We are witnessing the end of an era in history spanning half a millennium; the end of Western dominance in geopolitics. For those who understand the role of resources and energy in economics, culture and politics, it comes as no surprise that this shift in global power has an awful lot to do with resource depletion in particular, and overshoot in general — not unlike the many major shifts in human history. What we are facing here is something akin to the fall of the Soviet Union, but this time on steroids, and with global consequences affecting every nation on the planet to boot.
One cannot say we don't live in interesting times. Throw on top of the cyclical process of societal growth/collapse the ecological overshoot predicament we've led ourselves into and things look pretty grim depending upon one's perspective.
I 'discovered' Tainter's The Collapse of Complex Societies shortly after falling into the rabbit's hole of Peak Oil. It is one of the best theses I have read regarding our species' tendencies once large, complex societies arose; and I highly recommend its reading. I depend upon and use his ideas about 'collapse' often in my writing.
Of particular importance is this: "Remaining populations must become locally self-sufficient to a degree not seen for several generations."
As I conclude: "This local self-reliance aspect I can see as a problem for many communities. And it may be especially so for modern society and its dependence upon technologies that will break down and/or become unusable due to their fuel/power requirements. Add to this the fact that the vast majority of regions depend significantly upon trade (or energy-averaging systems) to ensure such necessities as potable water, food, and regional shelter needs, and few if any people hold the skills/knowledge for self-sufficiency and it seems certain mass chaos will ensue.
Compounding this tragic mix for society are the dangerous complexities we’ve constructed and that require constant management and security to prevent them from breaking down and possibly resulting in massive environmental/ecological destruction: nuclear power plants with their radiogenic materials; biosafety labs and their deadly pathogens; chemical production and storage facilities and their toxic products and waste.
There are no guarantees when it comes to predictions about the future of humanity. This is particularly true when it comes to complex systems with their nonlinear feedback loops and emergent phenomena. There is almost an endless range of possibilities of what the future holds…but as Meadows et al. argue in the quote that opened this post: “… the possible futures do not include indefinite growth in physical throughputs. This is not an option on a finite planet.”"
I have been writing on OurFiniteWorld.com, powered by Wordpress, but I have been having issues I need their tech support to fix. The above mentioned post is my first Substack post.
Yes, the more the situation worsen, the more we will hear about the "unpredictable" nature of things.
While reading this essay, I was also listening to the usual TV pundits pedantically talking about next month 10% electricity price hike in France.
Then one just said that the situation is not so much the result of some political mistakes. But comes mostly from "unpredictable or unthinkable situations". So raising tax should not be taken as a form of political contempt by the population.
How about that ?....
When European political leaders were actively phasing out nuclear for decades, planning a war with Russia for years and new full well that most fossil fuel would have to be imported anyway, and so on and so forth...
While your comments may well be prescient, they are not the only possible outcomes available and may not even be the most likely.
First it is important to understand that much of the energy shortage is the result of a political decision in fealty to the global warming gods, not so much a question of a lack of available energy. history has shown that when things get difficult enough, perhaps as measured by the price of energy is uncomfortably high, those sources that were politically unpalatable before suddenly find themselves as appropriate for various reasons. one need only look at the shift in much of Europe regarding nuclear power and how it suddenly morphed from heinous not good, clean, green energy.
I wholeheartedly agree that energy is life but cannot help but notice that there is more energy produced in the Western Hemisphere than in Eurasia. and reserves here are greater as well (see Venezuela, Canada, Argentina and Brazil).
Politics is a funny thing, I think, something where wishes are deemed sufficient until reality intrudes. despite a huge number of problems that exist within the US and every country around the world, I would not be so quick to write off the west yet. Remember, China, arguably the leader of the anti-west, has enormous problems in their own right and are in no position to dominate anything.
perhaps more localization is coming, but in that case, the US, given its republican nature of state and local governments having significant power, is well placed to continue to lead the way forward.
This is very much in sync with Doomberg's recent arguments. I find myself torn between both sides. If for no other reason than a lot of the large oil reserves are of significantly worse quality than what we've already sucked out of the ground. Canadian tar sands and Venezuela's huge reserves are high in sulfer content which makes them difficult and energy intensive to process into useful end products. It's not that we won't have the supplies, it's that it will continue to become more costly to extract and refine them into something useful. Though I do agree that we will start to get more realistic about things and may even invest in new refineries (for instance) if shit really hits the fan.
Doomberg's argument is essentially that "technology always finds a way" because we've "found a way" before (with fracking, etc.) But I find that this argument ignores the fact that "technology finds a way" only after a crisis and only if it is profitable to do so. This requires either much higher oil prices or extremely cheap capital (which is likely no longer an option post-GFC).
So sure, we might be able to tap additional resources for a long time to come, but it doesn't mean we'll be able to do so at a price point that allows for the way of life we've all grown accustomed to. If anything, this is already evidently true based on the actions of western governments. If domestic energy were so cheap and plentiful, there would be little need to involve ourselves in foreign affairs. But it's not and the system itself will not work without it, hence our endless saber rattling around the world and rationing in the form of "fighting climate change."
you are correct, I found Doomberg's analysis persuasive, but that is also why I said pricing needs to be allowed to find the right spot.
In the end though, my strong belief is that the climate change narrative is in the beginning stages of collapse. reality is a harsh master and as people around the world understand that the grandstanding about climate change has made their lives materially worse off in the short run for some highly un certain long run benefit, we are going to continue to see more and more populist election victories that will fight specifically against that narrative of closing farms and killing cows and wind and solar are cheaper and more efficient than oil/gas/nuclear. So while I also see that Neil Howe's 4th turning is coming, my strong belief is we will get through to the other side with a new narrative and a more realistic view of reality and physics rather than simply grifting and platitudes.
I may be a cynic, and even a curmudgeon, but I do believe the future will be better
Thank you for your thoughtful reply. Don't you think, however, that if pricing is allowed to find the right spot that the entire system will collapse? (i.e. hard currency reset, etc.) I tend to think such an outcome could actually be beneficial as it would serve as a "rip the bandaid" moment for everyone, but it's hard to see it being allowed to happen given how much is at stake financially. And I'm not even sure people would prefer it given that most people would rather slowly immiserate than deal with substantial change.
I do tend to agree in part that some of the more extreme elements of the climate change narrative will come to an end, but I think the big push for sustainability is likely here to stay. (I am not even really opposed to it given material realities and my own personal brutal aversion to thinks like factory farming).
You may enjoy this article from Real Left which makes the case that climate change alarmism and the associated energy transition is actually a tool to slowly deflate speculative asset bubbles in the west while transitioning from capitalism as people think of it towards something more like a command economy. https://real-left.com/a-rebuttal-of-jonathan-cooks-climate-alarmism/
Fabio Vighi at The Philosophical Salon makes very persuasive arguments along these lines as well. I think it's fair to say that the system that took the global economy through the 20th century effectively stopped working in 2008. And despite best efforts, there's no going back. Everything we see is a messy push to try and deal with this issue, in my opinion. (Not a moral statement or a statement of agreement with what is being done, to be clear).
I will have to read that article. as to the big picture, I agree that 2008 likely marked the end of what we had known and loved. and the ongoing fight for what's next will continue to be messy, that's for sure
Predictions are a risky business. Political polls, weather forecasts, and behavioral predictions all fall apart more than 48 hours out from the target event. But Hari Sheldon ("The Foundation" by Isaac Aasimov) observed that predicting huge macro trends may be more accurate than smaller ones, so I'm open to your viewpoint, especially when so well expressed! 👏
They are preparing to launch Pathogen X - which was engineered to exploit the damaged immune systems of the fools who shot the Covid Vaccines (for the free donuts)... and kill billions.
There will be no future historians... there will be no humans
I'd be very curious to hear your thoughts on Doomberg's recent articles arguing that cheap oil is here to stay for the long run (because of advances in technology and the opening of new shale fields in South America, for instance). I wonder what your thoughts might be given they are reasonably credible figures in the energy space.
Thank you B🙏
One cannot say we don't live in interesting times. Throw on top of the cyclical process of societal growth/collapse the ecological overshoot predicament we've led ourselves into and things look pretty grim depending upon one's perspective.
I 'discovered' Tainter's The Collapse of Complex Societies shortly after falling into the rabbit's hole of Peak Oil. It is one of the best theses I have read regarding our species' tendencies once large, complex societies arose; and I highly recommend its reading. I depend upon and use his ideas about 'collapse' often in my writing.
In this piece (https://stevebull-4168.medium.com/todays-contemplation-collapse-cometh-cv-fb31a90f8b00) I shared Tainter's prognosis for what does come after the pre-collapse phase, that can perhaps be used as a 'guideline' for a community's 'preparations/planning' for the future.
Of particular importance is this: "Remaining populations must become locally self-sufficient to a degree not seen for several generations."
As I conclude: "This local self-reliance aspect I can see as a problem for many communities. And it may be especially so for modern society and its dependence upon technologies that will break down and/or become unusable due to their fuel/power requirements. Add to this the fact that the vast majority of regions depend significantly upon trade (or energy-averaging systems) to ensure such necessities as potable water, food, and regional shelter needs, and few if any people hold the skills/knowledge for self-sufficiency and it seems certain mass chaos will ensue.
Compounding this tragic mix for society are the dangerous complexities we’ve constructed and that require constant management and security to prevent them from breaking down and possibly resulting in massive environmental/ecological destruction: nuclear power plants with their radiogenic materials; biosafety labs and their deadly pathogens; chemical production and storage facilities and their toxic products and waste.
There are no guarantees when it comes to predictions about the future of humanity. This is particularly true when it comes to complex systems with their nonlinear feedback loops and emergent phenomena. There is almost an endless range of possibilities of what the future holds…but as Meadows et al. argue in the quote that opened this post: “… the possible futures do not include indefinite growth in physical throughputs. This is not an option on a finite planet.”"
I noticed suddenly everybody started pushing at once. Russia, China in the Philippines, Middle East, Venezuela. It’s a solid strategy.
Thanks for documenting some of the problems occurring. I talk about very much related topics in my new post https://gailtverberg.substack.com/p/2024-too-many-things-going-wrong
I have been writing on OurFiniteWorld.com, powered by Wordpress, but I have been having issues I need their tech support to fix. The above mentioned post is my first Substack post.
Huge fan, glad you are onboard now!
Yes, the more the situation worsen, the more we will hear about the "unpredictable" nature of things.
While reading this essay, I was also listening to the usual TV pundits pedantically talking about next month 10% electricity price hike in France.
Then one just said that the situation is not so much the result of some political mistakes. But comes mostly from "unpredictable or unthinkable situations". So raising tax should not be taken as a form of political contempt by the population.
How about that ?....
When European political leaders were actively phasing out nuclear for decades, planning a war with Russia for years and new full well that most fossil fuel would have to be imported anyway, and so on and so forth...
While your comments may well be prescient, they are not the only possible outcomes available and may not even be the most likely.
First it is important to understand that much of the energy shortage is the result of a political decision in fealty to the global warming gods, not so much a question of a lack of available energy. history has shown that when things get difficult enough, perhaps as measured by the price of energy is uncomfortably high, those sources that were politically unpalatable before suddenly find themselves as appropriate for various reasons. one need only look at the shift in much of Europe regarding nuclear power and how it suddenly morphed from heinous not good, clean, green energy.
I wholeheartedly agree that energy is life but cannot help but notice that there is more energy produced in the Western Hemisphere than in Eurasia. and reserves here are greater as well (see Venezuela, Canada, Argentina and Brazil).
Politics is a funny thing, I think, something where wishes are deemed sufficient until reality intrudes. despite a huge number of problems that exist within the US and every country around the world, I would not be so quick to write off the west yet. Remember, China, arguably the leader of the anti-west, has enormous problems in their own right and are in no position to dominate anything.
perhaps more localization is coming, but in that case, the US, given its republican nature of state and local governments having significant power, is well placed to continue to lead the way forward.
This is very much in sync with Doomberg's recent arguments. I find myself torn between both sides. If for no other reason than a lot of the large oil reserves are of significantly worse quality than what we've already sucked out of the ground. Canadian tar sands and Venezuela's huge reserves are high in sulfer content which makes them difficult and energy intensive to process into useful end products. It's not that we won't have the supplies, it's that it will continue to become more costly to extract and refine them into something useful. Though I do agree that we will start to get more realistic about things and may even invest in new refineries (for instance) if shit really hits the fan.
Doomberg's argument is essentially that "technology always finds a way" because we've "found a way" before (with fracking, etc.) But I find that this argument ignores the fact that "technology finds a way" only after a crisis and only if it is profitable to do so. This requires either much higher oil prices or extremely cheap capital (which is likely no longer an option post-GFC).
So sure, we might be able to tap additional resources for a long time to come, but it doesn't mean we'll be able to do so at a price point that allows for the way of life we've all grown accustomed to. If anything, this is already evidently true based on the actions of western governments. If domestic energy were so cheap and plentiful, there would be little need to involve ourselves in foreign affairs. But it's not and the system itself will not work without it, hence our endless saber rattling around the world and rationing in the form of "fighting climate change."
you are correct, I found Doomberg's analysis persuasive, but that is also why I said pricing needs to be allowed to find the right spot.
In the end though, my strong belief is that the climate change narrative is in the beginning stages of collapse. reality is a harsh master and as people around the world understand that the grandstanding about climate change has made their lives materially worse off in the short run for some highly un certain long run benefit, we are going to continue to see more and more populist election victories that will fight specifically against that narrative of closing farms and killing cows and wind and solar are cheaper and more efficient than oil/gas/nuclear. So while I also see that Neil Howe's 4th turning is coming, my strong belief is we will get through to the other side with a new narrative and a more realistic view of reality and physics rather than simply grifting and platitudes.
I may be a cynic, and even a curmudgeon, but I do believe the future will be better
Thank you for your thoughtful reply. Don't you think, however, that if pricing is allowed to find the right spot that the entire system will collapse? (i.e. hard currency reset, etc.) I tend to think such an outcome could actually be beneficial as it would serve as a "rip the bandaid" moment for everyone, but it's hard to see it being allowed to happen given how much is at stake financially. And I'm not even sure people would prefer it given that most people would rather slowly immiserate than deal with substantial change.
I do tend to agree in part that some of the more extreme elements of the climate change narrative will come to an end, but I think the big push for sustainability is likely here to stay. (I am not even really opposed to it given material realities and my own personal brutal aversion to thinks like factory farming).
You may enjoy this article from Real Left which makes the case that climate change alarmism and the associated energy transition is actually a tool to slowly deflate speculative asset bubbles in the west while transitioning from capitalism as people think of it towards something more like a command economy. https://real-left.com/a-rebuttal-of-jonathan-cooks-climate-alarmism/
Fabio Vighi at The Philosophical Salon makes very persuasive arguments along these lines as well. I think it's fair to say that the system that took the global economy through the 20th century effectively stopped working in 2008. And despite best efforts, there's no going back. Everything we see is a messy push to try and deal with this issue, in my opinion. (Not a moral statement or a statement of agreement with what is being done, to be clear).
I will have to read that article. as to the big picture, I agree that 2008 likely marked the end of what we had known and loved. and the ongoing fight for what's next will continue to be messy, that's for sure
And my great fear is that there is no outcome that sees any lesser use of resources that also does not result in leadership by tyranny.
Predictions are a risky business. Political polls, weather forecasts, and behavioral predictions all fall apart more than 48 hours out from the target event. But Hari Sheldon ("The Foundation" by Isaac Aasimov) observed that predicting huge macro trends may be more accurate than smaller ones, so I'm open to your viewpoint, especially when so well expressed! 👏
That's Hari SELDON (darn autocorrect!)
Nothing To See Here: The US Congress Introduced the ‘Disease X Act’ in June of 2023
https://lionessofjudah.substack.com/p/nothing-to-see-here-the-us-congress
They are preparing to launch Pathogen X - which was engineered to exploit the damaged immune systems of the fools who shot the Covid Vaccines (for the free donuts)... and kill billions.
There will be no future historians... there will be no humans
This is an extinction event
I'd be very curious to hear your thoughts on Doomberg's recent articles arguing that cheap oil is here to stay for the long run (because of advances in technology and the opening of new shale fields in South America, for instance). I wonder what your thoughts might be given they are reasonably credible figures in the energy space.
Thanks for a fine article!
I keep looking for something sudden and catastrophic to make this look like 2019 again, or 1999 or something.
Maybe this: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLHSoxioQtwZcVcFC85TxEEiirgfXwhfsw