Will There Be a Second Stone Age?
We are heading towards another stone age — at least from a purely technical perspective. After the easy to get parts of fossil fuels and rich deposits of minerals (all mined and processed by burning coal, oil and gas) deplete, we won’t be able to maintain a high-tech civilization and are bound to relive our history in reverse. (If you haven’t done so yet — or if you are new to this blog — please read my essay on a potential coming of a second bronze age to understand where I’m coming from). But could the biosphere support billions of farmers and hunters then…? Maybe a million? Or perhaps none at all?
This time, compared to writing another (longish) piece musing on the eons ahead, I propose a list of questions and potential answers to ponder on instead. And when I say ponder, I do mean it: please take your time to think through your answers. Most importantly, however, I want you to ask yourself: ‘why do I believe that will be the case?’ (Feel free to do your own research and to discuss your answers in the comments section down below.) With that said, let’s have a go at it, shall we?
How much (more) radioactive, chemical, plastic, endocrine disrupting, genetic etc. pollution will this civilization leave behind?
A: Not that much. We will realize how serious a problem pollution is, and act accordingly: banning, then eventually cleaning up all toxic materials left behind by industrial civilization. Earth systems will be able to cope with what remains.
B: A lot, at least much more than what could be absorbed by Nature without suffering serious, detrimental consequences. The reason: none of the materials mentioned above were part of the natural circulation of nutrients, and thus no organism has evolved to cope with them. Yet, much of it will remain in circulation for thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of years to come, posing a real threat to the reproductive and physical health of all life forms.To what extent will we cut down forests to satisfy our need for firewood when fossil fuels leave the scene?
A: Minimally. We will manage the de-grow the economy successfully and shrink the human enterprise accordingly. We won’t have the energy (fuel) to cut down everything, anyway.
B: To a large extent. In a last ditch attempt to keep the electric grid stable, and to prevent people from freezing in their homes, we will cut down most forests around densely populated areas and incinerate them in our stoves and power plants. The resulting habitat loss will give a further boost to the already ongoing sixth mass extinction.What would happen if a nation runs out of wood to burn? How much waste, used clothes, plastic etc. will they incinerate then? How much more pollution will all that uncontrolled, incomplete combustion release?
A: We will burn some stuff, but it won’t release as much pollution as you would think. At least we would get rid of a lot of waste.
B: The answer to both questions is: quite a lot. The massive amount of bisphenols and phthalates generated during the process — all toxins that can disrupt neurodevelopment, endocrine, and reproductive functions — will further exacerbate our pollution predicament; pushing many species’ beyond their capacity to cope.To what extent will remaining forests burn due to wildfires, or turn into a savanna / grassland due to climate change (and our unsustainable forestry practices)? How much more CO2 will that process release?
A: Minimally. Once the amount of CO2 released by human activities starts to fall, and clear cutting comes to an end, forests will start to regenerate naturally; absorbing most of the CO2 released by burning fossil fuels.
B: The Amazon will turn into a savanna, no matter how we wish it would regenerate. It has already switched from being a carbon sink to act as a carbon source, and the likely halt of the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation (aka the “Gulf stream”) will eventually seal its fate. The process will release untold gigatons of CO2; effectively replacing most emission cuts “achieved” by hitting and passing peak oil. The same goes — to a large extent — to northern taiga forests.How high sea level will rise five hundred years from now?
A: A couple of meters (six feet) at worst. Nothing that a good old seawall could not stop.
B: Potentially fifteen meters — or more — inundating all coastal cities up to the fifth story, and destroying all of “our” low-lying farmlands.How much of “our” arable land will remain viable during the centuries ahead? How much of it will be rendered permanently useless due to chemical and radioactive pollution or coastal inundation?
A: Most of our farmlands — except for some low-lying land — will be in use a hundred years from now.
B: We will almost certainly lose “our” most fertile arable lands located in river deltas and on low-lying plains to sea level rise, and lands adjacent to our drastically reshaped shorelines will be damaged by sea water intrusion. Aquifer depletion and changed rainfall patterns will dry up yet another tranche of arable land and turn them into deserts. Another considerable amount of farms further inland will be lost due to chemical and radioactive pollution. (Depending on how uncontrolled the collapse of modernity will be, a number of nuclear reactors could melt down or see their fuel ponds dry up and burn, covering farmlands downwind with tons of radioactive fallout. Oil wells in the tune of millions (just in the continental US) will be left behind without being sealed properly, leaking oil, fracking fluid and “produced” saline water into the ground.) We are already past ‘peak agricultural land’, and in a polluted, post-fossil-fuel world the decline can only be expected to accelerate.Will Earth’s changing climate, and the loss of viable farmlands allow for agriculture to continue? If yes, how long?
A: With sustainable agroforestry and using permaculture techniques we will be able to continue growing crops indefinitely, and at the same time adapt to a new climate regime.
B: While permaculture practices could help, what about soil erosion, salination, overgrazing etc. especially if there are more mouths to feed than land to till? Again, if the decline in agricultural output (due to an accelerating loss of arable lands, a fall in diesel fuel supply and a deteriorating climate) is faster than natural population decline, we will be forced to take drastic measures. More importantly, over the decades and centuries ahead, Earth’s climate could easily leave the stable conditions required for growing crops behind, eventually putting an end to all agriculture. Globally. This is no joke or hyperbole: the climatic fluctuations of the ice ages prevented the rise of civilizations for hundreds of thousands of years. We are already into the process of losing that very climatic stability we depended on for the past eight to ten millennia.How much wildlife will remain, should food production start to become inadequate due to a lack of diesel fuel, fertilizers and pesticides or droughts and heatwaves? Will we eat all wild animals (larger than a rabbit)? Or will there be sanctuaries where wildlife could survive and repopulate land abandoned by humans?
A: Since we will successfully transition to sustainable permaculture and agro-forestry practices — and with large masses of humans turning vegan — there will be no need to eat wild animals. We will also stop deforestation and reserve at least 30% of the land for wildlife to inhabit.
B: Again, it all depends whether the rate of decline in agricultural production will match or exceed the rate of fall in human population (due to loss of fertility, wars, ageing etc.). Currently, the combined weight of all land mammals amounts to only 6lb of meat per person. In case of a severe famine due to a crop failure, for example, wild animals would be butchered and eaten in a couple of week’s time, initiating a collapse in their populations.How will pollution and climate change effect surviving plants and animals?
A: Our change in diet and agricultural practices, combined with an assisted migration of species and restoration of habitats, will put an end to the sixth mass extinction.
B: Even if we manage to keep ourselves well fed through agriculture, the loss of natural habitats, wildfires, sea level rise, heatwaves and the buildup of endocrine disrupting chemicals will likely exceed most large slow breeding animals’ capacity to adapt. There is a considerable chance that by the middle of this millennia — or maybe as soon as the end of this century — all large land mammals will go extinct… And if the insect apocalypse continues, much of the smaller mammal and bird species will be gone too; together with the many plant species which depend on these creatures to propagate. Only the hardiest, fastest breeding species would survive such an event.Will we — as a species — able to survive and thrive in the future, given the massive changes in climate and a continuous loss of biodiversity?
A: Sure, it can’t be that bad. We are the cockroaches of this planet, we cannot go extinct!
B: This is one of the biggest questions. We are part of a larger biosphere, and without our technology fueled by rapidly depleting fossil fuel supplies, we will be entirely at Nature’s mercy. If we mess this planet up really bad, there might be no place for us to live. Even if we find a suitable land to live on, and even if we can continue to feed ourselves, we haven’t evolved to tolerate the buildup of microplastics in our testicles, nor phthalates in the air we breathe and the water we drink… At least not any more than digesting radioactive isotopes from our food or surviving 50°C in a highly humid environment. At best we will be forced to leave behind large, previously densely populated areas, to find a sustainable way to live off the rest of our time as a species. At worst, the sixth mass extinction could include us, large, slow breeding hominids, as well; opening up a whole new range of possibilities for those small burrowing creatures to repopulate the planet in the millions of years ahead. Just like they did after the dinosaurs had left the scene.
Answering the question, pertaining to the coming of a second stone age, is thus harder than most of us would think. The knee-jerk answer from techno-optimists — deliberately not discussed in the Q&A above — , of course, is a loud no. ‘We are destined to conquer space after all! How could we do that with a stone ax?’ After examining our biophysical realities — the coming decline in net energy production, the loss of biodiversity, climate change, resource depletion etc. — we must say: becoming hunter gatherers (again) would actually be the best possible outcome. In fact, that would be quite a feat, even as sea levels rise, species go extinct and pollution reigns supreme… All this against the backdrop of an accelerating civilizational collapse (with nukes to boot), but that’s really just the cherry on top... So, while I hope we will find a way through the massive discontinuity ahead and learn to live in balance with Nature, there are absolutely no guarantees that we will make it.
Until next time,
B
Note: Just out of curiosity I set up a poll to understand your stance on the topic.
Thank you for your answers, much appreciated.
Thank you for reading The Honest Sorcerer. My special thanks goes to those who already support my work: without you this site could not exist. And while these essays will always be free, if you would like to see more in depth analysis of our predicament, please subscribe for free or consider an annual subscription. You can also leave a tip, as every donation helps, no matter how small. Thank you in advance!
I personally am a fan of Dr. Shane Simonsen and his work with low-input, low-tech biotechnology, or his idea of humans as the ‘universal symbiont’ that could form mutual relationships with all life. As he says, nobody ever reinvented themselves on a good day. A lot of our fragile and intensive mechanical/technological solutions were only one societal evolutionary path that happened to win out, when a resilient and self-perpetuating biological solution could work better but is unexplored. @ZeroInputAgriculture
Having studied permaculture, indigenous horticulture, and ecology (along with collapse, energy systems, and climate change) for a few years now, I find that my answers are usually ‘C’ or sometimes ‘A + B’. I think you have good intentions with the questions, but are still viewing it from the modern idea of modernity or nothing (except now it is more like mad max/collapse forever or nothing).
Nature is not a static thing, it is always changing and forming new relationships within itself, always reorienting to conditions. We tend to hyperfocus on the little picture of this species succeeding or that one extincting, or even individual members, rather than looking at the big picture; the dance of all Life that is ongoing regardless, that merely shifts forms and movements. Every collapse and extinction in Earth’s history was also an opportunity for what came after to flourish and radiate into a thousand different new shapes and patterns. We see the death, but forget that it is the other side of birth, and of rebirth.
Anyway, hopefully this makes sense and doesn’t sound two crazy lol. I will attempt to answer these as best I can.
1. B + C: Nature is resilient and flexible. Already new life forms have evolved to digest microplastic, oil, toxic waste, etc. Currently IIRC, they only break the plastic down to smaller bits, but the point is that the chain of digestion and cycling into the earth system has started. That’s not to say it’s not an issue, but rather it’s not a forever one.
2. C: I don’t foresee many scenarios where the need for mass deforestation is ongoing at the same time as the ability to carry it out (similar to mass hunting below). If the lights are on and the system working, most people lack the skill or ability, and tools plus infrastructure, to make much use of an open fire. If the system is not working, the majority of people (this is talking about the first world and specifically America here) are too unconditioned, unskilled, and unequipped to just go out and start burning the woods down, let alone that the driver in this scenario is a lack of energy (meaning no food, water, power, etc coming in). There’s a middle ground here where perhaps slightly more resilient rural people are chipping away at forests while the system unwinds slowly, but I don’t see the majority of forests as slated for the fireplace.
I could be wrong here, but even in that case, I’d point out that the majority of the US was already deforested just a few hundred years ago, before domestic logging/mining and the industrial solution made coal the preferred energy source. All of the forests we see today aren’t ’original or ‘pristine’, they are an example of life’s tenacious ability to bounce back from a literal moonscape when left alone. I like to think about this with all the farmland left to rewild, as well.
3. C: Again, seems more likely that there’d be mass death before there was both the combined incentive and ability for mass couch burnings or what have you.
4. B: Indeed, it is very tragic to see these things go, and will be very beautiful to see what comes after. Already new plant life is sprouting up in the Arctic circle and other unusual places for it. Contained within the question, but often overlooked, is that a savanna is still a diverse and functional ecosystem. I also wonder if the aforementioned rewilding of most farmland and urban spaces will do much to slow down warming. I think it will, as North America alone after the Native’s died off is what led to the Little Ice Age in Europe.
5. B: Gonna be pretty cool, right? Kudzu jungles giving way to shopping mall swamps giving way to underground parking garage reefs.
6. Mostly B: Thankfully silvopasture, permaculture, managed grazing etc can be practiced on marginal lands and don’t require ideal crop land. Hell even crops can be grown on unideal land, just not industrial monocrops that need machines for everything. Barring a sudden nuclear war, I don’t see most power plants etc being left off, but could be wrong. We are already seeing many being shut down indefinitely due to low water levels or high water temps etc.
7. C: While B is correct, it doesn’t understand that there is more to permaculture than annual grain crops and veggies, or doesn’t understand that a stable climate is what permitted predictable harvesting and drying/storing of vast grain monocrops, not like, all useful plant life or something. I expect the staples of the future to be nut trees and perennial tuber crops, supported by ecosystem engineering and earthworks, along with managed grazing. And again, the point of permaculture is you can do it anywhere, even on marginal land.
But yes, billions are going to die when annual grain ag eventually completely fails, as we are already starting to see happen. Probably within a decade or so, if I had to guess? However, civilization does not equal humanity or all human societal potential.
8. C: Much like the firewood example, there won’t be both the incentive and ability at the same time (or not for very long). Even modern hunters rely on tech and energy, to set up cameras, drive to site, shoot with gun, haul out with ATV (don’t forget to leave all the most nourishing bits behind because it’s weird!), drop off at processor because you don’t know how to butcher (and leave the rest of the bones and organs behind here), pick up and store in freezer. It would be comically removed from real skill at subsistence if it wasn’t so sad.
And these are our best examples. I think this mainly comes from Dunning-Krueger, the average person thinks “I’d just go hunt” despite never having to do anything more involved than hunting down a hot pocket, and still failing at processing that properly when he burns his mouth on the bits that aren’t still frozen.
Or to put it in other words, again, millions of starving, sick, weak people drinking no or bad water and walking on foot aren’t an unstoppable horde, they are a humanitarian refugee crisis that probably won’t make it out of the city. During the Great Depression 90% of people lived rurally, on a farm, and had generations of low-tech skills, and we still couldn’t hunt everything out (I assume things survived in really unaccessible locations). Today, we will be lucky if the deer don’t eat us while the squirrels pilfer our apocalypse hot pocket stash.
9. B + C: It is true that much life will go extinct. However, life is still very adaptable and flexible. Some of the most vibrant nature reserves in the world spring up immediately once we are forced to get out of the way, ie Chernobyl, Fukushima, and the DMZ.
To my understanding, most of the pressure on wildlife today is directly from humans, ie habitat loss. Things, including humans, are clearly still able to breed despite the mountain of chemicals we have already poured into the earth (although it’s probably good for us that we are less fertile). I do think some species would go extinct without assisted migration, so we will see how much help any among us are willing and able to offer them. Again though, many other species will recalibrate and find new niches and balances, once humans are out of the way.
10. B + C: We forget that our ancestors were exposed to countless small systemic pressures everyday that we never evolved much resistance for (carcinogenic wood smoke, chronic diseases, and literal parasites come to mind). For some reason we think about microplastics etc as if they mean death or inability to breed… while reading that we’ve been eating and drinking them since the 50’s. Don’t get me wrong, they’re not harmless or good by any means and I try my best to avoid them, but it’s a category error to treat them like an *acute* poison.
But yes, you are very right here. Whether we can be flexible and adaptable now and learn to fit into the new patterns we have created will make it or break it for us. I think it is up to us fringe weirdos, the kind who would read this blog and take these topics seriously, to be laying the groundwork or what’s to come. We can be hybridizing novel species, domesticating new staple crops, and creating the foundations for new agro-ecological systems today. Or perhaps as you said, we are just going to make way for the next thing. Either way, even if we have forgotten, we are still part of the dance and web of life. It remains to be seen who among us will bravely take the first shaky steps out of the crowd of bystanders, trying to find their footing and timing. Who among us will begin the delicate work of reconnecting old threads, and weaving new ones?
There are 4000 Spent Fuel Ponds Around the Globe…
If you don’t cool the spent fuel, the temperature will rise and there may be a swift chain reaction that leads to spontaneous combustion–an explosion and fire of the spent fuel assemblies. Such a scenario would emit radioactive particles into the atmosphere. Pick your poison. Fresh fuel is hotter and more radioactive, but is only one fuel assembly. A pool of spent fuel will have dozens of assemblies.
One report from Sankei News said that there are over 700 fuel assemblies stored in one pool at Fukushima. If they all caught fire, radioactive particles—including those lasting for as long as a decade—would be released into the air and eventually contaminate the land or, worse, be inhaled by people. “To me, the spent fuel is scarier. All those spent fuel assemblies are still extremely radioactive,” Dalnoki-Veress says.
It has been known for more than two decades that, in case of a loss of water in the pool, convective air cooling would be relatively ineffective in such a “dense-packed” pool. Spent fuel recently discharged from a reactor could heat up relatively rapidly to temperatures at which the zircaloy fuel cladding could catch fire and the fuel’s volatile fission product, including 30-year half-life Cs, would be released. The fire could well spread to older spent fuel. The long-term land-contamination consequences of such an event could be significantly worse than those from Chernobyl. Source
Japan’s chief cabinet secretary called it “the devil’s scenario.” Two weeks after the 11 March 2011 earthquake and tsunami devastated the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant, causing three nuclear reactors to melt down and release radioactive plumes, officials were bracing for even worse. They feared that spent fuel stored in pools in the reactor halls would catch fire and send radioactive smoke across a much wider swath of eastern Japan, including Tokyo. Source
Estimates of the cancer burden in Europe from radioactive fallout from the Chernobyl accident Source (Note: The Chernobyl accident was relatively minor, involved no spent fuel ponds, and was controlled by pouring cement onto the reactor. This was breaking down so a few years back they re-entombed.)
“However, many of the radioactive elements in spent fuel have long half-lives. For example, plutonium-239 has a half-life of 24,000 years, and plutonium-240 has a half-life of 6,800 years. Because it contains these long half-lived radioactive elements, spent fuel must be isolated and controlled for thousands of years.” Source
It does not matter how remote you are, the jet stream and ocean currents will circulate these toxic cancer-causing substances around the globe. They will be picked up by convection and pour deadly rain on your crop and water supply.
Nobody survives the collapse of civilization. This will be an extinction event.
https://fasteddynz.substack.com/p/the-utter-futility-of-doomsday-prepping