Technological ‘Breakthroughs’, Ponzi Schemes, and ‘Green’ Energy
A collection of my recent comments on posts/articles that have been shared with me via FB groups/pages. I share these to provide further ‘insight’ into where I am coming from in my understanding/learning but also to share the differing opinions/beliefs that exist (see the last/third conversation).
“On January 19, Washington-based startup Radian Aerospace came out of stealth mode, announcing that it had secured $27.5 million in funding to develop the Radian One, a first-of-its-kind space plane that flies into orbit after taking off horizontally from the ground.”
CM’s introduction: I doubt, it’ll ever be developed.
My comment: Almost all such projects, breakthroughs, magical solutions, etc. are never developed or become a literal money pit. This is one of the ways ‘hope’ is kept alive, but also how many fund their careers. Near-limitless cheap and clean fusion energy is one such animal. Always just another handful of years away. Keep funnelling funds to the industry/research teams and we can achieve it…nothing is impossible for humanity if we put our collective minds to it.
January 30, 2023
Some back and forth dialogue between SC and me in response to my last Contemplation via Degrowth FB group:
SC: The high immigration growthist policies of Canada and Australia amounts to a continuation of colonization. It seems indigenous people are so caught up in the rhetoric of diversity that they don’t call it out as such. ??
Me: That’s true. I do believe, however, that the primary purpose of such immigration policies is not for the virtue-signalling reasons provided to the masses by the government but to keep the Ponzi that is the economic system sputtering along for a few more quarters/years. With domestic populations not reproducing at a fast enough rate to keep an economy expanding, so-called ‘advanced’ economies need to steal ‘consumers’ from other countries. Much tougher for the ruling caste to extract their profits from the ‘national treasury’ when an economy is contracting.
Me: I would argue that the fears around a demographic cliff are mostly held by and perpetuated by economists that know (but cannot divulge openly) that our monetary/financial/economic systems are little more than a complex and very fragile Ponzi scheme (that they have helped to create and inflate). In fact, the truth of the matter is probably closer that everyone knows these are little more than Ponzi schemes but given we are all caught up in them and completely dependent upon them we all look the other way…
SC: Yeah, I’m not so sure there are so many aware people… mixed feelings if it’s true ay…
A rather contentious back and forth (with several others involved as well that I have not included) with one individual on the Peak Oil FB group we are all members of. The comments are in response to an announcement by AZ that he is interviewing Geological Survey of Finland geologist Simon Michaux and seeking questions to ask:
SP: Perhaps ask him why his assumptions on the amount of infrastructure required for energy transition is so radically different than other professional energy system modelers (who have actually had their work peer reviewed). Specifically, he assumes 150X the level of stationary battery storage requirements of others. This error then drives his other (now spectacularly incorrect) conclusions about the levels of resources required. https://twitter.com/aukehoe…/status/1594084375972712448…
Me: Auke Hoekstra’s career depends almost entirely upon the narrative he is peddling. All his income appears to come from the idea that investment in renewables is well worth it. Research grants (as a university researcher at Eindhoven University of Technology). Capital investments (as program director of Neon Research and Zenmo.com). He is highly incentivized to persuade others that investment in renewables (and his research) is worthwhile; and that critics of this are wrong. Not sure I see such bias in Simon Michaux’s work.
SP: it’s not just Auke. He just compiled the most articulate single response I have seen. It’s pretty much every single professional energy systems designer. The utilities, the capital, the whole space. Not one single professional thinks multiple days of battery storage are necessary. Let alone weeks. But then along comes Simon with his PowerPoint, and a bunch of media articles start popping up about how energy transition is not possible because we can’t build enough batteries, based on Simon’s bad forecast. At best, it wastes everybody’s time debunking his nonsense. More likely it adds enough fear uncertainty and doubt that we lean on fossil a while longer, with all the associated ecological impacts. He isn’t helping.
Me: What I find ‘interesting’, given you raise the issue of ecological impacts, is how often (always?) the ecological destruction that accompanies ‘renewables’ is left out of the equation; especially given its destruction has led to extreme biodiversity loss, probably our more and most pressing negative impact of our ecological overshoot. Those who cheerlead a shift from fossil fuels deny/ignore/rationalise away those impacts from the huge amount of fossil fuels that are still required (and may be in perpetuity) to produce alternatives and all the mining for the mineral resources to make them functional. Rare (in fact, mostly nonexistent) is the recognition by renewable cheerleaders (most who claim to be supporting it for its positive environmental/ecological aspects) that they too would destroy our natural world — particularly given how much destruction would be required to even replace a fraction of what fossil fuels currently provide.
SP: the “ecological destruction” from (most responsible) renewables (meaning not palm oil, gen 1 biofuels, etc) is minuscule compared to the fossil sources they are replacing. These impacts are not ignored. They are just a whole lot less worse. The ugly trend of the last year is that when new cleaner tech shows up, all the sudden the hard right “come and take it” types that will not stop burning oil for any reason, are suddenly environmentalists that give a sit about child labor in the Congo. Over just that one specific thing. It’s a delaying tactic, and somebody is paying for a campaign to signal boost that narrative over the last few months.
Me: As Upton Sinclair has been credited with stating: “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!” You seem to have (conveniently?) overlooked the dependency of non-renewable, renewable energy-harvesting technologies upon fossil fuels; so, if your argument is based upon ‘renewables’ being less destructive then fossil fuels, there is a huge gap in your logic…and you are simply rationalising away the environmental/ecological destruction that accompanies complex technologies.
SP: let’s make it crayon-level simple: I assert that renewables are capable of making more renewables, and enough net energy in top of it to keep something resembling civilization running. Others on here assert that because the systems are currently running in fossil, when they switch to renewables they will somehow cease to operate, and therefore transition to renewables is impossible. I find this assertion absurd on its face. We have and will go around in circles in this until so much of the system is transitioned that folks like Eric have to find a new asteroid or something else to profess the imminent collapse of civilization over. All of this is a distraction from the OP, which is about Simon’s work. I pointed out an error, and so far the only refutation of that has been character attacks on me or the authors I cite. Not anything to do with the actual substance of the argument.
Me: Having renewables capable of making more renewables is an assertion that may be true on a small-scale level but there is no proof in the pudding that this can be done at a scale required to support much of anything, and certainly not what most would consider ‘civilisation’. For the sake of argument, let’s assume this is possible. This does nothing to address the continued ecological destruction that would result from it. Nothing. The mining. The processing of materials. The transportation. The construction. The after-life disposal/reclamation. All are destructive and will simply compound negatively the already fragile situation we have created over the past couple of centuries of unfettered growth.
SP: really? Because we extract many orders of magnitude more fossil fuels (which cannot be recycled at end of life) than we do the minerals required for energy transition. The amount of mining required will be vastly reduced. You could counteract all new mineral requirements for energy transition by reducing the amount of land used for cow pasture by 1%.
Me: As for pointing out that those who tend to push for ‘renewables’ tend to have a vested interest (almost always economic in nature) in that narrative is not a character attack. It is a reminder that ‘objectivity’ is rare, if even at all possible, when attempting to support one’s beliefs…this is true for all of us. Now ramp up ‘renewable’ resources to ‘replace’ fossil fuels and take a different look at the chart you shared. I am not arguing in favour of fossil fuels. I am arguing both are destructive and we cannot continue to do anywhere close to the damage we are already doing. Pushing for renewables to replace fossil fuels is attempting to sustain the unsustainable while continuing to destroy the planet.
And finally, let’s not lose sight of the inconvenient fact that almost every promise of decarbonising/cleaning up/electrifying/net zeroing the industrial processes needed for ‘renewables’ are not based upon present, at-scale realities but upon accounting gimmicks, laboratory or small-scale prototypes, and as-yet-to-be-hatched chickens. There is nothing presently in place that comes remotely close to the promised land of “…in the future…” (and by the way, please invest in our research…)
Me: We all believe what we want to believe…including magical solutions that will allow humanity to continue pursuing our utopian dreams on a finite planet. I think we will leave it at agreeing to disagree. In a world of quickly declining surplus energy, continuing population growth (many with aspirations to achieve higher economic ‘prosperity’), significant diminishing returns on increasing resource scarcity, a complex yet gargantuan Ponzi-type economic system predicated upon hundreds of trillions of dollars of unplayable debt (quadrillions if we include derivatives and shadow banking), escalating geopolitical tensions, building totalitarianism, overburdened planetary sinks, massive biodiversity loss, increasing frequency and power of extreme weather events, etc., etc., I have a very, very, very difficult time having faith in all the as-yet-to-be-hatched techno-promises (especially at scale) particularly since they tend to be coming from those who profit from the continuation of the narrative that all problems are solvable — as long as we believe and divert lots of money/resources to them…
*****
If you’ve made it to the end of this contemplation and have got something out of my writing, please consider ordering the trilogy of my ‘fictional’ novel series, Olduvai (PDF files; only $9.99 Canadian), via my website — the ‘profits’ of which help me to keep my internet presence alive and first book available in print (and is available via various online retailers). Encouraging others to read my work is also much appreciated.
The following Contemplation is my comment in response to a thought-provoking post I read by Dave Pollard at his site How to Save the World.
Great read, thanks for sharing. A couple of quick thoughts.
If you’ve not stumbled across Erik Michaels work at Problems, Predicaments, and Technology you might find it confirming with regard to the notion that we have no free will. One of his major theses is that humans have no agency, and thus his motto to Live Now in the face of the consequences of human ecological overshoot.
Second, I’ve come to hold very similar thoughts as you on the idea that “we believe what we want to believe” and I think, perhaps, this is one of our primary reasons we grasp for hopeful narratives; along with the desire to believe we have agency/free will.
There are so many psychological mechanisms driving our behaviour and beliefs that it’s difficult to parse which is the most impactful — but perhaps it is our denial of reality in the face of our mortality as Ajit Varki argues. Not wanting to face the fact of death, we craft (using a lot of magical thinking) some rather complex narratives to deal with this reality. Throw in how we mitigate/reduce the stress of cognitive dissonance, and our tendencies toward deferring to authority and groupthink, and we have a recipe for clinging to stories — especially if weaved by smooth-talking snake oil salesmen — that provide ‘hope’.
Reality, facts, evidence…none of it matters. In fact, it appears we create our own reality based on ‘facts/evidence’ that tends to confirm our beliefs. As the lyrics of a song I recently heard suggest: “This is where I want to be, so this is where I go.”
Some want to believe there is an after-life. Others that human ingenuity and complex technologies will solve our existential predicaments. The laundry list of hopeful narratives is long and humans tend to want to confirm their beliefs rather than have them challenged. Denial and bargaining in the face of significant contrary evidence seems to be hard-wired in these walking, talking apes that have been able to leverage their cognitive abilities and tool-making skills to extend their ‘control’ over Nature and create the reality they wish; at least in their minds, and that seems to be all that matters for most.
If you’ve made it to the end of this contemplation and have got something out of my writing, please consider ordering the trilogy of my ‘fictional’ novel series, Olduvai (PDF files; only $9.99 Canadian), via my website — the ‘profits’ of which help me to keep my internet presence alive and first book available in print (and is available via various online retailers). Encouraging others to read my work is also much appreciated.
‘Representative’ Democracy: A Ruse To Convince Citizens That They Have Agency In Their Society
A friend recently posted on my FB timeline the link to an article about the plans of our provincial government in opening up sections of Ontario’s Greenbelt[1] to housing development and the legal action against this that is being contemplated by one of Ontario’s many First Nations communities.
He asked me the following: “I wonder how many people who vote for Doug Ford will give this some thought the next time they do a routine land acknowledgement?”
My comment on the issue:
I think the truth of the matter is that the vast/significant majority of people will not think about this issue.
The human tendency to defer/obey ‘authority’ results in most people believing the propaganda/marketing of the government.
Most citizens believe when they are informed governments are ‘consultative’, a ‘social service’, and acting on behalf of it citizens — something constantly reiterated in today’s mainstream/legacy media.
For most, what the politicians say is gospel, especially if they’re the ones they voted for.
Government consultation is a ruse, regardless of party. It is for all intents and purposes a public relations stunt to give the impression that the average person has influence or impact upon decision-making and policies, and that government is responsive to citizen input.
Can you imagine the stress created by the cognitive dissonance of holding the notion that you have agency via consultation or the ballot box but also recognising that your ‘representatives’ are the public face of a ruling caste that doesn’t truly give a shit about you but is primarily motivated by a desire to control/expand the wealth-generation/extraction systems that provide their revenue streams and thus positions of power and prestige.
Most (all?) would rather deny/rationalise away the latter belief and hold on to the former one. Living with a lie is much easier and comforting than living with the significantly problematic truth that governments are in place to represent and protect the ruling caste in society — not the hoi polloi.
If you’ve made it to the end of this contemplation and have got something out of my writing, please consider ordering the trilogy of my ‘fictional’ novel series, Olduvai (PDF files; only $9.99 Canadian), via my website — the ‘profits’ of which help me to keep my internet presence alive and first book available in print (and is available via various online retailers). Encouraging others to read my work is also much appreciated.
Tech professionals are leaving India’s IT hub of Bengaluru amid an intensifying drought that has gripped the city as it sweats through another torrid pre-monsoon season
A thirsty growth engine | Photo: Bloomberg
At the time Egypt’s pyramids were being constructed, one of the cradles of global civilization grew up in the Indus Valley around the borders of Pakistan and India. Its grid-planned cities produced sewerage networks, delicate artworks and an undeciphered writing system. Then a 900-year drought emptied its urban areas and sent its population back to a simpler, poorer village life on the plains of the Ganges.
Something grimly similar is happening right now.
Tech professionals are leaving India’s IT hub of Bengaluru amid an intensifying drought that has gripped the city as it sweats through another torrid pre-monsoon season, the Deccan Herald reported this month. More than half of the wells the city depends on for groundwater have dried up after failed rains last year, leaving businesses and citizens dependent on trucked-in water tankers.
In neighbouring Kerala, which catches much of the monsoon rainfall before it reaches inland stretches of Bengaluru’s Karnataka state, a minister has even written to Bengaluru’s companies, suggesting they relocate because “water is not an issue at all” in his state, the Times of India reported.
That seems in poor taste in southern India, where fights over the distribution of river flows between parched states have gone on for decades. He’s not wrong, though. Indeed, these pressures are only going to grow as populations rise and climate change makes the cycles of drought and monsoon more pronounced.
It’s time to move on to pastures new from my Saying NO… book, as I mentioned in my last post. Seems like an opportune moment to try an ‘open comment’ post to signal the change of direction, an idea I trailed at the start of the year.
What I think emerged from that discussion was for me to suggest a broad topic and perhaps a few talking points from it and then to see where things went in the discussion. Kind of like a normal post! Back then, Ruben wrote “ I would love to hear your thoughts on AMOC shutdown, drought, more frequent extreme weather, and other growing challenges for agriculture. That might be a good topic for an open post.” Indeed I believe it would be, so let’s go with that.
In case this is unfamiliar, the ‘AMOC’ is the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation, the major current system in the Atlantic Ocean, involving the northward flow of warm water and the southward flow of colder water which helps moderate the climate of both colder high-latitude countries and warmer low-latitude ones. Studies have suggested that present human-caused climate change could result in the shutdown of the AMOC, the consequences for both colder and warmer countries within this Atlantic system being, not to overstate the case … very bad.
A recent study that models AMOC shutdown has put the heebie-jeebies up a lot of people, including me – see Prof Stefan Rahmstorf’s summary here. Seems like we could be on course for an AMOC shutdown tipping point within the next seventy years with 95 percent confidence…
Energy Future, Part 3: Authoritarianism and Sociobehavioural Control
In Part 1, I argue that energy underpins everything, including human complex societies. In Part 2, I suggest that the increasing need for diminishing resources, especially finite or limited ‘renewable’ ones, invariably leads to geopolitical tension between competing polities.
A corollary of this rising political tension tends to be increasing domestic authoritarianism[1] as the ruling caste struggles to maintain control of its own population in the face of anti-war narratives and movements, and the resulting — at least for the masses, not necessarily for society’s elite — tightening of economic conditions[2] as resources are directed towards the military/security/industrial complex and related ‘control’ mechanisms. This results in diminishing returns for citizens: they get less and less benefit from their ‘investments’ in supporting the ruling caste of society. To counter these diminishing returns, the ‘rulers’ of a society seek greater control via a variety of means, but particularly economic and behavioural. A larger proportion of a society’s ‘wealth’ must be allocated away from the masses and towards the ruling caste’s favoured ‘projects’ and citizens must be ‘convinced’ of the need for the resulting ‘austerity’.
This is neither a ‘modern’ phenomenon nor a unique one. It has its roots in pre/historical times with the development of large, complex societies[3]. As human groupings became larger and necessarily more complex, organisational structures develop that give rise to occupational differentiation and thereby differential access to resources, including information. This differential access soon develops into hierarchical relationships within the community[4]. With a ruling elite that is for the most part completely free of the restraining impulses that exist within kinship-based groups[5], motivation to maintain such a powerful/privileged position within a society results in a hereditary-based ruling elite[6] or mechanisms for keeping particular interest groups/families/etc. in dominant positions[7].
When diminishing returns are encountered for the geographical region controlled by the sociopolitical elite, it was generally countered through expansion into unconquered, peripheral regions where wealth could be extracted to support the core (i.e., ruling caste). Political tension between competing polities often was the result with the elite of competing societies coercing and/or convincing their subservient populations of the necessity to engage in war with the ‘other’.
Archaeologist Joseph Tainter points out in The Collapse of Complex Societies[8] that various theories exist as to how complexity in human societies has developed. For example: managerial hierarchies emerge as population or other stress increases; internal class conflict creates a need for protecting the privileged; conflict with competing groups leads to needed sociopolitical shifts; or, several interrelated factors combine.
Two main schools exist: conflict and integration. The conflict theory basically posits that “the governing institutions of the state were developed as coercive mechanisms to resolve intrasocietal conflicts arising out of economic stratification…to maintain the privileged position of a ruling class that is largely based on the exploitation and economic degradation of the masses” (p. 33). Integrationists argue that complexity arose because of social needs such as shared social interests, common advantages, and consensus; a positive response to the stresses affecting human populations and the differential rewards to certain members is the cost for the benefits of centralisation.
Both schools of thought have pros and cons. And although they differ in their fundamental premises, they both acknowledge the role of legitimising activities by the ruling elite — some of which must include real, material outputs such as symbolic manipulation and coercive sanctions.
Concerns about controlling behaviour through such mechanisms as symbolic manipulation and/or coercive sanctions has a long and sordid history, whether on an individual level[9] or on a broader social level[10]. As societies get both larger and more complex, maintaining social order[11] becomes of vital importance to the ruling elite for various reasons.
As Noam Chomsky argues in Hegemony or Survival: America’s Quest for Global Dominance[12]:
“While methods differ sharply from more brutal to more free societies, the goals are in many ways similar: to ensure the ‘great beast,’ as Alexander Hamilton called the people, does not stray from its proper confines. Controlling the general population has always been a dominant concern of power and privilege…Problems of domestic control become particularly severe when the governing authorities carry out policies that are opposed by the general population. In those cases, the political leadership may…manufacture consent for its murderous policies.”
This manufacturing of consent can be seen in the increasing influence/control of the narratives that circulate in a society, particularly by way of government propaganda and mass media institutions. This tends to increase not only because the ruling caste wishes to carry out military incursions in far-off lands (resulting in hardships/sacrifices for the majority of the domestic population) but because they wish to justify/rationalise/legitimise their positions of power and prestige since the domestic population far outnumbers the ruling elite and is a far more direct threat to them when/if they revolt/rebel.
Murray Rothbard similarly argues in Anatomy of the State[13] a major concern for the ruling elite is how to maintain their power. Their typical approach is the use of force but their basic problem is ideological. Any government regardless of ‘type’ requires support from a majority of its citizens, even passive resignation, given the minority status of the State (its nobility and bureaucracy). The ruling class necessarily must be small as it is supported by production surpluses. While it can attract some allies in the population, “the chief task of the rulers is always to secure the active or resigned acceptance of the majority of the citizens.” (p. 19)
Creating vested economic interests is one way to secure support. Sharing the benefits of rule attracts followers but still not a majority. Thus, “the majority must be persuaded by ideology that their government is good, wise and, at least, inevitable, and certainly better than other conceivable alternatives.” (p. 20)
The ‘intellectuals’ of society take the role of persuading the citizens. They create and disseminate the ideas/beliefs passively adopted, for the most part, by the masses. These opinion-molders are needed by the State and thus offered security, income, and prestige within the State apparatus. The arguments by the State and intellectuals to garner support of the masses are varied and many but come down to a few basics: the rulers are wise/great (e.g., divinely appointed, society’s elite, experts) and leadership/rule/government is inevitable (i.e., evil would befall society without it).
One very successful device to achieve support has been the union of the Church and State; with this, rulers were anointed by God or were God and it was blasphemous to resist. “The States’ priestcraft performed the basic intellectual function of obtaining popular support and even worship for the rulers.” (p. 23).
In addition, instilling fear about another system or none at all has also been successful and citizens are persuaded by the argument that present rulers provide an essential service: protection against marauders/criminals. Rothbard goes on to argue that our ruling caste wish a monopoly on such predation.
With the creation of various nation states, the State has discovered an additional means to persuade the masses of its necessity: identification of itself with the territory it governs. “Since most men tend to love their homeland, the identified of that land and its people with the State was a means of making natural patriotism work to the State’s advantage.” (p. 24).
The intellectuals of the State work to convince the masses that any attacks upon the nation are attacks upon them, not simply their ruling caste; this way, wars between rulers are marketed as wars between people and the masses come to the aid of their rulers who are protecting them. This leveraging of nationalism has only really arisen in recent centuries within the West as people use to view conflicts as between nobles and not the land’s people.
In contemporary times we are witnessing increasing attempts at sociobehavioural control via mass surveillance[14], militarisation of police[15], persecution of whistle-blowers who unveil government corruption[16], and especially mass media control/influence[17]. We can expect the trends we are experiencing in these areas to continue and likely enlarge as conditions worsen due to diminishing returns increasing in severity and the elite feeling more threatened and worried about their positions of power and prestige.
Bringing this back to the issue of diminishing resources on a finite planet, one can imagine the increasing pressure upon the ruling caste to not only maintain/increase their competitive edge with other polities as resource control/access becomes more costly but also their ‘control’ over their domestic population as limited ‘wealth’ must be diverted to activities that support the ruling elite’s actions/policies. Even in tyrannical societies, the hoi polloi must be ‘persuaded’ to support, even grudgingly, their leadership.
As Tainter points out, as a society becomes increasingly complex we see a rise in centralisation and control through activity aimed at legitimising the ruling caste, symbolic manipulation, and coercive sanctions. These tendencies are costly in nature and costs must be borne by the masses as the elite siphon societal surpluses or manipulate the economic/monetary system to fund them. Tainter’s thesis maintains that the decreasing benefits of participating/supporting society lead an increasing number of members to ‘opt out’, until eventually a tipping point of withdrawn support leads to sociopolitical collapse.
The speed with which this ‘collapse’ occurs has pre/historically been relatively slow, sometimes taking centuries as was the case for the decline of the Roman Empire. Typically it appears a population can deal with diminishing returns on their investments in society for a long time believing that the situation is temporary, or due to recency bias and the belief that the current situation, as bad as it may be, is ‘normal’.
In a world of quickly diminishing resources that are necessary to support the complexities of society and in which people have lost the skills/knowledge to live self-sufficiently — and here there are no unexploited lands to migrate to — the path towards ‘collapse’ is likely going to be much, much faster than the pre/historical ‘norm’: it will probably be a Seneca-type decline[18] given most of humanity’s reliance upon complex and fragile long-distance supply chains and the various subsystems that support these.
I could go on and on about this sociocultural shift towards control by the elite mostly because I view it as something that is so easily overlooked by most. To reduce one’s cognitive dissonance people deny or justify/rationalise away the actions/policies of their society’s ‘leaders’. They ‘allow’ themselves to be caught up in the fervour of ‘patriotism’. They are quick to point fingers at the ‘other’ that have been painted by the ruling caste as the cause of their problems/predicaments.
As I responded to another on a post in the Peak Oil Facebook Group I am a member: “ I think, in order to keep the various Ponzi schemes from collapsing for as long as possible, keeping people ‘in the dark’ is amongst one of the most important motivations for the ruling caste and snake oil salesmen leveraging all this to their self-interested machinations. Narrative management/control is a powerful, powerful aspect to not only legitimise their positions of power/prestige but to keep them safe from the hordes of the disenfranchised.”
I’ve come to find the following image humourous in a sad way given I don’t really think most are as close as depicted and will continue to have ‘faith’ that our ‘rulers’ are acting in OUR best interests when really they are acting in THEIRS:
And, I close with quotes from the late Carl Sagan and Malcolm X:
Energy Future, Part 4: Economic Manipulation can be found here.
If you’ve made it to the end of this contemplation and have got something out of my writing, please consider ordering the trilogy of my ‘fictional’ novel series, Olduvai (PDF files; only $9.99 Canadian), via my website — the ‘profits’ of which help me to keep my internet presence alive and first book available in print (and is available via various online retailers). Encouraging others to read my work is also much appreciated.
I believe you’ve hit the nail on the head about the underlying motives behind the geopolitical morass our globe’s ruling elite are creating (and consequential fallout for the hoi polloi): a rearranging of the deck chairs on the Titanic.
Ecological overshoot and peak resources (especially energy) have the socio/psychopathic ruling caste fighting amongst themselves for the vestiges of an ever-shrinking economic pie.
Emboldened and blinded by their ‘successes’ in the past (when there existed much in the way of surplus net energy), they are proceeding full steam ahead with a final blow-off top of resource extraction/exploitation, all-in attempt to consolidate and expand their ‘winnings’; first with the far-off ‘other’, then their domestic political ‘enemies’, and finally with their out-group citizens before they begin to cannibalise their own.
As I have been arguing for some time, the primary motivation of our ruling caste (as has been evidenced throughout pre/history of complex societies) is the control/expansion of the wealth-generating/-extracting systems that provide their revenue streams and thus positions of power and prestige. None of us are safe from the machinations of these people; nor is our environment and the very important ecological systems that serve to support the essentials of life.
Everything will be sacrificed to serve the ends of the ruling caste…bet on it. And things are likely to get much, much worse before the impact of significant diminishing returns — to say little about ecological overshoot — puts a final nail in the coffin of such misguided and insane behaviour.
It’s most interesting how cyclical human pre/history is. Perhaps that’s because of the truism that those who don’t study history are destined to repeat it; either that, or humans simply don’t learn from their mistakes. We are after all a very intelligent species, just not too wise — despite our self-proclaimed taxonomic nomenclature.
Complex societies, empires, civilisations all come and go. They reach a peak of complexity then invariably ‘collapse’. It may take centuries or it may only take a handful or less of generations for this decline, but it always occurs. As Joseph Tainter points out, a population can actually ‘put up with’ significantly diminishing returns on their ‘investments’ in supporting the-powers-that-be for a long time.
The other point Tainter makes, that I believe is relevant to your narrative here, is the aspect of competing polities in this ‘Grand Chessboard’ of geopolitics.
As he argues, such polities tend to get caught up in spiralling competitive investments as they seek to outmaneuver others and evolve greater complexity together. The polities caught up in this competition increasingly experience declining marginal returns and must invest ever-increasing amounts leading to greater economic weakness.
Withdrawing from this spiral or collapsing is not an option without risking being subsumed by a competitor. It is this trap of competition that will continue to drive the pursuit of complexity regardless of human/environmental costs.
Incentives and economic reserves can support this situation for a lengthy period as witnessed by the Roman and Mayan experiences where centuries of diminishing returns were endured.
Ever-increasing costs and ever-decreasing marginal returns typify peer polities in competition. This ends in either domination by one state and a new energy subsidy or collapse of all.
As he concludes: “Collapse, if and when it comes again, will this time be global. No longer can any individual nation collapse. World civilization will disintegrate as a whole. Competitors who evolve as peers collapse in like manner.”
Photo by Nigel Brown; licensed under Creative Commons
My adult life has run on two diverging tracks. On one, I played science. The other track branched off at age 34—twenty years ago this month—when I started teaching a class on Energy and the Environment. I was eager to piece together our likely energy future: how we would beat climate change and leave fossil fuels in the dust. Against my wishes, this fork presented unexpected turns that took a long time to sink in. The two tracks eventually became too divergent to keep a foot on each. At this stage, I can’t seem to muster the denial it would take to disregard what I have learned so that I might return to the more blissful play-time track.
Much of my writing in the last few years has tried to capture why I have become convinced that modernity can’t last, likely to begin disintegrating in the near-term. In this post, I attempt to distill core elements informing this sense. My apologies if this seems like a rehash. For what it’s worth, the packaging exercise is something that helps me address the question I constantly ask myself: what part of this might I have wrong? It’s a way to take stock.
Growth
I began the Do the Math blog with a pair of posts about why growth can’t last—hitting limits in a historically short time. I also dedicate the first chapters of my textbook to the same topic. In 2022, I synthesized the arguments in an academic paper. This thread should be very familiar by now to my readers, and in fact really ought to be common knowledge. Yet, modernity still operates in a market economy and political system built around a growth expectation. Pension plans and social safety nets (like Social Security and Medicare) become Ponzi schemes unquestionably destined to fail at some point as growth falters.
…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…
Water shortages could have devastating effect on oil and gas sector, says new report
Pumpjacks pull oil from the ground near Three Hills, Alta. Limited water supply could have significant effects on the production of oil and gas, warns a new report. (Kyle Bakx/CBC)
Persistent and severe drought conditions across Western Canada could have a devastating effect on the oil and natural gas sector, which has drilling operations in some of the driest areas, according to a new report by Deloitte.
Limited water supply could have significant effects on the production of oil and gas, the report warns, and the timing couldn’t be worse for the industry as many companies are wanting to increase production and drilling with new export pipelines and facilities nearing completion.
The past several years have been parched in parts of Western Canada, but there is extra concern this year because of the below average snowpack in the mountains.
“It’s not going to be as simple to just pipe fresh water in. You may need to move it and truck it to different locations,” said Andrew Botterill, an energy analyst with Deloitte Canada, in an interview with CBC News.
In B.C., the provincial energy regulator has warned snowpack levels were only 72 per cent of the historical average.
Trucking in water and recycling water will both result in more “expensive and complicated” operations for companies, he said.
The Bow River flows through downtown Calgary. Alberta is poised to start negotiations with major water licence holders to strike sharing agreements in three key provincial river basins, including the Bow. (Jeff McIntosh/The Canadian Press)
…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…
Today’s Contemplation: And Now For Something Completely Different, Part 5
January 19, 2023 (original posting date)
While I take a break from my Contemplation posts and specifically the energy series I began (see here for Part 1, Part 2), here is the sixth installment of chapters from the fourth book in my fictional novel series (that stalled a few years ago but have ready). I will continue to share some of these over the next little while. Here are the links to PDF files of Chapter 1, Chapter 2, Chapter 3, Chapter 4, and now Chapter 5.
The storyline: Flowing from actual world events, a damaged environment, dwindling energy resources, and a manipulated market-economy all come crashing together in this tale about the social and individual impact of stresses that overwhelm a precarious and complex global system. Supply chain interruptions, border disputes, increased fascism, growing protest movements, and mass migration out of rural areas into cities dominant the new normal.
Basically, this is a tale (set in Canada) about the individual (and societal) reactions to a breakdown of our complex systems. Life is proceeding ‘normally’ for most while a marginalised minority are increasingly concerned about the unsustainability of our way of life. Governments begin to clash with domestic populations while the machinations of some of the ruling caste, especially around energy systems, is exposed. Chapters trace the lives and experiences of a handful of people during the timeframe of about 3 months before to 3 months after a grid-down situation…
If you’ve made it to the end of this contemplation and have got something out of my writing, please consider ordering the trilogy of my ‘fictional’ novel series, Olduvai (PDF files; only $9.99 Canadian), via my website — the ‘profits’ of which help me to keep my internet presence alive and first book available in print (and is available via various online retailers). Encouraging others to read my work is also much appreciated.
Mainstream Green Narratives: It’s About Selling More Industrial Products
A follow-up to Contemplation LXXXIX that responded to the idea that if enough people found true contentment and happiness by cooperating with others, humanity would discover a ‘oneness’ that could ‘achieve truly coherent action’; all within the context of pursuing a ‘sustainable’ future. The individual that shared this notion added a link to a UK House of Lords publication as a follow-up, suggesting it demonstrates ‘an evolution of ideas’. The following is my response after reading the document.
Skimmed through the document. Here are a few clues as to why what is written will not and cannot work, and, in fact, will exacerbate our overshoot:
“…through adopting new technologies…[that] will bring…economic benefits.”
“… through technological innovations and their uptake…[by] making it easier…to adopt new technologies…”
“…focus [upon]…adopting ultra-low emission vehicles…low-carbon heating technologies…”
“…several positive trends such as…growing uptake of electric vehicles…”
“…stimulate investment and innovation…”
“…focus on the rollout of low-emission vehicles…”
“…new developments [of public transportation]…”
Then there’s the entire mythical narrative around ‘net zero’ and achieving it via non-renewable, renewable energy-harvesting technologies and their associated industrial products (when really it’s about dependence upon unproven technologies and manipulative accounting). And one way of achieving this is the ‘phasing out’ of fossil fuel-based products (conveniently leaving out the inconvenient facts that ‘green/clean’ energy products rely heavily upon fossil fuels both up and down their production, maintenance, and disposal/reclamation industrial processes).
While there is much, much more in the document, these examples point to the undeniable fact that much of what is being proposed relies upon the (mandated?) adoption of ‘green/clean’ industrial products, and the continuation of, for the most part, our status quo systems. They’re simply tweaked a bit to reduce our cognitive dissonance.
Much of the document relies upon marketing/propaganda to drive behavioural change, learning from what was achieved without much pushback during the pandemic. In fact, I get the sense that the document is a stepping stone (slippery slope?) towards what some analysts have predicted: widespread pandemic-type lockdowns in the guise of combatting climate change.
And I cannot help but interpret this as further confirmation of my growing belief that this is primarily (totally?) about narrative control and forced adoption of industrial products by those who own/control the industries and resources as they attempt to consolidate/maintain/enlarge their slice of an ever-shrinking economic pie as we increasingly bump up against the limits to growth on a finite planet. To say little about the blindness to the many layers of our predicament, especially when it comes to energy and other finite resources.
My ‘fear’ is that we will do almost exactly what is outlined here because rather than challenge or disrupt the status quo power and wealth structures of the globe’s ruling caste it actually enhances them; but, as demonstrated in this document, can be wrapped up in a veil of ‘green’ and marketed to the masses as another beneficent policy/action by the ruling class for the masses. Perhaps this image sums it up best:
Today’s Contemplation: And Now For Something Completely Different, Part 4
January 13, 2023 (original posting date)
While I take a break from my Contemplation posts and specifically the energy series I began (see here for Part 1, Part 2), here is the fourth installment of chapters from the fourth book in my fictional novel series (that stalled a few years ago but have ready). I will continue to share some of these over the next little while. Here are the links to PDF files of Chapter 1, Chapter 2, Chapter 3, and now Chapter 4.
The storyline: Flowing from actual world events, a damaged environment, dwindling energy resources, and a manipulated market-economy all come crashing together in this tale about the social and individual impact of stresses that overwhelm a precarious and complex global system. Supply chain interruptions, border disputes, increased fascism, growing protest movements, and mass migration out of rural areas into cities dominant the new normal.
Basically, this is a tale (set in Canada) about the individual (and societal) reactions to a breakdown of our complex systems. Life is proceeding ‘normally’ for most while a marginalised minority are increasingly concerned about the unsustainability of our way of life. Governments begin to clash with domestic populations while the machinations of some of the ruling caste, especially around energy systems, is exposed. Chapters trace the lives and experiences of a handful of people during the timeframe of about 3 months before to 3 months after a grid-down situation…
If you’ve made it to the end of this contemplation and have got something out of my writing, please consider ordering the trilogy of my ‘fictional’ novel series, Olduvai (PDF files; only $9.99 Canadian), via my website — the ‘profits’ of which help me to keep my internet presence alive and first book available in print (and is available via various online retailers). Encouraging others to read my work is also much appreciated.
The following contemplation shares my thoughts/response to The Honest Sorcerer’s latest article (another very worthwhile read) regarding the diminishing returns being increasingly encountered by non-renewable, renewable energy-harvesting technologies (aka ‘renewables’) — and, yes, I am still plugging away at the Energy Series (Part 1; Part 2) I began as I organise a Food Gardening Guild within my local community, the response to which has been great!
The material and environmental ‘blindness’ to the situation you describe so well seems, at least for the masses, mostly due to attempts to reduce the stress of the cognitive dissonance created by the contradictory information we are exposed to — on the one hand we have increasing numbers of ecologists/biologists warning about the perils of our unchecked growth, finite resource use, and the increasingly negative consequences of these practices; while on the other hand, we have our politicians/industrialists/economists weaving stories about salvation and continued prosperity mostly via the shifting of energy sources and associated products (their motivations being self-serving and that I have written about repeatedly).
These denial-/bargaining-based narratives around a ‘green’ energy transition must be overcome to allow us to see/comprehend the fundamental predicament we have on our hands — ecological overshoot — before any ‘progress’ can be made towards mitigating some of the inevitable consequences we will increasingly encounter as various systems break down (both human-contrived and natural). Without seeing and understanding this predicament we will not, except perhaps in some few local and lucky ‘safe havens’, be able to mitigate at least some of the fallout of the coming storm.
The problem with predicaments of course is that they have no solutions, only consequences, and human complex societies tend to be problem-solving organisations (see archaeologist Joseph Tainter’s thesis in The Collapse of Complex Societies[1]). And this problem-solving orientation of large, complex societies has served humanity well during its last 10,000 or so years, so it seems next to impossible to counter this ingrained/enculturated belief that we can ‘solve’ any issue thrown down in front of us — most recently by throwing gargantuan amounts of fiat currency and/or complex technology at it. Toss on top of this long-term belief system the tendency of our ruling caste to leverage crises to their personal advantage and our dilemma becomes increasingly ‘wicked’; in fact, it becomes next to impossible to see clearly for a variety of reasons (mostly psychological in nature; e.g., deference to ‘authority’, groupthink, cognitive dissonance reduction).
Perhaps one aspect of the issue is that we tend to interpret the world partially through our perceived position on Maslow’s hierarchy of needs[2]. Or at least through a lens that impacts our perceived risk of needs. If we believe our more basic needs are at risk, we focus upon the risk factors located there (e.g., predicament of overshoot, resource scarcity, etc.) whereas those who are in denial of/blind to those risks are concentrating on the needs to be met further along the hierarchy (e.g., achievement, prestige, growth, play, etc.) and hold out that since their basic needs are being met satisfactorily (at least for now) they are not at risk and ‘higher’ needs should be one’s focus.
Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs
As well, It seems next to impossible to counter ruling caste propaganda regarding a renewable energy-based transition to ‘sustainability’ in balance with ecological systems (all while pursuing growth), especially if they serve to instill hope (falsely-based in my opinion) and promises of continuing prosperity/security/etc.. And while some accuse ‘doubters’ of this grand narrative of being fossil fuel-industry shills, ‘doomers’, and/or — God forbid — ‘conspiracy theorists’, the truth of the matter appears to be that we are living during the time of a significant ‘phase transition’[3]. Such eras tend to be a time of competing narratives, confusion, grieving, and even despair for some.
Phase transitions are an interesting phenomenon, particularly in societal settings (an area I think I need to explore further for better understanding). There is growing research/academic study upon them, especially in the realm of transitioning to a ‘sustainable’ society[4]. It seems all of what I read in my brief look into the subject was oriented towards understanding how to shift societal ‘thinking’ towards the acceptance of a ‘sustainable’ future. There is even an entire journal dedicated to this[5]. Of course, the mainstream future being propagated by the ruling caste can be seen in much of this work: technological solutions and the concomitant uptake of new industrial products, and governing shifts that centralise power.
Regardless of the orientation of this research, the important thing to understand about phase transitions is how ‘quickly’ they can occur and how unpredictable they are. My introduction to the topic was during my research for my first novel when I came upon the topic of the Abelian sandpile model[6] and self-organised criticality[7]. Basically, the sandpile model shows why complex systems cannot be predicted and their ‘collapse’ can occur quickly, without warning.
Here are two passages from texts I read while researching for my ‘fictional’ writing that brought this to the forefront of my thinking:
First, from David G. Green’s 2014 book Of Ants and Men: The Unexpected Side Effects of Complexity in Society[8]:
The history of human civilization is, in large measure, a story of the human quest for control. After thousands of years of civilization, we think that we control the environment in which we live. We begin to think that we control the natural world. We might even fool ourselves into thinking that we control human nature. Modern society is built on the assumption of control. Yet, as the terror of the New York blackout shows, chaos all too easily bursts forth, reminding us how flimsy the illusion of control really is.
The root cause of much of the chaos that besets us is complexity, sheer complexity. From complex webs of interactions, chaos emerges. It is complexity that leads to unexpected problems, that turns order into chaos. As much as anything, the New York blackout, like most accidents and breakdowns, was a result of complexity. The power system did have backups and safeguards built in. But no one had anticipated that the network could suffer a cascade of failures of the kind that occurred. Nor could anyone anticipate the mayhem that would ensue when power failed on such a large scale for such a long period. This does not mean that the planners were incompetent; there are just so many possible ways that the system could behave, it is not possible to anticipate and plan for all contingencies.
Second, from a 2003 Corey Lofdahl paper, On the Confounding of Overshoot and Collapse Predictions by Economic Dynamics[9]:
The ability to predict when a system will ‘collapse’ is possible if it is understood when the underlying, foundational resources will exhaust themselves…The best that can be said…is that entropy decreases as the system moves towards its natural limit. The system becomes more likely to collapse, but it is impossible to say exactly when…the larger the resource base, the larger the overshoot and the more postponed the collapse…
[G]rowth can continue for far longer than seems possible to somebody who recognizes the systems’ eventual unsustainability and foresees limitation and collapse…The strongest statement that can be made is that as growth continues, the likelihood of system limitation and collapse increases. For the individual, the growth dynamic can prove so overwhelming that the possibility of collapse begins to seem unlikely and remote as naysayers are continually proven wrong…[However,] the actual likelihood of collapse grows ever larger, while for those under its thrall, the possibility of collapse grows ever more distant. When the system eventually collapses, it does so suddenly, dramatically, and unexpectedly.
The evidence is accumulating that a phase transition is fast approaching for the human species. When it occurs and how quickly it completes its shift is completely unpredictable, which is why it will be a Black Swan event[10] for the vast majority of people. The best preparation for this transition that cannot be avoided will not be to put the remainder of our diminishing resources — especially energy — towards more technologies and complexities, but the exact opposite. We need to be pursuing a ‘Great Simplification’[11], decommissioning those complexities that pose great risk for future generations, abandoning our cherished dreams of infinite growth on a finite planet, and accepting that the future is not going to be one as laid out by our ‘leaders’ and such fictional narratives as Star Trek — not even close.
Attempting to relocalise all those truly important resources (potable water procurement, food production, shelter needs for the local climate) as much as is possible is where I will be putting my energy and resources…as well as getting my community to try and do the same.
Reports estimate that less than 6 percent of plastic in the United States is recycled, pointing to the impracticality of recycling on a large scale.
People may be putting plastic into recycling bins, but most of it generally ends up in landfills or incinerated.
Yet the demand for more plastic production continues—at a growing cost to human and environmental health—because of the belief that recycling offsets the associated waste and risks. A new report by the Center for Climate Integrity (CCI) alleges that the plastics industry knowingly caused the current plastic waste crisis.
The nonprofit’s report claims that as the plastics industry faced mounting concerns over plastics being incinerated and piling up in landfills, they promoted recycling as a viable solution while dismissing it internally as impractical.
“They knew since the 1970s that plastic recycling was not going to be scalable and effective in tackling the plastic waste crisis,” Melissa Valliant, communications director of Beyond Plastics, a nonprofit aiming to reduce single-use plastic use and production, explained to The Epoch Times.
The report asserts that the efforts to sell the false promise of plastic recycling were to avoid restrictive regulations and potential product bans.Plastic Recycling Poses Many Challenges
According to the report, one problem with plastic recycling is that it is not technically or economically feasible at scale. Unlike glass and metal, plastic cannot be repeatedly recycled without quickly degrading in quality. Most recyclable plastics can typically only be recycled once. As a result, most recycled plastic eventually ends up in landfills, even if it goes through an additional use cycle as another product.
Between the 1970s and 2015, 91 percent of plastic was either landfilled, burned, or leaked into the environment, according to a global analysis published in Science Advances. Another recent report published by Beyond Plastics estimated that less than 6 percent of plastic in the United States is successfully recycled.
Final preparations for moving the donkey foals are upon me, which has me sorting out the logistics of getting them safely home. The breeder lives less than a kilometre away, which originally made me wonder if they could be walked over but the open road is just too dangerous. If it was just a risk of them getting spooked by a sound it would be fine, but the chance of a deadly encounter with a high-speed car is too high. Instead we will be forced to load them in a horse float to be dragged by a one ton vehicle, pushed along by oil based fuel imported from another continent.
This state of affairs is a relatively recent occurrence. For most of human history the roads were one of many common spaces which were used for a wide variety of activities, not just zooming from one place to another at maximum velocity. They were places where people socialised and worked without constant fear of mortal injury. Sometimes a small section of road will be roped off for people to enjoy for a festival, but that is becoming less common over time with an army of angry motorists waiting to whine about the inconvenience.
Despite all the apparent advances in personal transportation we are really no better off. The average speed of transport in London is the same today as it was centuries ago thanks to the ever-growing congestion. The average daily commute is about the same as it was for urban citizens of the Roman empire, only everything is further apart now since everyone is assumed to have ready access to a personal vehicle. The fuel that goes into cars and the pollution that comes out of them is orders of magnitude more toxic and carcinogenic than glyphosate or endocrine disruptors, but we have built such a car dependent society over the last century that nobody can even contemplate getting rid of them.
…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…
 "water")
