and this is probably nearest answer to your question "Has anyone really examined what a modern sustainable society using best practices and equitable distribution of resource use would be like?"
However that was written at time when thinking there was a solution to global warming was the only acceptable line of reasoning.
The first thing to accept, which most find difficult, is that any kind of one-planet living is going to involve a LOT LESS PEOPLE. Even the 1972 Limits to Growth shows the population falling by half by 2075-ish.
My thinking is more in line with Paul Chefurka - "one-planet living" means under 35 million humans living as nomadic hunter-gatherers, which is the only way of being we actually evolved to do:
I was going to suggest that. Given what we know about climate change, as well as newly discovered synergies between various factors like pollutants, we may not make it except in small numbers by 2050. I just read a massive, well sourced post on Medium about this. It's so long and detailed that it took me two hours to read. The author makes a good case that we're far closer to collapse than many want to admit.
This resonates as truth. I’m pretty sure no one wants to think about this (denial). We could all start living differently right now. But we’re too addicted to our comfort and convenience. It’s not about going off to live on an island or a bunker in the woods. It’s more about eating more simply (macrobiotic), and investing time in our communities. We’re quietly transforming our front yard planters into fruit and vegetable gardens. We’re learning how to fix things ourselves, and consciously cultivating skills that will be needed in a world where you can’t just have food, clothing, and other supplies just delivered to your doorstep. Recently I’ve been working alongside our gardener to learn how to prune, naturally feed, and organically manage pests. Next, we’ll be looking at rain capture and water reclamation options. We’ve kept our old DVD player and our favorite discs. Hubby just brought home 20 hardcover novels by Grisham, Crichton, and 5 other popular authors (whom I haven’t yet read) that he found being thrown out at his storage space. I could go on… Suffice it to say, I hear you and I agree.
Same. I took his words to heart and I planned my life accordingly. The thing that I find odd is that I am the weirdo for trying to vaguely prepare for what likely lies ahead, whereas keeping your eyes wide shut, fingers in ears, muttering "la la la" is perfectly normal. Apparently.
Very interesting analysis. All of us in the predictions community must always keep in mind the inherent limitations to long term forecasting . Reliability goes down in direct proportion to specificity x time scales.
Yes! Aliens from Proxima Centauri could descend and grant us the knowledge of infinite zero-point energy!
Careful. Hopium is very addictive.
Better would be to take control of your personal food supply.
Then, even if this whole analysis turns out to be wrong, you'll have nutritious food instead of the increasingly poisonous, empty-calorie industrial food that is ultimately required by the continued growth of the present food system.
I just watched Nate Hagens interview Stephen Jenkinson on The Forgotten Skills of Dying and Grieving. (https://www.thegreatsimplification.com/episode/190-stephen-jenkinson) Nate asks his guests what advice they have for young people, especially the collapse aware, and Stephen's advice was, "Slow the f*ck down." He didn't say "Be a sloth," but that's what I'm longing for, and instead of accumulating money, I am giving it to people who are mostly surviving without it--they already working the land, have no health insurance, no phone bill, and no paycheck job. On the way down, a little cash for transportation and supplemental food goes a long way.
But if I may politely dissent, such actions still put yourself above the decline.
Rather, perhaps you could figure out how *you* could reduce your income and still survive without too much discomfort. If you have investments, perhaps you could divest as a simple way to stop feeding the beast.
Dear Jan, yes!!! So much this. I am living on what's left of my retirement income after converting my beast-feeding investment funds to steep woodland that developers didn't want. If I outlive my income, which seems likely, perhaps I can still die in peace, and save a forest place for others.
That's more radical than what I've done. I divested of the stock market, but am still getting simple interest, which doesn't keep up with inflation. So perhaps I will starve longer than you do. Or perhaps those whom you've helped will take you in.
I see the two pillars of post-civilization life to be 1) growing food, and 2) community. I feel the need to be useful, and if you're in a supportive community, that should be worth some food and a simple shelter.
You have a broad and/or uncertain range of dates for peak oil kicking in. Did you see Lars Larsen's 2024 book dedicated to running many parallel simulations of the Export Land Model and building a probability mass for when global diesel export/import trade volume goes to zero?
Economic complexity not only requires more energy, but more specialized people- people who are experts in their particular niche. Specialization also results in the loss of people with generalized skills or the so called "jack of all trades." But these generalists will have the edge in the end, although even their numbers will be determined by the carrying capacity of the planet.
When there is enough plentiful energy and materials, specialization under an expanding economy flourishes, and this requires a medium of exchange to facilitate this. Money.
But when both money (through debt and fiat creation) and energy decline, so does specialization. So the question will be: How many generalists will the planet support?
Civilizations during the bronze age or the age of empires could fall back on future energy sources yet to be discovered- coal, oil, nuclear. This time, we will have used up all these former backups. So at best, a grinding steady decline over the next few generations, hopefully without a catastrophic collapse with vicious civil wars over resources.
A decline could come in two phases. The quick collapse of the specialists followed by a gradual decline in the number of generalists until the carrying capacity equilibrium of humanity is reached.
More than half of the world's population lives in cities. Cities require a whole ecosystem of specialists and production/transportation systems to remain liveable. And while generalists might be able to thrive in rural circumstances, they have no particular advantage in a city where everything is supplied by specialists and complex mechanical systems.
The complex systems that feed and fuel cities are mostly organized via markets and exchanges of money for goods and services. If the financial system or markets fail and a command economy can't be implemented very rapidly, cities will start to suffer and then die very quickly. Since a significant percentage of essential resources are supplied by international trade, this command economy would require a high degree of international cooperation, something I find completely implausible.
The upshot of all these market and complexity risks is that cities are likely to fail very quickly after collapse produces a threshold level of social and economic simplification. A multi-generational decline is unlikely, especially in the Global North which is highly urbanized. The rural denizens of the Global South will have a much better start on adapting to the Sloth Economy.
No vicious civil wars? Kid me not. For one, you're surrounded by hordes of fanatical muslims hell bent on taking over the world? Will you join them or fight them?
I am a recent subscriber looking to find what you have written about the role that small holder sustainable agriculture and artisan household business can play in the post collapse world. I come from these professions and wonder why people walk so quickly past the joy of working with one’s hands in union with head and heart. Call it toil in manual labor if you will, but I see relationships with soil, plants, animals, aka more conscious inter being with nature, as our current refuge of sanity as well as our future.
No wonder Musk et al want to get off the planet! We need other planets and the Asteroid Belt to loot....
Anyways, the relative price of fuel oil is likely to rise steadily, since fracking produces only light oil, which can't produce No.6 fuel oil...The supply of human produced CO2 will decline, as the population and the population's activities decline...If there is significant warming, then northerly countries like Russia, Canada, Alaska, Mongolia etc will benefit with longer growing seasons and bigger crop yields...and there will be more wars for their resources, like the Ukraine war...Subsaharan Africa's population will decline from 1 billion to historical levels around 15-20 million....But life will go on....
Musk's Mars dream is a bad joke. We don't have the technology to live there. His Starship hasn't completed a successful flight yet. He's cut so much weight off of it that it's now too fragile to operate. That's a big reason the launches keep failing. Starship is structurally unsound. Even if he did get there, survival in a base there is highly questionable. I'd love to see him succeed, but I'm skeptical that he has any of the answers needed.
transitioning to a steady state economy would require a suite of policy changes - all of which would be challenged by those benefiting most from current arrangements. However, there is still value in clarifying what that suits of policies might include. Yes, rationing of fossil fuels. That would significantly reduce material throughput. An often overlooked policy is that of an income or wealth cap. Putting a cap on financial wealth (i.e. claim on resources), would also reduce material throughput, as any gains beyond the cap would be redistributed. Redistribution of financial wealth is a related, often ignored, policy goal to both reduce overconsumption and even out inequality. If we are overconsuming natural sources and sinks, and money is a claim on those resources, and if there is a finite amount of sources and sinks to share, then it would seem to follow that there should be a cap on financial wealth to maintain the biosphere.
A steady state economy is by definition sustainable. It involves a level of material throughput that allows sources and sinks to regenerate faster than they are being consumed. It should not be confused with a "no growth" economy at today's level of throughput. Today's level of throughput would have to be reduced some 70 to 80% to achieve a SSE (see the ecological footprint data). Herman Daly, the father of ecological economics, has written about this. In Herman's definition it involves a reasonably stable population size as well, as that obviously has a dramatic impact on total throughput. The higher the population size, the lower the consumption per capita required to remain in a SSE. I doubt we can get their intentionally; but its inevitable at the current rate of destruction of the biosphere we are causing. cheers
Why do you think a hunter-gatherer lifestyle wasn't sustainable? It worked for hundreds of thousands, maybe millions, of years for our species and its predecessors. It was more the spread of humans, disturbing other climax ecosystems in which they didn't evolve, which might have made the practice unsustainable though that certainly isn't clear. Herding and farming are definitely unsustainable as they displace ecosystems and eliminate biodiversity.
Don’t let the hundreds of thousands of years of hunting-gathering confuse you: that long spell wasn’t the sign of sustainability, rather due to our erstwhile smaller numbers and the primitive tools at our disposable. But slowly and surely, we became expert hunters with precise weapons that could decimate their environment in short order. Just observe how quickly and efficiently the first American settlers finished off all the mega fauna on the continent—and that’s only one example. In short, our dexterous and mental abilities are too much for this earth, and that’s exactly what’s going to bring our downfall.
Exactly, "the first American settlers" moved into an ecosystem of which they weren't a part. This is the primary cause of megafauna extinctions. It's not the hunter-gather lifestyle that is unsustainable, it is the movement of animals (us) to new ecosystems and the development of better tools (weapons).
I have no expectations that humans will find a basic hunter-gatherer lifestyle satisfying for very long. They will innovate with better hunting techniques, and perhaps better gathering techniques, ultimately resulting in unsustainable lifestyles. But hunting and gathering is the only sustainable way of life for all animal species. At least as far as I can tell.
I often wonder how the future collapse will unfold. But predictions seem littered with unknowns. They often require some semblance of governance which is trying to do its best with a dwindling resource base. And how rapidly would that resource base dwindle? Yes, there will be plenty of already mined and refined resources to potentially reuse but will there be the energy to do that? How will energy production fare in a degrowing economy? Will they all have to be brought into public ownership to place the emphasis not on profit but on utility? And would they still be viable?
One thing seem certain to me. Any kind of modernity can never be made sustainable (by the way, there aren't degrees of sustainable which allows some configuration to be "infinitely more sustainable" than any other - something is either sustainable or it isn't). So any future path must eventually lead either to the extinction of humans or to a hunter-gatherer existence wherever that is possible. At least as far as I can tell.
Ask a thousand analysts about how they see our predicament unfolding and you'd probably get a thousand different answers. I'm sure one of them will be preferred by any individual, and so they can live happily, knowing it's all going to be OK.
totally agree that "modernity" is incompatible with ecological sustainability. However, some societies can be more or less sustainable than others, provided both are operating at a Steady State level. The more sustainable society would be using less material throughput than the just barely sustainable society. The more sustainable society would be more resilient, because it has more of a safety margin in terms of resources available in an emergency. Today's use of " sustainable" or "more sustainable" is definitely irksome, as it generally means less unsustainable - an usually by such a small amount that it is meaningless as we increase our overall level of material throughput.
Right, "more sustainable" means "less unsustainable" so their use annoys me no end. But both are meaningless. Perhaps "closer to sustainable" would be better but people prefer brevity over correctness.
Yes, if "more sustainable" means "well within sustainable levels of resource use and waste" then it would be more resilient to changing environmental conditions. This would be a very difficult thing to manage but it has to be sustainable first. And that means no use of non-renewable resources.
"Antiquity" was also incompatible with ecological sustainability. In fact, our trajectory over time has been of exhausting resources and moving on to new pastures--and we're about to run out of new pastures.
I loved the last line of this piece. Your grandchildren want to learn about economics and wonder what they will do for a living. One thing is highly probable: they won’t have metabolic syndrome or type 2 diabetes.
Appreciate your attempt at envisioning how collapse will unfold and the hints at what may come from the ruins. So much collapse dialogue falls way short of that and leaves behind panic, angst and mire questions than before. Clearly we can't know how this massively complex system will break down but attempts to look for the weak points are helpful and undoubtedly some if what you've described will come to pass.
Since your knowledge of history is limited, your forecast of the future is facile. One example to your myopic vision: Genghis khan carved out the biggest empire in human history without access to any resource to speak of—small hardy ponies, composite bows and some rusty swords.
Their major work (available in French only) was their "Plan de transformation de l'économie française (French Economy Transformation Plan)" that sold more than 100,000 copies.
The book, published in January 2022, is a comprehensive 272-page plan. Some key details:
- Led by Jean-Marc Jancovici, a prominent French environmental expert
- Aims to reduce France's greenhouse gas emissions by 5% annually
- Proposes transformative strategies for key sectors like:
Manufacturing
Agriculture
Transportation
The plan advocates for:
- Halving final energy consumption by 2050
- Virtually eliminating fossil fuel use
- Significant changes in agricultural production
- Decarbonizing heavy industries
After a very successful subscription campaign, they are presently working on a new edition that will be made available for perusal to all the 2027 presidential election candidates, with the hope of influencing their programs.
Were I be living in France, I certainly would be interested in joining them, even if I'm personally very skeptical about its probability of being truly endorsed and acted upon by politicians.
«The French Economy Transformation Plan (PTEF) is a book published in 2022 by The Shift Project (TSP). It proposes a plan that details solutions for transforming the French economy, making it less carbon-intensive, more resilient, and job-creating.
Based on scientific and economic analyses, this plan identifies the necessary levers to achieve a significant reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. It covers key sectors such as energy, transportation, agriculture, industry, and housing, offering concrete and applicable solutions. The ambition of the PTEF is to provide a clear roadmap to guide France towards carbon neutrality while promoting a more robust and equitable economy.»
There is this:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0016328719303507
and this is probably nearest answer to your question "Has anyone really examined what a modern sustainable society using best practices and equitable distribution of resource use would be like?"
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/peter-gelderloos-an-anarchist-solution-to-global-warming
However that was written at time when thinking there was a solution to global warming was the only acceptable line of reasoning.
The first thing to accept, which most find difficult, is that any kind of one-planet living is going to involve a LOT LESS PEOPLE. Even the 1972 Limits to Growth shows the population falling by half by 2075-ish.
My thinking is more in line with Paul Chefurka - "one-planet living" means under 35 million humans living as nomadic hunter-gatherers, which is the only way of being we actually evolved to do:
http://paulchefurka.ca/Sustainability.html
It's difficult to see it not ending up in extension.
I may agree with your ultimate assessment, but a lot of water has to pass under the bridge before that point!
Paul Ehrlich claimed that your Impact was a product of Population times Affluence (or Access to energy) times Technology: I = P * A * T.
So, reducing A and T could make up for having to reduce P catastrophically.
Conversely — perversely — your point is really the status quo: maintain A and T for the wealthy few, while allowing P to fall for most of the others.
I reject that as the humane way to live within our means!
Please consider baked in climate change of +3 degrees C by 2050 in your deliberations
And the likelihood of the food chain collapse (marine and continental due to pollution, acidification and climate change) before 2050.
I was going to suggest that. Given what we know about climate change, as well as newly discovered synergies between various factors like pollutants, we may not make it except in small numbers by 2050. I just read a massive, well sourced post on Medium about this. It's so long and detailed that it took me two hours to read. The author makes a good case that we're far closer to collapse than many want to admit.
Would you mind linking that article or just providing the name? Thank you kindly.
This is possibly your worst ever article
This resonates as truth. I’m pretty sure no one wants to think about this (denial). We could all start living differently right now. But we’re too addicted to our comfort and convenience. It’s not about going off to live on an island or a bunker in the woods. It’s more about eating more simply (macrobiotic), and investing time in our communities. We’re quietly transforming our front yard planters into fruit and vegetable gardens. We’re learning how to fix things ourselves, and consciously cultivating skills that will be needed in a world where you can’t just have food, clothing, and other supplies just delivered to your doorstep. Recently I’ve been working alongside our gardener to learn how to prune, naturally feed, and organically manage pests. Next, we’ll be looking at rain capture and water reclamation options. We’ve kept our old DVD player and our favorite discs. Hubby just brought home 20 hardcover novels by Grisham, Crichton, and 5 other popular authors (whom I haven’t yet read) that he found being thrown out at his storage space. I could go on… Suffice it to say, I hear you and I agree.
What JM Greer described as " Collapse early and avoid the rush".
Hah hah. 😂
Seriously though, I’m from an era where contingency plans are considered wise. i.e. : be prepared.
Same. I took his words to heart and I planned my life accordingly. The thing that I find odd is that I am the weirdo for trying to vaguely prepare for what likely lies ahead, whereas keeping your eyes wide shut, fingers in ears, muttering "la la la" is perfectly normal. Apparently.
Very interesting analysis. All of us in the predictions community must always keep in mind the inherent limitations to long term forecasting . Reliability goes down in direct proportion to specificity x time scales.
Yes! Aliens from Proxima Centauri could descend and grant us the knowledge of infinite zero-point energy!
Careful. Hopium is very addictive.
Better would be to take control of your personal food supply.
Then, even if this whole analysis turns out to be wrong, you'll have nutritious food instead of the increasingly poisonous, empty-calorie industrial food that is ultimately required by the continued growth of the present food system.
I just watched Nate Hagens interview Stephen Jenkinson on The Forgotten Skills of Dying and Grieving. (https://www.thegreatsimplification.com/episode/190-stephen-jenkinson) Nate asks his guests what advice they have for young people, especially the collapse aware, and Stephen's advice was, "Slow the f*ck down." He didn't say "Be a sloth," but that's what I'm longing for, and instead of accumulating money, I am giving it to people who are mostly surviving without it--they already working the land, have no health insurance, no phone bill, and no paycheck job. On the way down, a little cash for transportation and supplemental food goes a long way.
Bless you!
But if I may politely dissent, such actions still put yourself above the decline.
Rather, perhaps you could figure out how *you* could reduce your income and still survive without too much discomfort. If you have investments, perhaps you could divest as a simple way to stop feeding the beast.
Dear Jan, yes!!! So much this. I am living on what's left of my retirement income after converting my beast-feeding investment funds to steep woodland that developers didn't want. If I outlive my income, which seems likely, perhaps I can still die in peace, and save a forest place for others.
Thank you so much for doing that!
That's more radical than what I've done. I divested of the stock market, but am still getting simple interest, which doesn't keep up with inflation. So perhaps I will starve longer than you do. Or perhaps those whom you've helped will take you in.
I see the two pillars of post-civilization life to be 1) growing food, and 2) community. I feel the need to be useful, and if you're in a supportive community, that should be worth some food and a simple shelter.
You have a broad and/or uncertain range of dates for peak oil kicking in. Did you see Lars Larsen's 2024 book dedicated to running many parallel simulations of the Export Land Model and building a probability mass for when global diesel export/import trade volume goes to zero?
According to Mielcarski's review of his book: ( https://un-denial.com/2024/07/29/book-review-the-end-of-global-net-oil-exports-by-lars-larsen-2024/ ) the bulk of the probability mass is in 2026 and 2027 (!!).
Thanks for that link! Great info. 2027 sounds about right. Carpe diem, my friends!
Economic complexity not only requires more energy, but more specialized people- people who are experts in their particular niche. Specialization also results in the loss of people with generalized skills or the so called "jack of all trades." But these generalists will have the edge in the end, although even their numbers will be determined by the carrying capacity of the planet.
When there is enough plentiful energy and materials, specialization under an expanding economy flourishes, and this requires a medium of exchange to facilitate this. Money.
But when both money (through debt and fiat creation) and energy decline, so does specialization. So the question will be: How many generalists will the planet support?
Civilizations during the bronze age or the age of empires could fall back on future energy sources yet to be discovered- coal, oil, nuclear. This time, we will have used up all these former backups. So at best, a grinding steady decline over the next few generations, hopefully without a catastrophic collapse with vicious civil wars over resources.
A decline could come in two phases. The quick collapse of the specialists followed by a gradual decline in the number of generalists until the carrying capacity equilibrium of humanity is reached.
More than half of the world's population lives in cities. Cities require a whole ecosystem of specialists and production/transportation systems to remain liveable. And while generalists might be able to thrive in rural circumstances, they have no particular advantage in a city where everything is supplied by specialists and complex mechanical systems.
The complex systems that feed and fuel cities are mostly organized via markets and exchanges of money for goods and services. If the financial system or markets fail and a command economy can't be implemented very rapidly, cities will start to suffer and then die very quickly. Since a significant percentage of essential resources are supplied by international trade, this command economy would require a high degree of international cooperation, something I find completely implausible.
The upshot of all these market and complexity risks is that cities are likely to fail very quickly after collapse produces a threshold level of social and economic simplification. A multi-generational decline is unlikely, especially in the Global North which is highly urbanized. The rural denizens of the Global South will have a much better start on adapting to the Sloth Economy.
No vicious civil wars? Kid me not. For one, you're surrounded by hordes of fanatical muslims hell bent on taking over the world? Will you join them or fight them?
I am a recent subscriber looking to find what you have written about the role that small holder sustainable agriculture and artisan household business can play in the post collapse world. I come from these professions and wonder why people walk so quickly past the joy of working with one’s hands in union with head and heart. Call it toil in manual labor if you will, but I see relationships with soil, plants, animals, aka more conscious inter being with nature, as our current refuge of sanity as well as our future.
Maybe you need to write the articles you would like to read? I think someone famous said that was what got them started.
No wonder Musk et al want to get off the planet! We need other planets and the Asteroid Belt to loot....
Anyways, the relative price of fuel oil is likely to rise steadily, since fracking produces only light oil, which can't produce No.6 fuel oil...The supply of human produced CO2 will decline, as the population and the population's activities decline...If there is significant warming, then northerly countries like Russia, Canada, Alaska, Mongolia etc will benefit with longer growing seasons and bigger crop yields...and there will be more wars for their resources, like the Ukraine war...Subsaharan Africa's population will decline from 1 billion to historical levels around 15-20 million....But life will go on....
Musk's Mars dream is a bad joke. We don't have the technology to live there. His Starship hasn't completed a successful flight yet. He's cut so much weight off of it that it's now too fragile to operate. That's a big reason the launches keep failing. Starship is structurally unsound. Even if he did get there, survival in a base there is highly questionable. I'd love to see him succeed, but I'm skeptical that he has any of the answers needed.
transitioning to a steady state economy would require a suite of policy changes - all of which would be challenged by those benefiting most from current arrangements. However, there is still value in clarifying what that suits of policies might include. Yes, rationing of fossil fuels. That would significantly reduce material throughput. An often overlooked policy is that of an income or wealth cap. Putting a cap on financial wealth (i.e. claim on resources), would also reduce material throughput, as any gains beyond the cap would be redistributed. Redistribution of financial wealth is a related, often ignored, policy goal to both reduce overconsumption and even out inequality. If we are overconsuming natural sources and sinks, and money is a claim on those resources, and if there is a finite amount of sources and sinks to share, then it would seem to follow that there should be a cap on financial wealth to maintain the biosphere.
A steady state economy would not be sustainable either.
A steady state economy is by definition sustainable. It involves a level of material throughput that allows sources and sinks to regenerate faster than they are being consumed. It should not be confused with a "no growth" economy at today's level of throughput. Today's level of throughput would have to be reduced some 70 to 80% to achieve a SSE (see the ecological footprint data). Herman Daly, the father of ecological economics, has written about this. In Herman's definition it involves a reasonably stable population size as well, as that obviously has a dramatic impact on total throughput. The higher the population size, the lower the consumption per capita required to remain in a SSE. I doubt we can get their intentionally; but its inevitable at the current rate of destruction of the biosphere we are causing. cheers
Correct. The same way hunting-gathering wasn't sustainable, forcing our ancestors to switch to herding and farming.
Why do you think a hunter-gatherer lifestyle wasn't sustainable? It worked for hundreds of thousands, maybe millions, of years for our species and its predecessors. It was more the spread of humans, disturbing other climax ecosystems in which they didn't evolve, which might have made the practice unsustainable though that certainly isn't clear. Herding and farming are definitely unsustainable as they displace ecosystems and eliminate biodiversity.
Don’t let the hundreds of thousands of years of hunting-gathering confuse you: that long spell wasn’t the sign of sustainability, rather due to our erstwhile smaller numbers and the primitive tools at our disposable. But slowly and surely, we became expert hunters with precise weapons that could decimate their environment in short order. Just observe how quickly and efficiently the first American settlers finished off all the mega fauna on the continent—and that’s only one example. In short, our dexterous and mental abilities are too much for this earth, and that’s exactly what’s going to bring our downfall.
Exactly, "the first American settlers" moved into an ecosystem of which they weren't a part. This is the primary cause of megafauna extinctions. It's not the hunter-gather lifestyle that is unsustainable, it is the movement of animals (us) to new ecosystems and the development of better tools (weapons).
I have no expectations that humans will find a basic hunter-gatherer lifestyle satisfying for very long. They will innovate with better hunting techniques, and perhaps better gathering techniques, ultimately resulting in unsustainable lifestyles. But hunting and gathering is the only sustainable way of life for all animal species. At least as far as I can tell.
I often wonder how the future collapse will unfold. But predictions seem littered with unknowns. They often require some semblance of governance which is trying to do its best with a dwindling resource base. And how rapidly would that resource base dwindle? Yes, there will be plenty of already mined and refined resources to potentially reuse but will there be the energy to do that? How will energy production fare in a degrowing economy? Will they all have to be brought into public ownership to place the emphasis not on profit but on utility? And would they still be viable?
One thing seem certain to me. Any kind of modernity can never be made sustainable (by the way, there aren't degrees of sustainable which allows some configuration to be "infinitely more sustainable" than any other - something is either sustainable or it isn't). So any future path must eventually lead either to the extinction of humans or to a hunter-gatherer existence wherever that is possible. At least as far as I can tell.
Ask a thousand analysts about how they see our predicament unfolding and you'd probably get a thousand different answers. I'm sure one of them will be preferred by any individual, and so they can live happily, knowing it's all going to be OK.
totally agree that "modernity" is incompatible with ecological sustainability. However, some societies can be more or less sustainable than others, provided both are operating at a Steady State level. The more sustainable society would be using less material throughput than the just barely sustainable society. The more sustainable society would be more resilient, because it has more of a safety margin in terms of resources available in an emergency. Today's use of " sustainable" or "more sustainable" is definitely irksome, as it generally means less unsustainable - an usually by such a small amount that it is meaningless as we increase our overall level of material throughput.
Right, "more sustainable" means "less unsustainable" so their use annoys me no end. But both are meaningless. Perhaps "closer to sustainable" would be better but people prefer brevity over correctness.
Yes, if "more sustainable" means "well within sustainable levels of resource use and waste" then it would be more resilient to changing environmental conditions. This would be a very difficult thing to manage but it has to be sustainable first. And that means no use of non-renewable resources.
"Antiquity" was also incompatible with ecological sustainability. In fact, our trajectory over time has been of exhausting resources and moving on to new pastures--and we're about to run out of new pastures.
I loved the last line of this piece. Your grandchildren want to learn about economics and wonder what they will do for a living. One thing is highly probable: they won’t have metabolic syndrome or type 2 diabetes.
Appreciate your attempt at envisioning how collapse will unfold and the hints at what may come from the ruins. So much collapse dialogue falls way short of that and leaves behind panic, angst and mire questions than before. Clearly we can't know how this massively complex system will break down but attempts to look for the weak points are helpful and undoubtedly some if what you've described will come to pass.
But Elon Musk told me we are going to Mars...
Since your knowledge of history is limited, your forecast of the future is facile. One example to your myopic vision: Genghis khan carved out the biggest empire in human history without access to any resource to speak of—small hardy ponies, composite bows and some rusty swords.
I tip my hat to these people who are not just complaining and wringing hands but actually putting their money where their mouth is and acting.
AFAIK, this is a unique experience: https://theshiftproject.org/en/
Their major work (available in French only) was their "Plan de transformation de l'économie française (French Economy Transformation Plan)" that sold more than 100,000 copies.
The book, published in January 2022, is a comprehensive 272-page plan. Some key details:
- Led by Jean-Marc Jancovici, a prominent French environmental expert
- Aims to reduce France's greenhouse gas emissions by 5% annually
- Proposes transformative strategies for key sectors like:
Manufacturing
Agriculture
Transportation
The plan advocates for:
- Halving final energy consumption by 2050
- Virtually eliminating fossil fuel use
- Significant changes in agricultural production
- Decarbonizing heavy industries
After a very successful subscription campaign, they are presently working on a new edition that will be made available for perusal to all the 2027 presidential election candidates, with the hope of influencing their programs.
Were I be living in France, I certainly would be interested in joining them, even if I'm personally very skeptical about its probability of being truly endorsed and acted upon by politicians.
Excerpt translated from https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climat,_crises_:_Le_Plan_de_transformation_de_l%27%C3%A9conomie_fran%C3%A7aise :
«The French Economy Transformation Plan (PTEF) is a book published in 2022 by The Shift Project (TSP). It proposes a plan that details solutions for transforming the French economy, making it less carbon-intensive, more resilient, and job-creating.
Based on scientific and economic analyses, this plan identifies the necessary levers to achieve a significant reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. It covers key sectors such as energy, transportation, agriculture, industry, and housing, offering concrete and applicable solutions. The ambition of the PTEF is to provide a clear roadmap to guide France towards carbon neutrality while promoting a more robust and equitable economy.»