I’ve been very, very slowly reading a paper by archaeologist Joseph Tainter (Problem Solving: Complexity, History, Sustainability Population and Environment, Sep., 2000, Vol. 22, No. 1, pp. 3-41) that I will comment upon and summarise in a few weeks. In the meantime, I thought I would share a fresh experience.

A recent issue within a Facebook Group (Peak Oil: Twilight of the Oil Age) I am a member of has prompted me to throw together some thoughts, once again, regarding the push by many well-meaning individuals/groups to increase massively the production and distribution of non-renewable, renewable energy-harvesting technologies (aka ‘renewables’) and associated industrial products (e.g, electric vehicles, ‘renewables’-powered manufacturing).

The primary reason given this time is perhaps the most common used to rationalise/justify this push and move quickly towards a ‘clean/green’ energy transition: reduce significantly our extraction/use of hydrocarbons, thereby eliminating the greenhouse gases that are released in the process, and put a halt to rising global temperatures.

While all well and good, this calling for trying to reduce our species’ impact upon the planet, I continue to fear we are doing the exact opposite via a massive expansion of complex industrial products to provide electrical power to our ubiquitous energy-intensive technologies.

These technologies are contributing not only to our increased extraction and burning of hydrocarbons (they are, after all, a highly energy-intensive industrial product requiring massive amounts of hydrocarbons to produce, distribute, maintain, and dispose of/recycle), but to the overshoot of the various planetary boundaries that have been found to be significant to the stability and resilience of the Earth system (i.e., land system changes, novel entity distribution, climate change, biosphere integrity, freshwater change–see here).

Among a handful of arguments by ‘renewables’ advocates are some of the following:

their production is replacing/supplanting hydrocarbon extraction/production/use;
they have become less expensive than hydrocarbons;
they reduce greenhouse gases;
they are capable of replacing hydrocarbons.

Evidence, however, brings all of these assertions (or ‘hopes’) into question.

I’ve posted quite a number of Contemplations upon ‘renewables’ and attempted to demonstrate that they are not the ‘saviour’ for sustaining our society’s complexities as they are, for the most part, being marketed as.

See some of my more recent Contemplation on ‘renewables’:
Today’s Contemplation: Collapse Cometh CLXXX-She Blinded Me With Science, and More On The ‘Clean’ Energy Debate…. June 2, 2024. Blog Medium Substack
Today’s Contemplation: Collapse Cometh CLXXVIII-Magic Permeates Our Thinking About ‘Solutions’. February 27, 2024. Blog   Medium Substack
Today’s Contemplation: Collapse Cometh CLXXVI–Confessions Of A Fossil Fuel Shill. February 11, 2024. Blog     Medium   Substack
Today’s Contemplation: Collapse Cometh CLXXI–A ‘Solution’ to Our Predicaments: More Mass-Produced, Industrial Technologies. December 21, 2023. Blog     Medium Substack
Today’s Contemplation: Collapse Cometh CLXX–To EV Or Not To EV? One Of Many Questions Regarding Our ‘Clean/Green’ Utopian Future, Part 1. December 18, 2023. Blog     Medium Substack Part 2. January 14, 2024. Blog Medium Substack

Rather than repeat some of the arguments I have made previously, I thought it would be instructive to provide the recent thoughts of two others: Chris Smaje and Dr. Tom Murphy.

Below you will find summations of two recent posts by these two.

Basically, they both challenge the common/mainstream assertions about ‘renewables’ and the associated ‘clean/green’ energy transition. Two additional voices to consider…

Off-grid: further thoughts on the failing renewables transition

Chris Smaje; August 12, 2024

-Chris has argued for some years that he believes “…the future is likely to devolve into low energy-input local societies based around widespread agrarianism…”
-the movement to this may occur in an unmanaged form (societal collapse from pursuing a business-as-usual path) or managed one (purposeful degrowth)
-critics have raised a third option: maintain current high-energy societies via rollout of ‘renewables’

-Chris admits that “A renewables-based transition to a lower-energy, more equitable, local and agrarian economy could be a wonderful thing.”
-his skepticism towards this third pathway, however, is primarily towards the notion that we can quickly transition to from high-carbon to low-carbon energy sources that can sustain our high-energy, growth-oriented global economy
-this perspective, labelled ecomodernism, focuses upon technological innovations and products to address environmental issues

Energy transition–the current state of play
-while the transition literature makes it appear that hydrocarbon use is quickly diminishing and ‘renewables’ is taking its place, the data shows this is not occurring
-the percentage of primary energy used has dipped slightly, but the quantity of hydrocarbon use has continued to increase without much if any of a pause
-looking at electricity generation, ‘renewable’ production has increased significantly from a very low point; but hydrocarbons still account for generating about 60% and in absolute terms has increased more than any other source

2024 Energy Institute Statistical Review of World Energy

-in other words, there is no ‘transition’ out of hydrocarbons despite the rapid growth of ‘renewables’; if there were, we’d be using less of them, not more
{NOTE: keep in mind, also, that the vast majority of ‘renewables’ are manufactured in China, where the primary energy source is coal and which has reached record extraction/use rates]
-despite these data, many continue to argue (based upon questionable assumptions, see next point) that hydrocarbon use will peak soon and then begin its inevitable decline, being replaced by ‘renewables’
-the International Energy Agency (IEA) suggests in a recent report (New Zero By 2050: A Roadmap for the Global Energy Sector) that not only must electricity generation increase significantly, but that to reach Net Zero, hundreds of gas/coal plants (particularly in emerging and developing countries) need to be equipped with unproven technologies (carbon capture and storage), and electrical networks everywhere need to be expanded greatly

S-curves
-data, naturally, reflects the past and ‘renewables’ advocates often proffer their arguments with dependence upon impending exponential growth and technological breakthroughs
-appealling to future innovations creates a situation that can neither be proven nor unproven
-and Smaje admits ‘renewables’ are environmentally preferable [NOTE: I do not agree here mostly because there exist many aspects of ‘renewables’ production/distribution/maintenance/disposal/reclamation that are discounted in such a perspective; particularly the hydrocarbon inputs and ecological systems destructiveness of mining for needed components, both the ‘renewables’ and necessary storage products]

The real cost of renewables
-the electricity supply chain consists of several unbundled aspects (generation, transportation, buy/sell wholesalers, and consumers) and price decreases in one do not generally filter down to consumers
-while much has been made of the falling price of the material components of ‘renewables’, other costs have risen (e.g., land, integration of ‘renewables’-produced electricity, price of capital); the ‘levelised cost of energy’ (LCOE) metric often cited as proof of ‘renewables’ inexpensiveness, often excludes these other costs
-the intermittency of ‘renewables’ impacts the price received for electricity (since it varies depending upon supply and demand) making the LCOE low in theory but high in reality
-the IEA report cited above notes that to achieve Net Zero, electrical grids need to more than double in size and scope given the bottleneck it currently is for ‘renewable’-generated power; Chris notes that this will require massive fossil fuel-powered extraction
-adding the grid costs and additional facilities increases the actual cost of ‘renewables’ past that of hydrocarbons
-the financial institutions that provide the capital for ‘renewables’ projects have little interest given the low profitability and debt-servicing issues common in the sector
-while there is some efficiency in ‘renewables’ over hydrocarbons given the amount of energy lost to heat in the latter, hydrocarbons have a distinct advantage in also providing chemical feedstocks important in various other sectors
-in addition, electricity only supplies a fraction of industrial energy use (about 10-20%), with industries that cannot easily (or not at all) electrify
-as it stands, the globe is nowhere close to achieving Net Zero
-even if one accepts the argument that recycling and/or a circular economy can help to address these issues, there exist limits and our current trajectory is taking us nowhere near the ideal

Make Government Great Again?
-could the economic impediments be overcome if governments nationalised their electricity sectors?
-while China, in their quick adoption and rollout of ‘renewables’ suggests this may be possible, there remain difficult if not impossible realities to overcome [NOTE: it’s true that China has adopted a lot of ‘renewables’, and produces the vast majority; but China also is seeing record amounts of coal use in their power generation and use]
-regardless of who is in charge, there remains: industries that are difficult/impossible to electrify; intermittency of generation; high material costs; difficulty matching supply and demand
-nationalisation is no ‘easy’ feat and requires political, bureaucratic, and technical aspects; to say little about the lack of interest in such a move by many in government, industry, and the public–neoliberalism dominates almost everywhere
-instead, governments tend to offer incentives/subsidies; this approach, however, often results in boom/bust situations
-“..neoliberal globalization needs to end–but that’s not going to bring the Keynesian happy place back. There’s too much debt, and too little real growth.”

Batteries to the rescue?
-hydrocarbons are advantageous in that they can be turned on/off as needed; ‘renewables, however, require energy storage systems
-while there are constant cheers for potentially inexpensive and efficient systems to do this, none exist at the moment [current systems require hydrocarbon-based industrial and ecologically-destructive processes to produce] and the costs of decommissioning/reclaiming/disposing current systems must be considered–to say little about scaling such systems up

Minerals
-the mineral requirements for this ‘transition’ are critical and a number of analysts/researchers doubt the ability of our planet to provide what is being called for
-there exist limits/bottlenecks/diminishing returns for finite minerals/other resources (especially hydrocarbons), and concerns over the ecological impacts of the massive mining required
-here, many ‘renewables’ advocates point to the ecological destructiveness of hydrocarbons but “..if you set the bar as low as ‘not as bad as fossil fuels’ then a lot of things can jump over it.”

Energy cliffs, energy traps and economic slips
-while the concept of energy-return-on-energy-invested (EROEI; also known as net energy) is important to the global economic systems geared to growth, its real-life application to this issue is controversial
-despite the EROEI falling for hydrocarbons, it tends to remain higher than that for ‘renewables’
-energy cliff refers to the idea that as the EROEI of an energy source declines, the energy available to an economy declines more quickly; this is especially a problem for ‘renewables’ given their energy investment mostly occurs upfront creating less economic incentive to switch and resulting in a negative feedback (or energy trap)
-a transition may be more feasible for an economy not dependent upon growth, but we do not live in that world [and given the Ponzi-like structure of our economic systems it’s unlikely we could shift to such a system]

Geopolitics
-it appears that many countries (especially those not self-sufficient in hydrocarbons) are building out ‘renewables’ for energy security purposes, not for ‘decarbonisation’, given that world politics has become more volatile as the US’s hegemony wanes
-there is no fossil fuel-replacement occurring, however; what we are witnessing is an energy diversification and “…the pursuit of economic growth, energy security and geostrategic power is likely to drive increases–or at least retrenchment–in all forms of energy, including fossil fuels.”
-in fact, we may witness an increase in hydrocarbon use (especially coal), including the intensive-energy military sector–and particularly from the US is unlikely to “…give up its fossil-fuelled control of its oceanic trade empire without a fight…”
-domestically, governments opt for hydrocarbons over renewables to ensure grid stability during peak demand times and due to them being a less expensive option; this, however, can lead to grid failures when fuel shortages occur
-with global temperatures increasing, we can imagine a positive feedback loop where higher demand (air conditioning) leads to more hydrocarbon use, resulting in higher global temperatures and so on
-it’s also possible grids will be overwhelmed by demand and/or richer nations pushing up prices beyond the reach of poorer ones and impacting supply chains so that ‘renewables’ production is impacted negatively
-many/most poorer nations depend upon relatively cheaper hydrocarbons (especially coal); Africa, for example, produces 74% of its electricity from hydrocarbons and only 11% from ‘renewables’
-for any kind of global ‘transition’ to occur, it’s going to require a massive transfer of wealth from richer nations to poorer ones

On-grid
-‘renewables’ skeptics are often criticised as playing into the pursuits of Big Oil, but Chris counters that it is those who advocate for the transition that have interests that are more in line with Big Oil/Capital
-these interests are dominated by profit-making and many Big Oil companies have invested heavily in ‘renewables’ (deinvesting when profits are waning) [I would add that part of their support for ‘renewables’ is likely because the industrial processes required to produce/distribute/maintain/reclaim them are heavily dependent upon hydrocarbons]

Off-grid
-while techno-fix narratives sound serious, whether they actually offer ‘solutions’ to our meta-crisis times is questionable
-one often used approach is to market ‘renewables’ as beneficial to the ‘poor’ and ’emerging’ economies but what mostly occurs is a loss of autonomy, increased assimilation, disruption of traditional living, etc.
-ecomodern, techno-fix narratives brush aside these concerns

-Chris concludes his thoughts by stating that “I don’t think renewables transitions are a serious likelihood for most people worldwide, but I don’t expect to be taken seriously by those who think otherwise…the more we can get off-grid, use soft-energy paths and agroecology, and build local communities, the more we can avoid getting wrecked by the siren call of banoffees (business as nearly ordinary feasibly-fast (and) future-proofed energy-transition enthusiasts)…[and] off-grid doesn’t have to mean isolation or survivalism. There’s a world o localism to be won.”

MM#11: Renewable Salvation?

Dr. Tom Murphy, August 6, 2024

-Tom presents “various reasons why renewable energy and recycling are not our way out of the predicament modernity has set out for us. It’s just a doubling-down that can’t really work anyway.”

A Past Enthusiast
-having lived an off-grid lifestyle and experimented with a number of off-grid configurations, Tom has an intimate relationship with the concept and products
-he originally believed ‘renewables’ were part of the answer to our issues of climate change and peak oil but has reached the conclusion that such narrow solutions tend to work only for narrowly-defined problems

Cost of Climate Change Dominance
-a narrow view of our ecological predicament where CO2 emissions can be eliminated via ‘renewables’ and all is well is attractive but overlooks the complexities
-the belief that climate change is the main issue and this can be corrected with technology denies the larger picture/complexities
-‘renewables’ fail to get us out of the mess we’ve created

Materials Demand
-‘renewable’ technologies require massive amounts of finite resources

https://ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/jms/article/view/0/47241.

-‘renewables’ require significantly more materials per unit of electrical energy delivered than that of hydrocarbon combustion; it is not a build-once-and-done game
-‘renewables’ are thus not actually ‘renewable’ as they depend upon finite materials in perpetuity

The Genius of Life
-Nature is remarkable in that it has figured out how to accomplish all it does with the small set of elements found upon our planet (e.g., 96% of human mass is composed of oxygen (65%), carbon (18%), hydrogen (10%), and nitrogen (3%)–all derived from air and water)
-natural recycling is essentially 100% efficient and can continue indefinitely
-modern human inventions, however, rely upon the wrong things (e.g., rare earth minerals), don’t last (some not even a human generation and rarely a lifetime), and leave often harmful waste streams (e.g., radioactive waste)

Recycling Limitations
-the common rebuttal to the significant material needs of ‘renewables’ is the idea of recycling or circular economy
-first, the massive initial build-out should not be discounted and you cannot recycle what’s not present
-and it’s worth considering that even the substantial speed of ‘renewables’ production over the past couple of decades has not been able to meet human energy needs with hydrocarbon-use increases being necessary
-the massive outlay required to even meet growing needs would result in significant ecological systems destructive
-second, even the most efficient recycling is imperfect with fantasy-level 90% recovery resulting in a 50% loss of material after just 7 cycles and 90% loss after 22–it is not indefinite
-wind turbines and solar panels last a couple of decades prior to requiring replacement, so at best recycling can push ‘renewables’ out for a handful of centuries (that’s if everything goes ‘just right’)

What Do We DO with Energy?
-at the heart of our predicament is what we do with energy
-much is used to cause ecological systems damage (e.g., clear forests, industrial agriculture, mine, manufacture products, etc.)
-regardless of the energy source or technology, we are destroying planet health

Intent Matters
-with technology in hand, we appear intent on harming Nature
-it matters not if the technology is hydrocarbon-based or ‘renewable-based’
-Tom suspects, however, that it won’t be long before “…the deteriorating web of life will create cascading failures that end up making humans victims, too, and pulling the power cord to the destructive machine.”

Obligatory Titanic Metaphor
-powering modernity with different technology does not change the outcome, just as lithium batteries instead of a coal-fired engine would not have altered the Titanic’s tragedy

Cease What, Exactly
-none of our destructive activities are likely to cease if we alter our energy source
-eliminating CO2 might be great but it doesn’t change our ecological predicament in the least if everything else remains the same
-“…doing so keeps our boot on the throat of the community of life so it can’t breathe. Doing so keeps the sixth mass extinction basically on track, uninterrupted—though perhaps not as quickly or warmly.”

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 or the link below — 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).

Attempting a new payment system as I am contemplating shutting down my site in the future (given the ever-increasing costs to keep it running).

If you are interested in purchasing any of the 3 books individually or the trilogy, please try the link below indicating which book(s) you are purchasing.

Costs (Canadian dollars):Book 1: $2.99Book 2: $3.89Book 3: $3.89Trilogy: $9.99

Feel free to throw in a ‘tip’ on top of the base cost if you wish; perhaps by paying in U.S. dollars instead of Canadian. Every few cents/dollars helps…

https://paypal.me/olduvaitrilogy?country.x=CA&locale.x=en_US

If you do not hear from me within 48 hours or you are having trouble with the system, please email me: olduvaitrilogy@gmail.com.

You can also find a variety of resources, particularly my summary notes for a handful of texts, especially Catton’s Overshoot and Tainter’s Collapse: see here.

It Bears Repeating: Best Of…Volume 1

A compilation of writers focused on the nexus of limits to growth, energy, and ecological overshoot.

With a Foreword and Afterword by Michael Dowd, authors include: Max Wilbert; Tim Watkins; Mike Stasse; Dr. Bill Rees; Dr. Tim Morgan; Rob Mielcarski; Dr. Simon Michaux; Erik Michaels; Just Collapse’s Tristan Sykes & Dr. Kate Booth; Kevin Hester; Alice Friedemann; David Casey; and, Steve Bull.

The document is not a guided narrative towards a singular or overarching message; except, perhaps, that we are in a predicament of our own making with a far more chaotic future ahead of us than most imagine–and most certainly than what mainstream media/politics would have us believe.

Click here to access the document as a PDF file, free to download.

The Bulletin: August 8-15, 2024

August 15, 2024

The Bulletin: August 8-15, 2024

Introducing The Bulletin, a collation of recent articles focusing upon those predicaments flowing from the ongoing collapse of our global, industrialised complex society.

Coming Clean on Clean Energy: It’s a Dirty Business | RealClearWire

The Energy Debate: Fanboys, Fangirls, and the Real Cost of Pollution | Art Berman

More Bargaining And Hopium

Natural Farming Cannot Co-exist with GM Crops – Global Research

US Hints At Regime Change In Tehran If Israel Is Attacked | ZeroHedge

The coming Planetary Emergency and its consequences

In 2023 the world’s forests stopped acting as a carbon sink

Is The West’s Growing Oppression a Portent? | how to save the world

MM #11: Renewable Salvation? | Do the Math

Washington Further Escalates Its War On Dissent

The myth that renewables are cheap persists in part due to the flawed use of LCOE – Watt-Logic

Nobody Would Vote For Any Of This Bullshit Without Extensive Manipulation

The Dieselgate Scandal

The Ardent Pipe Dreams of American Voters – OffGuardian

Deep Sea Delusions

Off-grid: further thoughts on the failing renewables transition

Science Snippets: 2030 Is Still Too Soon

FOIA Files: How Feds, Press, and Academia “Coordinate” on Speech

Make Preparations – by Jordan Perry

The Empire Is The Real Enemy

#286: Whatever happened to progress? | Surplus Energy Economics

One Step Away From the Biggest Oil Shock in History – International Man

Trilaterals over Stockholm

It Became Necessary to Destroy the Global Economy to Save It

Russia ready to execute nuclear attacks on NATO targets, according to leaked documents

Report: 82% of Scientists Say Overpopulation is a Major Problem | by HR NEWS | Aug, 2024 | Medium

“An Intricate Fabric Of Bad Actors Working Hand-In-Hand” – So Is War Inevitable? | ZeroHedge

Peace Is Not On The Ballot In November

Low Tech Life | Kris De Decker – by Rachel Donald

The Population Problem: Human Impact, Extinctions, and the Biodiversity Crisis

The Bulletin: August 1-7, 2024

August 7, 2024

The Bulletin: August 1-7, 2024

Introducing The Bulletin, a collation of recent articles focusing upon those predicaments flowing from the ongoing collapse of our global, industrialised complex society.

Middle East On The Brink: Goldman Heads Discuss ‘Interconnected Realities’ Of Markets & Geopolitics Amid Looming Iran Strike | ZeroHedge

Russia’s Arctic Energy Expansion A Geopolitical And Economic Gambit

Weathering The Storm: Experts Weigh In On Recession Preparation

World War 3’s Decisive Battle – International Man

How Will Communities Handle Troublemakers?

Incrementalism is the slippery slope to slavery. Or worse, collapse.

EVERYBODY KNOWS THE CAPTAIN LIED – The Burning Platform

Geopolitics: The Anguish of a Divided World | Art Berman

“Anything Could Go Wrong”. Russia’s Drills to Practice the Deployment of Tactical Nuclear Weapons. In Response to the Deployment of Nuclear Capable F-16s. – Global Research

And Suddenly Things Change – by James Howard Kunstler

Has Peak Oil Become Self-Evident Yet?

Margin Calls Trigger Huge Global Equities and Bitcoin Selloff, Gold Fine – MishTalk

How to Build a Survival Community Before The Collapse

US deploys at least 12 warships to Middle East amid soaring tensions, report says

Climate migration is an urgent reality that cannot be ignored – Earth.com

Psychological Mechanisms To Deny Reality And Employ Optimism Bias

US National Debt Tops $35 Trillion for the First Time in History – Global Research

A Critical Juncture for Oil Prices | Art Berman

Global Power Demand Soars IEA Expects 4% Growth in ’24 & ‘25

Promoting Peace And Stability In The Middle East By Unconditionally Backing Its Worst Aggressor | Patreon

Beijing Helicopter Taking Off: China Central Banker Calls For Direct Money Transfers To Households | ZeroHedge

Climate migration is an urgent reality that cannot be ignored – Earth.com

Planetary Boundaries: Exceeding Earth’s Safe Limits

July 12-31 Articles of Interest

August 2, 2024

Click on the following link for PDF with embedded links: July 12-31 Articles of Interest

Today’s Contemplation: Collapse Cometh CLXXXIII–Complexity and Sustainability

July 30, 2024

Today’s Contemplation: Collapse Cometh CLXXXIII–Complexity and Sustainability

I believe that in many ways the past is a prologue to our future. Every experiment our species has attempted in the development of complex societies (from small to large ones) has eventually ‘failed’ to sustain the systems that make them complex and simplification/decline/collapse has followed.

Regardless of this pre/history and the lessons inherent in it, our species seems to make the same unsustainable choices with each and every iteration of complex societies. An argument can be made that such repetitive behaviour is unavoidable as our ‘successes’ cannot help but lead to our ‘failures’. It is our ‘nature’ (as it is perhaps for virtually every species) to grow in numbers and, if the circumstances ‘permit’ (i.e., fundamental resources are present), to exceed the natural carrying capacity of its habitat and proceed into ecological overshoot (see William Catton Jr.’s Overshoot: The Ecological Basis of Revolutionary Change)

Our longest lasting and perhaps most ‘sustainable’ living arrangements were when our species followed a somewhat nomadic, hunting and gathering existence that relied upon living within the restraints imposed by local natural resources. When population pressures arose due to human reproductive success, groups could split up with some moving to adjacent, unexploited lands. Eventually, however, this process bumped up against limits to such expansion and it was through technological ‘innovations’ that population pressures were addressed.

While there are many theories regarding the reason for a society’s ‘collapse/simplification’, it would appear that part of the answer is that the organisational structures (i.e., sociopolitical and/or socioeconomic) that share important information and goods to maintain themselves, experience declining returns on the investments necessary to keep them active–particularly if an unexpected crisis erupts after a prolonged period of diminishing returns.

Eventually, when the ‘costs’ outweigh the ‘benefits’, support from the masses is withdrawn resulting in a much more simplified world where small, local groups develop that are primarily dependent upon the immediate environment’s carrying capacity and significantly less so on widespread energy-averaging systems (i.e., trade, especially long-distance forms) and the complex organisational structures necessary to sustain these systems.

In general, the article (Complexity and Sustainability: Perspectives From the Ancient Maya and the Modern Balinese) summarised below–comparing a ‘technotasking’ approach to a ‘labourtasking’ one–concludes that it is our technological innovations that have served to sustain our species growth but that these same innovations lead invariably to the ‘collapse’ of a complex society that employs them. This is due to technologies expediting the drawdown of finite resources (leading to diminishing returns on investments in resource extraction and thus complexity) and the overloading of various compensatory sinks. The authors emphasise that social stresses are increased by the implementation of new technologies but that because such innovations disproportionately benefit those at the top of societal political and economic structures (primarily via the control of key resources), they are employed regardless of the negative impacts that arise–social and/or environmental.

While reading through the article, I had a variety of thoughts relating to my understanding of the ‘collapse’ process and our modern trend towards that somewhat inevitable outcome.

First, it is a net surplus of resources (especially energy) that is perhaps the key result of human adaptations (see Dr. Tim Morgan’s Surplus Energy Economics for more on this). This surplus allows for expansion. No surplus means no expansion and/or use of ‘savings’ to sustain society, leading to a more vulnerable situation when/if crisis erupts as per archaeologist Joseph Tainter’s thesis regarding how and why complex societies ‘collapse’ (see The Collapse of Complex Societies). It would seem that ‘stability’ appears when new energy is NOT harnessed and growth/expansion curtailed. This possibility now appears unachievable (without a severe disruption to current complexities) because of the creation of a world predicated upon such growth and increasingly ‘necessary’ due to its dependence upon the extraordinary expansion of debt-/credit-based fiat currency that has allowed us to pull growth from the future–but that requires payback of both principal and interest.

Second, technological innovations (what the authors refer to as ‘technotasking’) appear to create jumps in complexity and are limited by immediately available resources. If resource demands cannot be met, collapse or simplification is the most likely outcome. A ‘labourtasking’ path (one that depends primarily upon manual labour), however, displays only small, incremental increases in complexity and costs. This alternative pathway is far more ‘sustainable’ than one that employs technologies; it can still result, eventually, in collapse/simplification just taking much longer to get to that endgame.

Third, today’s energy-averaging systems (i.e., trade) is a global, complex industrial product-reliant enterprise fundamentally based upon hydrocarbon extraction and refinement. The fragility and complexity of such a system has led to enormous reliance upon finite resources (especially hydrocarbons, and most located far away) and led to a significant loss of skill/knowledge in self-sufficiency for most of our species. The need for resources to maintain our societies’ complexities and the movement of them has led to massive militaries and ongoing geopolitical brinkmanship.

Fourth, our modern societies are similarly following the collapse trajectory of the Maya as we accept a top-down strategy and employ a technotasking approach in offsetting production deficiencies and countering population pressures. In fact, we have accelerated this approach in a number of ways, including the use of technology to make more technology and are now contemplating using technology (artificial intelligence) to guide our decision-making far more than practised to date. (see Erik Michaels’ Problems, Predicaments, and Technology for more on the issues surrounding technology use and the predicament it has led our species into)

Fifth, we can see in the Maya a faltering of technological innovations and their maintenance as a result of organisational communications breaking down. This eventually led to a degradation of important complexities, especially pertaining to food production. This occurred as the elite consolidated resources for themselves to offset the limits society was encountering. Elite self interest resulted in more and more resources being directed towards this ruling minority and less towards the systems necessary to support the societal complexities needed for everyone.

Sixth, despite assurances in modern times by the priesthood of economic ‘science’ that resource limits are meaningless in a world of ‘free’ market economies where human ingenuity and technology can counter deficiencies in resource supplies, hard biogeophysical limits to infinite growth exist. These real limits lead to massive issues for the technotasking pathway but it is almost always chosen to be pursued because it can accommodate rapid growth and the consolidation of social/economic power for the ruling elite to whom most of the benefits accrue. This occurs without much thought or concern, if any, about sustainability.

Finally, it may only be with the fall of nation states and other forms of large, complex societies (and the caste of elite that accompany such social organisations) that more sustainable forms of human existence can be pursued. This depends on a number of important factors not least of which are: the number of our species that survive the fall of the current industrial-based, globalised complex society; the state of the planet’s ecological systems once all mass, extractive enterprises are curtailed; the survivability of our planet due to our overshooting of various planetary boundaries; the availability of certain, important natural resources (especially potable water, food sources, and regional shelter needs); and the ability of any remaining human populations to live within the capacity of their local natural resources/environment.

A handful of previous Contemplations looking at how the past informs the possible future…

Today’s Contemplation: Collapse Cometh CLXXIX–Archaeology of Overshoot and Collapse May 24, 2024

Today’s Contemplation: Collapse Cometh CLXVI–Societal Collapse: The Past is Prologue November 27, 2023

Today’s Contemplation: Collapse Cometh CXLVIII–What Do Previous Experiments in Societal Complexity Suggest About ‘Managing’ Our Future September 1, 2023

Today’s Contemplation: Collapse cometh CXLIII–Ruling Caste Responses to Societal Breakdown/Decline August 3, 2023

Today’s Contemplation: Collapse Cometh CXLI–Declining Returns, Societal Surpluses, and Collapse July 19, 2023

Today’s Contemplation: Collapse Cometh CXXXIX–Our Deep Future: Techno-Utopia Or A Return To the Distant Past July 10, 2023

Complexity and Sustainability: Perspectives From the Ancient Maya and the Modern Balinese

V.L. Scarborough and W.R. Burnside

American Antiquity, April 2010. Vol. 75 No. 2, pp. 327-363

Scarborough and Burnside argue that there exists several different pathways for societal complexity to emerge in human populations (where complexity is defined “as the nonlinear escalation of costs and emergent infrastructure with rising energy use and concentrated power as societies develop.” (p. 327)) Using examples drawn from the ancient Maya and modern Balinese, two of the pathways are compared highlighting “their relative costs, benefits, and potential for long-term sustainability.” (p. 327)

After a brief discussion of how best to conceptualise societal complexity for the purposes of their research, the authors concentrate upon socioenvironmental relationships, especially around water management for their compare/contrast analysis with the complexity resulting from increasing ‘throughput’.

Human groups self-organise within their biophysical environment with their culture altering the environment. New cultural systems can be highly adaptable but they are also more fragile and can lead to relatively quick ‘collapse’. Social modifications usually lead to stressed living conditions with increased costs and three possible futures if harmful conditions cannot be absorbed by the biophysical and/or sociocultural systems: “(1) the cultural system cuts its exaggerated and mounting social costs by lessening its intensity of resource use resulting in a partial reversion to an earlier lifeway of reduced costs and relative simplicity; (2) the system suffers from relatively abrupt social collapse; or (3) the system cultivates and focuses its energy and social capital on greater “complexity” associated with an evolved set of institutional structures–an emergent organizer of information and resources.” (pp. 329-330)

Research suggests that societies follow a labourtasking or technotasking path (or combination) to incorporate new resources or reset old ones.

Technotasking offsets production deficiencies by investing in ‘technological innovation’ that can help establish surpluses. In an early/primary state, ‘canalisation’ (i.e., riverine drainage system) was a commonly employed innovation as it could be adopted relatively quickly. The resource concentration such adaptations resulted in led to the emergent phenomenon of urbanisation and organisational structures, with those in ‘control’ of these economic/political structures benefitting disproportionately–“…those profiting most from the newly invented technologies accrued greater quantities, concentrations, and control of key resources.” (p. 332).

Deployment of a new technology is costly in terms of society and its environment but even after costs ‘level-out’ time and entropy can begin to increase costs. These increased costs can lead to a slowing of growth, collapse, or, with a new technology, a restart of the process. Transitions to greater complexity seem to be triggered by these rapid reorganisations. Successful and long-term shifts are limited by immediately available resources. Such change creates vulnerability if the new structural complexity cannot adjust to resource use/demand “If the new structure and the necessary resources are not synchronized and compatible, then the social system will collapse or at least slip back to an earlier, less complex social order.” (p. 335)

Labourtasking relies upon trained labour pools to help modify the landscape rather than a technological ‘breakthrough’. Here, the resulting change is incremental, long lasting, monitored, promoted generationally, and refined according to local conditions. Complexity and its social costs increase over time but in a smooth, uninterrupted manner. There are no abrupt transitions preceded by breakthrough technologies. Complexity costs increase but at a smaller ratio than in technotasking societies.

The ancient Maya and modern Balinese both have tended to employ labourtasking to aid in their adaptation to their somewhat similar semitropical settings whereby heavy seasonal rains were followed by prolonged dry periods. Both developed microwatershed adaptations but via different ‘technologies’.

The Maya would take advantage of natural drainage catchments and enhance them via landscape modifications (channel systems and reservoir) with household and monumental architecture mound volume equivalent to drainage volume. “[T]he system was likely a communitywide effort monitored by a collective interested in sustaining the entire group.” (p. 338) Although labourtasking was their primary economic means for some time, the Maya shifted into and out of technotasking as needs required. Innovations, however, would hasten resource drawdown and quicken negative impacts (e.g., erosion and sediment accumulation).

It appears that the Mayan success led to its eventual demise. Turmoil within large centres disrupted community communication beginning in the west. Information exchange faltered and the elite succumbed to immediate self-interest and became less responsive to other needs investing fewer resources in the many and more to the few; a scramble for hegemonic control between the large centres ensued. Written records suggest a governing council was implemented at Chichen Itza as depopulation hit its southern contemporaries but rather than adjust social networks (i.e.., economic and political) the elite chose to seek greater control. During the Terminal Classic demise phase there is evidence that the cost-complicated landscapes suffered the most from this, In particular, was the impact upon irrigation channels and reservoirs that show massive sediment/silt buildup; impacts that can still be seen today.

Mayan ‘collapse’ appears to have ensued once the environment and its natural resources could no longer support societal complexities. While several major centres and their hinterlands experienced ‘collapse’ (especially acute depopulation and the overshoot of local resources), some smaller communities were resilient and avoided the fate of the large ones–mostly by specialising in local resources and establishing trade with nearby populations. Those populations that shifted towards labourtasking-based adaptations were able to sustain themselves for a period of time beyond those that depended upon technotasking. “Generally speaking, the more long-term time and energy invested in the system, the greater the degree of collapse if the fields or related surfaces are neglected or abandoned for even a short period.” (p. 349)

The modern Balinese, in comparison, have oriented towards a labourtasking pathway after having their initial attempts (circa 11-12th century) to recreate their Javanese roots fail due to significant geographical differences. Its highly-dissected, steep-sided valleys with little in the way of natural resources required more decentralised structures. Indigenous farming populations managed their own affairs avoiding centralised bureaucracies and their demands. Groups self organised within their unique ecological circumstances. This approach proved productive and shaped the social system. “Balinese social institutions remain responsive to the complex adaptive system they have spawned, providing the flexibility to accommodate and locally manage accretional landscape change.” (p. 353)

The Balinese, with their labourtasking approach that focuses upon decentralisation (as opposed to the hypercentralisaiton characterised by the Late Classic Maya), have so far avoided collapse and suggests a path forward for sustainability. Resilience and long-lived stability would appear to be the result of small, incremental adjustments in a labourtasking approach as opposed to the frequent and rapid shifts that result from a technotasking one. However, near the end of an extended run, labourtasking systems may still result in extreme social ‘collapse’.

“A key difference between the two systems is the expectations for grand collapse…Because of the ever-changing, nonlinear interdependencies within and between groups and their environments, labortasking leads to a set of ‘phase transitions’ that produce adaptive forms of social organization and built environments. This process is long-lasting, resilient, and generally well-adjusted to resource limitations, making it relatively sustainable. However, acute vulnerability or collapse can occur if drastic external and/or social structural change is unleashed.” (pp. 355-356)

Technological innovations that tend to buffer humans from the environment but negatively impact it are often chosen because they accommodate rapid growth and the consolidation of social/economic power without much thought or concern about sustainability. While improvements in human health and welfare can be attributed to technotasking these need to be evaluated in terms of the costs, especially upon the environment whose ‘health’ human societies depend on.

The longer summary notes of the article can be found here.

Attempting a new payment system as I am contemplating shutting down my site in the future (given the ever-increasing costs to keep it running).

If you are interested in purchasing any of the 3 books individually or the trilogy, please try the link below indicating which book(s) you are purchasing.

Costs (Canadian dollars):
Book 1: $2.99
Book 2: $3.89
Book 3: $3.89
Trilogy: $9.99

Feel free to throw in a ‘tip’ on top of the base cost if you wish; perhaps by paying in U.S. dollars instead of Canadian. Every few cents/dollars helps…

https://paypal.me/olduvaitrilogy?country.x=CA&locale.x=en_US

If you do not hear from me within 48 hours or you are having trouble with the system, please email me: olduvaitrilogy@gmail.com.

You can also find a variety of resources, particularly my summary notes for a handful of texts, especially Catton’s Overshoot and Tainter’s Collapse: see here.

It Bears Repeating: Best Of…Volume 1

A compilation of writers focused on the nexus of limits to growth, energy, and ecological overshoot.

Click here to access the document as a PDF file, free to download.

July 3, 2024 Readings

July 3, 2024

July 3, 2024 Readings

2019: Peak (Western) Civilization–The Honest Sorcerer

Summer Reflections–Erik Michaels

The Long Forum June 2024 – by Shane Simonsen

Can The Law Drag Fossil Fuels Into Greener Pastures?

We Are All Joe Biden (And Malthus Was Not a Reptilian)–Ugo Bardi

The Coming US Budget Disaster Will Impoverish Americans | Mises Institute

Ongoing Propaganda From Corporate Media Outlets–Guy McPherson

Category 4 Beryl on collision course with Windward Islands

Delhi experiences historic June rainfall, resulting in severe flooding and 11 deaths, India – The Watchers

Hundreds Dying Everyday In Karachi As Pakistan Battles Brutal Summer–Independent

Tropical rains will shift northward in the coming decades – Earth.com

Alaska’s snow crab season canceled for second year in a row as population fails to rebound – CBS News

Moderate to above-moderate harmful algal bloom predicted for western Lake Erie | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

The True Catastrophe of Our Times – TomDispatch.com

Restoring Nature Is Our Only Climate Solution – resilience

I saw first-hand just how much fracking destroys the earth | Rebecca Solnit | The Guardian

How World Leaders Are Scrambling to Secure Food in The Shadows | by Eric Lee | Jun, 2024 | Medium

China deploys aircraft carrier off Philippine coast amid tensions | World News – Business Standard

You Are Materials Blind–Matt Orsagh

Third Of Nuclear-Plant Owners In Talks With Tech Firms To Power Up AI Data Centers | ZeroHedge

NATO Mulls Imposing No-Fly Zone Over Western Ukraine | ZeroHedge

Biden’s De Facto EV Mandate At Risk After Supreme Court ‘Chevron’ Ruling

Trans Mountain Oil Pipeline Off To A Solid Start

Today’s Contemplation: Collapse Cometh CLXXXII–Tech ‘Solutions’ Are Us

June 27, 2024

Today’s Contemplation: Collapse Cometh CLXXXII–Tech ‘Solutions’ Are Us

Pompeii, Italy (1984). Photo by author.

Tech ‘Solutions’ Are Us

I wanted to share another one of those conversations I have been involved in. It is not unlike many I see occur (and sometimes get involved in) when someone posts definitive support for the pursuit of complex technologies to sustain our current energy-intensive and resource-extractive living arrangements. In this particular case, it was a link I shared to an article by energy writer/researcher Alice Friedemann. The original post and comments that lead to my final response can be found at the end of this introductory few paragraphs and my final response.

First, I wanted to highlight that I am about half-way through reading and summarising another archaeology research article, with some of the arguments made in it finding its way into my final response during the conversation about technological ‘solutions’ to our energy/resource predicament.

It’s most interesting to see how the archaeological evidence regarding past society’s adaptations to resource and environmental issues is not significantly dissimilar to modern-day attempts, except perhaps in scale (and we can thank significant surplus net energy from hydrocarbons for this). Technological innovations are pursued to help problem solve and adapt, but not all are successful and can lead to ‘collapse’. This ‘collapse’ may take centuries or, if the innovations are unsuccessful, only a generation or two.

The April 2010 article entitled Complexity and Sustainability: Perspectives From the Ancient Maya and the Modern Balinese by V.L. Scarborough and W.R. Burnside was published in the journal American Antiquity. It concludes that “Both of these complex societies used labortasking to adapt to local ecological limitations in semi-tropical settings. These societies used heterarchical organizations to accretionally engineer and manage their environments, strategies that promoted long-term resilience. Case studies such as these provide a nuanced picture of different paths to social complexity and highlight their relative costs, benefits, and potential for long-term sustainability.”

I’m perhaps halfway through the article and its summarising (already over 15 pages of typed notes) and hope to get through it sometime in the next few weeks; the unusually high amount of precipitation our region north of Toronto has received so far this growing season has led to phenomenal growth in my garden requiring constant maintenance and most of my time. I think the unusually high humidity has also contributed to some disease issues in a few of my fruit trees that has me needing to ‘problem solve’ a bit more than usual–leaf curl in my peach trees, mosaic virus in my apple trees, and no blossoms on my cherry tree (but no sign of cherry aphids this year, a win).

In the meantime, here’s my final response in that conversation from the following post:

Original post that I put out back on March 24, 2024:

Peak hydrocarbons. If you’re not aware of why the peak of hydrocarbons (especially diesel) should send warning sirens blaring through our world, you need to read this article (and most of the other articles on the linked site) by energy researcher and writer Alice Friedemann.

My final response with previous commentary immediately afterwards:

LB, We will have to agree to disagree, especially as it pertains to the feasibility and consequences of chasing complex technological ‘solutions’ to our energy predicament.

Pre/history is pretty clear that virtually every complex society over the past dozen millennia or so has eventually ‘collapsed’. This ‘collapse’ appears to result from diminishing returns on societal investments in complexity along with overexploitation of the natural environment, especially the resources required to support growing complexities.

Further, those societies that pursue novel technological innovations to sustain their growth tend to ‘collapse’ faster than those that do not. In fact, adoption of a misguided innovation can lead to ‘collapse’ relatively quickly, in just a generation or two. The most ‘sustainable’ societies are those that focus upon ‘labourtasking’ that leverages human and draft animal power (as opposed to technology) which serves to severely limit ecological destruction and drawdown of resources.

Rather than pursue a more sustainable path (although labourtasking is still not fully sustainable since complexities of large human groupings, even if based upon manual labour, are still resource/energy dependent and encounter diminishing returns as they grow leading to eventual ‘collapse’), we are increasingly pursuing complex and heavily resource-dependent technologies–a sure recipe for a quick and broad ‘collapse’.

Not surprisingly, this approach (and the narrative that it’s fully doable, clean/green, and sustainable) is being heavily marketed and pushed by those at the top of our power/wealth structures that stand to profit immensely from the pursuit (including academia)—to say little about the geopolitical resource wars this path spawns and that seem to be growing and spreading as we bump up against biophysical limits evermore seriously. That many (most?) support this approach is not surprising given the vast propaganda/marketing machine of our ruling caste and the vilification of dissenters.

Further, our current experiment with a global, industrial-based society has turbo-charged this ‘technotasking’ approach via its leveraging of hydrocarbons and economic machinations (i.e., debt/credit creation to pull growth from the future). The past two centuries in particular have witnessed incredible population and economic growth. While some view this as positive, this one-sided perspective completely ignores the ecologically-destructive enterprises involved and that have spread to almost every corner of the globe. And all of it, of course, depends very much upon exponentially-increasing energy/resource extraction and production, the pursuit of which has already encountered significant diminishing returns.

Part of the reason so many buy into the technotasking approach is because of the perceived ‘success’ our species has encountered over the past dozen or so millennia in using it, but this completely ignores/denies so much of the negative impacts; impacts that are metastasizing as our population and energy/resource demands grow exponentially—consider for a moment the requirements being bandied about to support the AI ‘revolution’; a pursuit that is estimating energy needs that far, far surpass current abilities and are calling for a tripling/quadrupling (or more) of our current energy/resource production/extraction.

As for a 2050 plan for a “world of 7 billion middle class affluent consumers”, we can make all sorts of ‘scientific’ predictions based upon possibilities founded upon our technological prowess and human ingenuity, but the hope of exponential growth of our exploitive and extractive consumption has already bumped up against the limits to such a path and we are increasingly seeing the negative impacts and consequences. It’s just that in our unique story-telling way we have created a world where inconvenient reality to our wishes/hopes are denied/ignored/rationalised away.

Untestable mathematical models of the future can be devised to support anything. Sure small-scale prototypes might suggest some marginal possibilities but use one flawed assumption in the modelling to propose global adoption and the conclusions that suggest success are less than meaningless–they are dangerous, especially if we adhere to the precautionary principle.

Yes, we will likely continue to pursue these damaging and unattainable ‘solutions’ since the world’s profiteers (especially the media, financial institutions, and political systems) are pushing/supporting them. And many (most?) will support them because the idea of limiting our growth/expansion has been broadly vilified and we have been conditioned to believe such a path is our ‘right’ and that everything has a ‘solution’—if just enough resources are thrown into them–we just need to believe.

War over resources? Never. Wars are simply some ‘other’ wishing to destroy our ‘democracy’ and living standards because they hate us. We need to protect ourselves by imposing our will upon them and then we’ll make sure their natural resources are used judiciously–especially for green/clean tech.

Overloaded planetary sinks? Exaggeration. We just need to consume more clean/green products. In fact, let’s replace every industrial product currently in existence with these ‘sustainable’ products while bringing the entire population up to ‘advanced economy’ standards. What’s not to love? Ponies and lollipops for everyone.

Sociopolitical roadblocks? Nothing the election of the ‘correct’ individual/party with the ‘proper’ regulations and policies can’t rectify. The political caste has only the best interests of the citizens and planet in mind in their decision-making.

Planetary overshoot and toxic legacies? Nonsense, we can have 7+ billion middle class consumers if we just do things ‘right’ and in a sustainable and non-polluting way. And if there are negative side-effects, we’ll figure out a way to deal with them.

Resource limits? Non-existent concern. With human ingenuity and ‘free’ markets there are no limits. In fact, if some important resources–say water–becomes scarce we’ll simply mine passing asteroids or leave our solar system for other habitable planets. Elon Musk or Jeff Bezos will get us there.

Financial machinations? Balderdash. We can fully trust the banking industry and political systems that run them. All that debt requiring even greater growth is a great thing. Just ignore all that evidence that inequality has been increasing significantly and the middle class eviscerated over the last several decades as greater and greater amounts of debt pile up resulting in increasing price inflation.

And then there’s the notion that the so-called overwhelming support could be as ‘simple’ as a misguided paradigm/worldview that has yet to be ready for broad criticism and overturning. Paradigms have a way of protecting themselves, especially if they have the backing of the-powers-that-be and serve their interests.

As the saying goes, however, Nature bats last. Given it’s the ninth inning, the bases are loaded, there’s no out, we’re up by only a run, and our pitcher is struggling to find the strike zone with a 3-0 count, things are looking dicey. Just believing it is possible to win because it’s in our best interest isn’t enough to prevent the walk-off hit Nature has in store for us.

The Laws of Thermodynamics, especially Entropy, are unforgiving no matter how ‘intelligent’ our species might be. And, frankly, we’re not looking very smart given what we’ve been doing…

Commentary that began June 25, 2024:

LB
If you are familiar with “final stage ERoI,” fossil fuel is on an energy cliff. The ratio of useful fossil energy in application to the energy required to produce it has fallen to 1.0 useful unit per 6.0 input units. Society needs about 10.0. Renewables are over 40.0.
Alaska oil has been energy negative for years. North Sea oil is marginal at best.
https://ageoftransformation.org/greatoversimplification/
LFP battery is now “lifetime” warranty and cost drops another 50% yr/yr in 2024.

Perovskite tandem pv cells (made at room temperature from common recyclable materials) has passed durability field tests and is in MW installation phase of commercial production. That is a 40% efficiency gain with, again, a 50% price drop yr/yr in 2024.
https://thedriven.io/…/catl-announces-electric…/…

Alice Friedemann
LB, LFP batteries and PV cells require fossil fuels for every single step of their life cycle, from mining, to ore crushing, smelting, transportation to hundreds of factories to make parts, more transportation from these hundreds to the single place something will be made, transport to destination, and so on, plus the electric grid can’t stay up without Natural gas

LB
Oh, contraire…
https://reneweconomy.com.au/worlds-biggest-grids-could…/

Alice Friedemann
LB, energy storage doesn’t scale up

LB
Alice Friedemann, energy storage scales up.

Steve Bull
LB, Sure, and to hell with the ecological destruction left in its wake.

Alice Friedemann
LB, what exactly scales up?

LB
Alice Friedemann, every grid integration analysis by qualified scientists…. in all journal literature.
That includes the synergy of solar primary by day and wind primary by night. Their complementary production overlay to both load follow and peak match… both daily and seasonally.

Steve Bull
LB, Simon Michaux’s work challenges this assertion that EVERY analysis supports the idea of the possibility of a successful scaling up.

LB
Steve Bull ….Michaux’s challenge has been blunted. He is a lone wolf. The literature doesn’t support his notions. Here are literally 19 thousand 2024 journal articles on the matter, including 4300 review articles.
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=energy+transition+materials+mining&hl=en&as_sdt=0,6&as_ylo=2024

LB
…and where are the comprehensive and numerically detailed studies for a 2050 world of 7 billion middle class affluent consumers that do not feature RE, EV, electrification, and transactive hypergrids? Where is a master plan other than the 195 nation Paris Accord as aligned with the 195 nation IPCC?
The real plans all look like this:
ABSTRACT: “The roadmaps call for a 100% transition of all-purpose business-as-usual (BAU) energy to wind-water-solar (WWS) energy, efficiency, and storage, ideally by 2035, but by no later than 2050, with at least 80% by 2030. Grid stability analyses find that the countries, grouped into 24 regions, can exactly match demand with 100% WWS supply and storage, from 2050–2052. Worldwide, WWS reduces end use energy by 56.4%, private annual energy costs by 62.7% (from $17.8 to $6.6 trillion per year), and social (private plus health plus climate) annual energy costs by 92.0% (from $83.2 to $6.6 trillion per year) at a present-value cost of $61.5 trillion. The mean payback times of the capital cost due to energy- and social-cost savings are 5.5 and 0.8 years, respectively. WWS is estimated to create 28.4 million more long-term, full-time jobs than lost worldwide and may need only 0.17% and 0.36% of world land for new footprint and spacing, respectively. Thus, WWS requires less energy, costs less, and creates more jobs than BAU.”
http://web.stanford.edu/…/I/145Country/22-145Countries.pdf

Simon Michaux
LB, Soon my work comes out in peer reviewed journal. Full calculations. So I call bullshit on every one elses work and we can have a discussion. I don’t mind being different to evryone else as long as I have data to support my points.

LB
Simon Michaux …fair enough. Thanks.

Alice Friedemann
Simon Michaux, Can’t wait to see it!

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 or the link below — 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).

Attempting a new payment system as I am contemplating shutting down my site in the future (given the ever-increasing costs to keep it running).

If you are interested in purchasing any of the 3 books individually or the trilogy, please try the link below indicating which book(s) you are purchasing.

Costs (Canadian dollars):
Book 1: $2.99
Book 2: $3.89
Book 3: $3.89
Trilogy: $9.99

Feel free to throw in a ‘tip’ on top of the base cost if you wish; perhaps by paying in U.S. dollars instead of Canadian. Every few cents/dollars helps…

https://paypal.me/olduvaitrilogy?country.x=CA&locale.x=en_US

If you do not hear from me within 48 hours or you are having trouble with the system, please email me: olduvaitrilogy@gmail.com.

You can also find a variety of resources, particularly my summary notes for a handful of texts, especially Catton’s Overshoot and Tainter’s Collapse: see here.

It Bears Repeating: Best Of…Volume 1

A compilation of writers focused on the nexus of limits to growth, energy, and ecological overshoot.

Click here to access the document as a PDF file, free to download.

Could We Go Back to the 1950s, Please?

June 24, 2024

Could We Go Back to the 1950s, Please?

On radical acceptance and energy cannibalism

Saying sorry might not work this time. Photo by Tim Mossholder on Unsplash

How come that we always end up discussing how to do what we do differently — like how to become sustainable, or how fast should we “transition” to “renewables” etc. — and never ever if we should abandon this model of a civilization altogether? What would it take to leave behind the concept of an industrial society and start with a clean slate…? I get that we need continuity. I also get, that abandoning what has “worked” so far is risky, and will inevitably lead to losses (and often to quite significant ones). I also get, that there is a certain sense of nostalgia, driven by the notion that if we could somehow go back to the consumption levels of the 1950’s, everything would be fine again. But would that really help, or just prolong decline somewhat?

Deep inside, most of us know already that there is no going back. In order to forge a realistic vision of the future we cannot rely on nostalgia. We need to better understand reality, and know what is possible and what is not — even if it leads us to conclude that this civilization cannot go on for much too long. I know that this is a bitter pill to swallow… Imagining a future which sounds nice and acceptable, but that which is physically unattainable in the end, might ease the anxiety for a while, but it will also prevent us from working towards a realistic vision.

…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…

The Advanced Economies are headed for a downfall

June 22, 2024

The Advanced Economies are headed for a downfall

It may be pleasant to think that the economies that are “on top” now will stay on top forever, but it is doubtful that this is the way the economy of the world works.

Figure 1. Three-year average GDP growth rates for Advanced Economies based on data published by the World Bank, with a linear trend line. GDP growth is net of inflation.

Figure 1 shows that, for the Advanced Economies viewed as a group (that is, members of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)), GDP has been trending downward since the early 1960s; this is concerning. It makes it look as if within only a few years, the Advanced Economies might be in permanent shrinkage. In 2022, the expected annual GDP growth rate for the group seems to be only 1%.

What is even more concerning is the fact that the indications in the graph are based on a period when the debt of the Advanced Economies was growing. This growing debt acted as an economic stimulus; it helped the industries manufacturing goods and services as well as the citizens buying the goods and services. Without this stimulus, GDP growth would no doubt appear to be falling even faster than shown.

In this post, I will look at underlying factors that relate to this downward trend, including oil consumption growth and changes in interest rate policies. I will also discuss the Maximum Power Principle of biology. Based on this principle, the world economy seems to be headed for a major reorganization. In this reorganization, the Advanced Countries seem likely to lose their status as world leaders. Such a downfall could happen through a loss at war, or it could happen in other ways.

…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…

This Is What Collapse Looks Like

June 21, 2024

This Is What Collapse Looks Like

Every day now, the news is replete with evidence that, everywhere, things are falling apart faster and faster, and nothing of consequence is being, or can be, done about it. Every civilization collapses, but the collapse of our current global industrial civilization is occurring at a breathtaking and accelerating pace.

Today, the city of Philadelphia announced that it has given up trying to deal with its share of the US’s epidemic of mass shootings, and has instead outsourced its handling of the horrific trauma these mass murders create to a private consulting firm. Sure to fix the problem, no? The country’s ‘supreme’ court helped out by ruling that the banning of ‘bump stocks’, devices that turn ordinary guns into rapid-fire machine guns, was unconstitutional. When a hastily-prepared new law was proposed outlawing them, Congress blocked it.

Meanwhile, in Louisiana, arguably the country’s most horrifically polluted and dysfunctional state, has its priorities straight: It’s mandating that the Christian “ten commandments” be posted in every schoolroom in the state. Nothing in those rules about mega-pollution, so why not? Honour thy father and mother, ’cause they’re the ones who bought you the guns with the bump stocks. It’ll surely make God real happy to see when the Rapture comes.

And in Europe, the bumbling governments of both the UK and France have called snap elections they’re bound to lose, so out of touch are they with the electorate that they think all they have to do is convince voters that the current economic collapse in their countries isn’t their fault.

And so it goes. I could respond to most of each day’s top news items these days (including the celebrity gossip) by just reciting the title of this post.

…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…

After months of masturbatory freaking out about “the right,” the German government inches towards collapse, as the social democrats realise they’re wildly unpopular and have neither money nor answers

June 18, 2024

After months of masturbatory freaking out about “the right,” the German government inches towards collapse, as the social democrats realise they’re wildly unpopular and have neither money nor answers

The Süddeutsche Zeitung reports on growing discontent with Chancellor Olaf Scholz in the ranks of his own party.

Since January, German political elites have waged an unceasing “fight against the right.” For weeks at a time, the establishment press would report on little else. We have had freakouts about secret right-wing immigrant deportation plans, we have had freakouts right-wing political violence, we have had freakouts about right-wing fifth-columnists, we have had freakouts about televised political debates and we have had freakouts about right-wing song lyrics. We have had every last kind of freakout you could imagine about the right, all of it promoted by an absolutely deranged media establishment eager to revive pandemic-era hysteria. Then, after all of that screeching and scratching and crying and caterwauling, we had the EU parliamentary elections, and just like that – as if someone had simply flipped a switch – we have stopped freaking out about the right.

As campaign tactics go, the “fight against the right” didn’t work as intended. The point of it, I guess, was to blackmail voters into supporting the social democrats, the Greens and the liberals, by warning them that the alternative was fascism. Nobody bought that, and all three government parties got hammered in the European elections. The latest poll pegs their combined support at 32%.

Now the politicians of these parties are awakening with a pounding post-election hangover, and realising they’ve made a huge mistake. As the Süddeutsche Zeitung reports, “it is dawning on the SPD that they have underestimated the importance of migration and domestic security as political issues.”

…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…

Today’s Contemplation: Collapse Cometh CLXXXI–The Politics of Dancing: The politicians are now dj’s…

June 13, 2024

Today’s Contemplation: Collapse Cometh CLXXXI

Tulum, Mexico (1986). Photo by author.

The Politics of Dancing: The politicians are now dj’s…

It seems nowadays we’re always trapped in the silly season of election campaigning. Perhaps my memory is foggy but where it used to be a short window of inane proclamations and ever-grander promises (that never actually happen as declared), this period of electioneering now appears to carry on everyday, 24/7/365. If it’s not related directly to an upcoming election, it’s about extolling the great work of those in office and the shortcomings of those in opposition parties (or, gasp, wanting to dismantle ‘democracy’)–the bankrolling of which is via that theft mechanism of taxes or, even worse, perpetual debt (I just love that the narrative management/control and surveillance of domestic citizens being carried out by the ruling caste is paid for by the masses themselves that the ‘elite’ are marketing their beneficence to).

With my understanding of societal change through time, one of the aspects of our complex societies that I’ve come to hold as true is that our polities are ‘governed’ by people focused on improving/maintaining their personal/familial/influential benefactor prestige, power, and wealth. It is not, as they crow on about and market repeatedly, a yearning to benefit society-at-large and others–that’s the narrative they want us all to believe in and support. It is about maintenance/expansion of the wealth-generation/-extraction systems from which the ruling caste mostly and extraordinarily benefits.

In this vein, I have lost complete faith in our governing systems to do anything but leverage situations to this end. And a lot of the time this has to do with putting in place monetisation schemes in the form of a racket whereby–as U.S. Marine Corps Major General Smedley Butler argued about war–a small group benefits greatly at the expense of the many, and then, via mass marketing/propaganda/legislation, coercing society to support the scheme (and call out anyone, usually via the media, who criticises/challenges it). And our conditioning and those psychological mechanisms that strive to reduce anxiety-provoking/stressful thoughts/beliefs lead us to believe the narratives weaved by our ruling caste. It’s the water we swim in and don’t even realise it’s there.

“A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small “inside” group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes.”
-Smedley Butler, War Is A Racket (1935).

As I’ve written and argued before, our globalised, industrial societies can be characterised as full of such rackets that funnel national treasuries/wealth from the masses to the few that sit atop the power and wealth structures that develop as a society becomes larger and more complex. It’s not a conspiracy, it’s simply the epiphenomena of societal adaptations to increased organisational needs as the population grows and society problem-solves via greater complexity–thanks, surplus net energy and the technologies that have helped to produce these surpluses. That those who hold positions of power and influence conspire to maintain/expand these should be self-evident to anyone peering beyond the veneer of mainstream social stories.

What follows is another one of those difficult conversations I had with another following a Facebook post that popped up in my feed recently.

[NB: I saw Frank Zappa and the Mothers of Invention in concert at the London Gardens (London, Ontario) on November 5, 1980. My friends of the time and I were frequently listening to his music so a few of us had to see him when he performed in our home town.]

JK: You all had better get a handle on our USA 2 party system. If you contribute to the election of Republicans you ain’t seen NOTHING yet.

Steve Bull: JK, Right. Left. Center. Blue. Red. Green. Doesn’t matter. ‘Government’ protects the minority ruling caste, not the masses. Been that way for millennia. Elections are theatre to give the impression of choice and agency in a rigged and corrupt system.

TH: Steve Bull, I have a badge: “If voting changed anything, it would be illegal!” Let the jesters speak! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjJLTslWp_Q

JK: Steve Bull, So 2016 made no difference? Trump/ Hillary, same same? Stupid. Clueless. The parties are not the same, not even close. You just need someone to blame for your failures, might as well be everyone.

TH, It’s easy to move to a better country. Do it!!

Steve Bull: JK, I think you need to read a bit of pre/history—especially as it pertains to how ruling systems developed and changed as large, complex societies arose (pay particular attention to the sociological/anthropological concepts of integrationist and conflict theories as to how hierarchical systems came about—the ruling elite want us to believe in the integrationist perspective but the evidence more broadly aligns with the conflict one).

And, yes, most every politician and political party is essentially the same—especially when it comes to ‘big ticket’ items. Some marginal differences may exist but in most ways there is little difference. Massive debt continues to accumulate. Various rackets expand and/or new ones arise (think military-security complex, big energy, financial institutions, media, big pharma, etc). Wars continue. Domestic surveillance expands. Inequality grows. Price inflation increases. Narrative management/control enlarges. Ecological systems continue to be destroyed in order to pursue the infinite growth chalice. Etc. Etc.

The most significant change that occurs after an election are the stories we tell ourselves and others. My team wins and all is right or improving in the world (and if it doesn’t it’s because the other team is interfering in our ability to get things done); the other team wins and everything continues to or will soon go to hell in a hand basket. And much, if not everything, that occurs after the election is interpreted through these lenses. We see differences in order to reduce the stress of cognitive dissonance that would occur if we recognize that we’re being bamboozled by those few sitting atop society’s wealth and power structures.

EM: Steve, it really is a shame that more people don’t have the comprehensive understanding how these systems work, who actually benefits (the most), and what the eventual outcome is. Too many people like J are out there telling people to move to a better country when they can’t see that they’re the ones being owned and bamboozled, especially here in the US.

TH: JK, Luckily I don’t live in the US…! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QiuA6Tfy-pM

We have our own problems fighting off 5 Eyes, NATO associate membership, and being a very close friend of the US….Empire stretches down here, and a lot of uber wealthy Americans have bolt holes here….

We live with the illusion of democracy, while living under a government of occupation on behalf of Empire. The political classes are owned, and their owners pass down agendas that are all about dividing and conquering any communities of resistance, and continuing to open up the country to rape/pillage/extraction. The owners are the corporations/banksters/elites. We are being farmed.

JK: EM, nobody owns me. I’m doing fine. I work hard and have a great life.
Our tool is the ballot box. Standing on a street, holding signs, protesting doesn’t do shit. Get involved, complaining won’t get you anywhere. Run for office, be psrt of the change. Revolution at this point is not in the cards.

Steve Bull, how do you propose fixing it? Complaining on Facebook? You aren’t going to change the Constitution and feeble little protests do nothing. Americans can run for office and if you look at Congress you’ll see Reps from the poorest of families. Get off your butt and run for office. Bitching Facebook won’t cut it. Going to take a lot of work.

EM: J, first of all, what we suffer from is a predicament, not a problem. Predicaments have outcomes, not solutions. So, you aren’t going to fix squat with politics, period. Vote for whoever you want, we and they lack agency to solve anything because it isn’t a problem we face.

As for Steve, he is Canadian, so he won’t be running for office here in the US.

Steve Bull: JK, Sure, just like this image suggests:

And, I wasn’t complaining. I was making a statement based on my understanding of pre/history.

JK: Steve Bull the mafia? B. S.

The hate I see on these posts and some MAGA cult people are very similar. Lot of whining, victimhood and makes me sick. Blaming Biden and Jews for genocide while HAMAS cowers behind civilians, does NOTHING except kill Jews.”Degrowth” while pretending to be off grid. I’ll give y’all another 30 days. Maybe you’ll figure out Tammy Baldwin is different than Ron Johnson. Biden is different than Trump. Makes me sick.

If I thought the USA and the mafia were the same I would ABSOLUTELY get out of the USA as fast as I could. No question. I sure as hell wouldn’t whine about it. I’d take action.

Steve Bull: JK, Perhaps you can take solace in the fact that this is not simply a US phenomena; it is an epiphenomena of large, complex societies. It pervades virtually every level of government across the entire globe and has been with humanity for some 12,000 or more years. We, in the West, just wrap it up in a cloak called ‘representative democracy’ and hold theatrical performances to give the masses the impression they have choice and agency in societal decisions and actions. All the while, a relatively small group of well-connected and influential power brokers continue to raid national treasuries (especially in terms of natural resources) and siphon wealth from the masses.

JK: Steve Bull, What do you mean “pre history?” Sounded like complaining. Hey, I have no problem with complaining —that’s what I’m doing. I’m complaining about the anti-semitism I see, hypocrisy, misunderstanding our political system, thinking the 2 parties are the same, whining without acting, and misinformation. For example, I saw an interview of an LGBQ woman holding a pro-Palestine sign without understanding that HAMAS would kill her if she were there. It’s insane. I’ve never seen an anti-Hamas word in these posts.

Steve Bull: JK, Prehistory is simply human history prior to written documentation. It begins a couple of million years ago up until about 5000 years ago with the introduction of writing systems. Most of our knowledge of those times is determined via physical anthropology and archaeology–the latter an area of study that I concentrated on for a few years and received my Master of Arts in. As far as a misunderstanding of our political systems, most people ‘misunderstand’ them because it is in the interests of the few that benefit (power and wealth wise) from them to keep the masses ignorant, mollified, and complacent…so they craft narratives that these systems provide agency and choice to the masses and that they are ‘representative’, and ultimately serve as a net benefit while hiding their true intent: the control and expansion of the wealth-generating and -extraction systems that provide their power, influence, and prestige. Quite frankly, sociopolitical systems are in place to protect the ruling caste of a society; they are not there to protect and serve the masses apart from throwing them a few bones occasionally. And there is about 12-15,000 years of evidence to support this assertion.

JK: Steve Bull So is your point that little has changed in all those years?

Steve Bull: JK, No, much has changed. But not the general tendency of a ruling elite to leverage as much as possible to their advantage.

JK: I do realize the power of big money, millionaires and billionaires, but smart voting will go a very long way toward fixing things. I guarantee you that if Hillary had won in ‘16 the world would be better. If Biden loses this year things will even worse than we’ve ever seen in our lifetimes. There is a gigantic difference between the parties now. Anyone with integrity who doesn’t vote or votes 3rd party is supporting Republicans. The danger is real.

Steve Bull: JK, We have to agree to disagree. And your comment aligns with what I said above: “The most significant change that occurs after an election are the stories we tell ourselves and others. My team wins and all is right or improving in the world (and if it doesn’t it’s because the other team is interfering in our ability to get things done); the other team wins and everything continues to or will soon go to hell in a hand basket. And much, if not everything, that occurs after the election is interpreted through these lenses. We see differences in order to reduce the stress of cognitive dissonance that would occur if we recognize that we’re being bamboozled by those few sitting atop society’s wealth and power structures.”

I also wanted to share this piece of writing from my late step-grandfather, Jack Flynn, written some 40+ years ago but that could have been penned today. I miss the long conversations/debates we used to have over any number of social and political issues of the day. He was one of, if not the most important influences in my thinking during my formative years.

Can This Be Our World?

As we waste and squander finite natural resources,
that are our children’s heritage.
As we watch their future disappear.
Are we witnessing the beginning of the end?

As I view the waste and squander,
one thing comes to mind.
“Where ignorance is bliss, tis folly to be wise.”
Seems to be the universal trend.

How did a species such as ours,
with the ability to reason, and think,
who certainly knows wrong from right.
Allow such a magnificent planet
to fall into such plight?

Truth and wisdom are lost in a barrage of words,
Which emit from mass media, twenty-four hours a day.
Endless innuendo, rhetoric and cliches,
We are expected to understand and obey.

In our modern world a few powerful nations
dominate the whole planet.
Co-operation is considered, passe.
They use and abuse, threaten and gesture,
invade smaller nations, and no one can tell them nay!

Inevitably there must come the time,
when the “immovable object, meets the irresistible force”,
then things should become more clear.
Being powerful nations, afraid to lose face,
they will probably try something Nu-clear.

This post was named after Re-Flex’s 1983 pop song based upon people’s expressive nature displayed during dance. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ht-S4YQpteg. I love the music of the 1980s. I spent some years as a ‘disc jockey’ including a brief stint at Western University’s radio station and some paid party gigs. I also continue to hold a rather large album collection, with the very recent addition of a signed Men Without Hats disc cover that I purchased at a concert they performed at our town’s annual music festival and around the corner from our house–what was not to love? Free. Close by. And, mid-afternoon so I didn’t have a late night and mess up my early-to-bed, early-to-rise routine…

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 websiteor the link below — 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).

Attempting a new payment system as I am contemplating shutting down my site in the future (given the ever-increasing costs to keep it running).

If you are interested in purchasing any of the 3 books individually or the trilogy, please try the link below indicating which book(s) you are purchasing.

Costs (Canadian dollars):
Book 1: $2.99
Book 2: $3.89
Book 3: $3.89
Trilogy: $9.99

Feel free to throw in a ‘tip’ on top of the base cost if you wish; perhaps by paying in U.S. dollars instead of Canadian. Every few cents/dollars helps…

https://paypal.me/olduvaitrilogy?country.x=CA&locale.x=en_US

If you do not hear from me within 48 hours or you are having trouble with the system, please email me: olduvaitrilogy@gmail.com.

You can also find a variety of resources, particularly my summary notes for a handful of texts, especially Catton’s Overshoot and Tainter’s Collapse: see here.

It Bears Repeating: Best Of…Volume 1

A compilation of writers focused on the nexus of limits to growth, energy, and ecological overshoot.

Click hereto access the document as a PDF file, free to download.

Tag Archives: collapse

Content

Post categories

Economic Links

Energy/Resource Links

Environmental Links

Geopolitical Links

Liberty Links

News Links

Other Links

Survival Skills

Post Archives by Category

The Bulletin: August 16-22, 2024

July 3, 2024 Readings

Today’s Contemplation: Collapse Cometh CLXXXII–Tech ‘Solutions’ Are Us

This Is What Collapse Looks Like

Today’s Contemplation: Collapse Cometh CLXXXI

Post navigation

Latest Posts