reality.
The jab of "little green men" just proves even further that you don't have any real arguments. You are simply desperately clinging to your fantasy of reducing human activity to that of apes again so that the planet can be "saved."
So much indoctrination, brainwashing, and fatalistic dogma on show. It's a shame.
Humanity will most likely go through a process of transformation and that's why it's difficult for most people to grasp. There is no pattern to be recognized. There is nothing from the past that maps onto the result of this process. So logical minds conclude that it's all going to end.
Religious apocalyptic catastrophists and finite worlders have a lot in common.
You criticize my language as being of a "very limited mindset," and then go on to talk about "garbage computer models?"
Pot, meet kettle!
The Limits to Growth World3 model has undergone rigorous review, with at least a dozen follow-on studies, validations, and re-calibrations. Anyone can download it and run it on their desktop computer.
There have also been a large body of scientific work, from Howard Odum to William Catton to Joseph Tainter, and many, many others, who clearly see the obvious problems in the "limitless growth" model humanity appears to be on.
Then, there's obvious personal observation, to anyone with eyes that see, for anyone who are not enticed by endless graphs that continue upward and to the right. Species are going extinct at a far faster then at any time in the past 65 million years. Humans and their domestic biomass now out-weigh all other terrestrial animals by a large margin. We are currently using about 40% more energy than that gathered by all the photosynthesizing plants on Earth. Weather is increasingly unpredictable, with bigger floods and longer droughts than at any time in human history.
As a farmer, I kept meticulous records. Over a fifteen-year period, I could easily see longer growing seasons, later "first frost," earlier "last frost," and most alarmingly, increased irrigation needs.
But most are in a "consensus trance," caressing their iThingies and too obsessed with popular culture to even notice what's going on.
And you claim "indoctrination!" My gawd, it's like pulling teeth to get anyone to look up from their screen long enough to even notice what's going on! It is the promise of endless growth that has "indoctrinated" civilization.
I don't want to "save the planet." You're just projecting your growthist bias on me. My training is in ecology, and I have never seen another species behave like ours without crashing.
The planet will be just fine. I'm just not sure there will be any humans on it, unless we change our ways.
Where to begin!
There is absolutely no reason to hold the position that you seem to be attached to. Nature and nature alone is responsible for the world as it is today. Obviously, humans are not something other than a natural process. We are not removed from the natural world. We use the available materials in our environment to enhance our ability to survive much as every species does. Everything we do follows the behavioral patterns of life seen at all levels on Earth. If other species reached our capability they would be doing exactly the same because all life follows the same drives.
Is it good behavior? Is it bad? I would say neither. Every species is simply trying to survive and thrive utilizing the methods handed down by the process of adaptation.
There is no perfect blueprint for how life should be or for where it should begin and end. It simply is and humans apply their bias to the patterns wishing for homeostasis and a certain equilibrium that may or not have existed at some time. For example you appear to want the climate to always remain in the sweet spot so that you can farm and then bitch about supposed swings up or down because then you won't be able to continue with your hobby.
Well... who said that things have to stay the same way just because you like them that way?
Where is it written that humans must be stewards of the planet and safeguard the lives of all other species?
The points you make from a position of childish desperation make you sound a little spoiled... like a brat stomping his feet because he can't get what he wants.
I'll let you in on something... you'll never get what you want no matter how much you stomp your feet... because it's not about you... or me. Nature is going to do whatever she damn well wants and there's nothing you or I can do about it. You are not going to keep the climate in check by changing human behavior. You are not going to solve any of the problems that, of course, are not actually problems, just life unfolding as it always does.
Lets imagine a scenario... in a flash there are zero humans on planet Earth. All human activity goes to zero. Immediately, there would be noticeable warming as global dimming from contrails cease to exist but lets say things even out as all other emissions grind to a halt too. What then? Would the rest of the biosphere magically bounce back? Would all other animal life flourish as it does in areas where there is reduced human activity (Chernobil deadzone)? Maybe. For a while. But we know that entire species were wiped out before without human intervention so in the end what difference does it make?
We are here making the most of what we have been given with the "programming" that emerged from adaptation and evolution. Trying to improve on this using human logic and reasoning has no place. It's a fool's game and surely to be lost.
Enjoy the ride. It can all be over in the blink of an eye. I would rather spend my time awestruck with natures unfolding patterns (however odd they may seem to my human bias) than bellyaching about how it's not exactly how I want things to be and bullying others into joining the bellyaching cult of doom in some mass virtue signalling exercise.
SubStack seriously needs a "block" function.
I don't block people I disagree with; I block people who are disagreeable.
Anyway, you got to call be a bunch of names, tell me I'm childish, and let me on to your superiority. So, we're done now.
"Never argue with an idiot: a bystander can't tell the difference." — Mark Twain
I didn't call you an idiot.
And I'm not arguing. There's nothing to argue about. No one knows what happens next. If it does all go to shit I wish you a good time for as long it lasts.
Ok... just to add...
I didn't criticize your language. I said people "here" have a limited mindset.
Garbage computer models refers to "garbage in garbage out" when it comes to computer modelling which I'm sure you're aware of.
Rigorous review doesn't amount to much when you know how crooked the peer review system is. It's garbage.
If we collapse now then we won't have endless graphs up and to the right.
Species going extinct is perfectly natural. Increased rates are perfectly natural too. Not sure why you think otherwise. Should it be some other way?
Your other comparisons are just silly. We are not separate from nature. The self-organizing system has no dividers.
Weather and climate do not stay where you want them to. Get used to it.
Fifteen years of farming records. Well, that settles it then, I guess. you need to think in terms of millions if not billions of years.
I agree with you about ithingys but that can change in the blink of an eye.
What is going on?
Nothing out of the ordinary if you take a long term view.
I don't have a growthist bias. I actually think the human experience as we know it is going to collapse but I can see ways that breakaway elements can continue in a transformed state.
You have never seen another species like ours because there has never been another species like ours. That doesn't mean that humans are special or that we will overcome certain issues that pertain to our survival. It simply means that we stand a good chance of solving problems as they arise even after a breakdown of the current system. Admittedly, the result has always been extinction up to now but who knows.
Why do you think that changing our ways will have any effect whatsoever on the outcome? Some things are simply the way they have to be.
"The only type of civilization (if you want to use that term), which proved to be more or less sustainable so far, was a basic hunter-gatherer society…"
Perhaps we don't need to go that far back.
Between hunter-gatherer and agriculture was a thousand or two years of pastoralism. I think that could work, if the population levels are small enough that personal land ownership goes away.
You and your readers might enjoy my novel, Ada's Children, in which humans of the future live as hunter-gatherers in a not-quite paradise. https://larryhogue.substack.com/p/prologue?r=1hfx9
During and before the Coal Age were the Whale Oil Age and the very short Guano Age, which read like fever dreams.
It begins with scale. Current systems create vast externalities because they're convoluted behemoths. Not least of which is because the systems for putting people in charge at scale are inept.
I totally agree with you on this topic. A clear and refreshing viewpoint! I am very weary of the well-meaning handwringers who think they can stop this juggernaut by forcing us to change our home appliances and taking away incandenscent lightbulbs and our automobiles. It will all rectifiy itself sooner or later, and we are essentially powerless to affect the course.
Bravo!