Home » Posts tagged 'bargaining'

Tag Archives: bargaining

Olduvai
Click on image to purchase

Olduvai III: Catacylsm
Click on image to purchase

Post categories

Post Archives by Category

Today’s Contemplation: Collapse Cometh CCXIII–Keep Calm and Carry On…Human Ingenuity and Technology Will Save Us! Part 1

July 25, 2025

Today’s Contemplation: Collapse Cometh CCXIII–Keep Calm and Carry On…Human Ingenuity and Technology Will Save Us! Part 1

Human cognition and the many psychological mechanisms that impact our species’ comprehension, emotions, and beliefs about the world are fascinating subjects, as is epistemology (aka the ‘theory of knowledge’).

Despite being mostly enthralled with biology during my late high school education and physiology during my early university years, I wandered into studying psychology for a couple of years while pursuing my second bachelor’s degree before becoming more interested in human evolution and completing a Master of Arts degree in anthropology/archaeology. 

It was the use of Stephen Jay Gould’s Ever Since Darwin text in an introductory psychology course that sparked my interest in human physical evolution and then a chance meeting with one of the university’s senior archaeologists to help advise on course selection within the anthropology department which steered me into that field and an eventual graduate degree that focussed on North American archaeology (working on a variety of pre/historic sites in Ontario, Canada, and Oaxaca, Mexico). 

I read up on epistemology mostly on my own as a side interest while studying archaeology being exposed to some very interesting aspects in introductory psychology and anthropology courses (particularly philology and hermeneutics), and then also auditing a senior philosophy course on archaeological theory–little of which I understood having none of the fundamental background knowledge; I don’t know what the hell I was thinking by enrolling in it. (See: Decline of ‘Rationality’. Website     Medium     Substack)

A handful of my Contemplations that discuss human psychology:
Despite Warnings We Have Continued Business-As-Usual and Doubled-Down On Our Avoidance Behaviours. Website     Medium     Substack
Avoiding ‘Collapse’ Awareness. Website     Medium     Substack
Reality is an Inconvenience to Beliefs. Website      Medium     Substack
Most People Don’t Want Their Illusions Destroyed. Website     Medium     Substack
Carbon Tunnel Vision And Resource/Energy & Ecological Blindness, Part 1, Website     Medium     Substack Part 2, Website     Medium     Substack Part 3. Website     Medium     Substack
Cognition and Belief Systems in a ‘Collapsing’ World: Part One, Website     Medium     Substack Part Two–Deference to Authority, Website     Medium     Substack Part Three–Groupthink, Website     Medium     Substack Part Four–Cognitive Dissonance, Website     Medium     Substack Part Five–Justification Hypothesis, Website     Medium     Substack Part Six–Sociopolitical ‘Collapse’ and Ecological Overshoot, Website     Medium     Substack

Yes, I spent the entire 1980s in three universities (Western, McMaster, Brock) chasing a number of degrees, settling into a career in education by the end of the decade–it’s where the jobs were at the time  (and this hot girl I had met was interested in that profession). Thankfully my hometown had a university, so I did not have to pay for room and board for most of the first two degrees (I got married during the second one and we moved into the university’s married-students residence that was very reasonably priced, with rent being based upon income. With both of us being students, the rent was relatively low reflecting our income–we celebrate our 40th anniversary next summer). 

I had a relatively good-paying job working part-time in a grocery store so I was able to pay for much of this self-indulgence, working 20-24 hours a week on top of my classes (although I did accumulate some student loans along the way as well that I paid off quickly after graduating–interest rates were about 14% at the time that I had to start repaying them–with the help of working part-time in The Beer Store on top of my working full time as a classroom teacher). Thank the stars for youthful energy, especially those 4 months or so early in my university days that I spent working full-time from 10 p.m. to 6:30 a.m. stocking shelves before heading home for a quick shower and then off to the university for my physiology classes that began at 8:30 a.m.–typically sleeping from about 2-3 p.m., until 9 p.m..

Anyways, I raise this fascination with psychology because as humanity’s large, complex societies continue their journey along the Seneca Cliff of ‘collapse’, one should expect not only a considerable increase in the symptoms that signal societal decline/simplification, but more importantly from a human psychological perspective a significant and concomitant shift in the beliefs and human responses (emotional and behavioural) that accompany the increased tension that arises from the ecological and societal deterioration that is occurring and becoming more obvious and difficult, if not impossible, to ignore. 

Humans are, if nothing else, a highly ‘intelligent’ species engaged in enormously complex thinking and behaviours to reduce/avoid our anxiety/stress (pain) and increase our optimism/positive ‘vibes’ (pleasure). And, given our story-telling nature, we often do this via the tales we tell ourselves and others, with these stories influencing every aspect of our cognition, beliefs, emotions, and actions–and not always in a positively adaptive manner.

Oftentimes, it would appear, we employ maladaptive strategies but believe they are helpful and create a variety of narratives to support and defend them–even if there is overwhelming evidence that they are ill-informed, quite flawed, and in many cases defy biological processes, geological limitations, and physical laws. And we are, unfortunately, helped along these ‘destructive’ pathways by members of our own species who leverage perceived crises and our fear and anxiety about them to expand their personal wealth and power. [Note: I am using ‘we’, ‘our’, ‘us’ as a generalisation throughout this writing.]

A handful of my Contemplations that touch on how crises are leveraged against us:
Rackets: Keeping the Curtains on Reality Drawn. Website     Medium     Substack
Energy and Its Interconnections With Our Financialised Economic System. Website     Medium     Substack
Fiat Currency Devaluation: A Ruling Elite ‘Solution’ to Growth Limits. Website     Medium     Substack
Rackets: Keeping the Curtains on Reality Drawn. Website     Medium     Substack
Ruling Elite Rackets Everywhere….. Website     Medium     Substack

Societal Decline and Concomitant Stressors

In his 1988 monograph The Collapse of Complex Societies archaeologist Joseph Tainter argued that human societies at their core are problem-solving organisations and that they increase in  complexity through ever-increasing investments in problem-solving. This approach, however, eventually reaches a point when marginal productivity and effectiveness of the ‘solutions’ being pursued can no longer rise–complexity can still accrue some benefits past this point, but at a declining marginal rate. 

As the ‘solutions’ pursued begin to lose their efficacy and perceived issues go unresolved, societal stress begins to grow–this is primarily due to our tendency to use the easiest-to-achieve and least-expensive-to-implement ‘solutions’ first, leaving the more difficult and expensive approaches until later in our problem-solving approach–i.e., we pick the lowest hanging fruit to begin then move to the ones that require more ‘investments’, especially in terms of resources (particularly energy).

Add to this growing strain that many, if not all, of the ‘solutions’ we pursue tend to lead to larger and more convoluted ‘problems’ down the road due to expanding complexity, nonlinear feedback, and unforeseen complications/consequences. This increases societal stressors as time goes by and requires more and more problem-solving efforts and investments, sometimes to a point where the ‘costs’ outweigh the ‘benefits’. A positive feedback loop emerges that is difficult if not impossible to escape from (See: Problem Solving: Complexity, History, Sustainability. Website     Medium      Substack). [Note: I put ‘problem’ and ‘solutions’ in quotes as much of what we are dealing with are not ‘problems’ but predicaments that have no solutions, only outcomes—see Erik Michaels’ writing on this important clarification—particularly when we are dealing with the stresses related to ecological overshoot and all of its symptom predicaments.]

Tainter goes on to suggest that today’s rising “concern with collapse and self-sufficiency may itself be a significant social indicator, the expectable scanning behaviour of a social system under stress, in which there is an advantage to seeking lower-cost solutions” (p. 210). 

This scanning behaviour Tainter is speaking of refers to the expansion of general awareness and associated assessments that a social system employs when it senses challenges or stressors. It reflects how a society measures its environment in order to find adaptive strategies (proactive and reactive ‘problem solving’) that support and sometimes enhance survival. The hope is that vulnerabilities can be identified and crises anticipated by monitoring change, gathering relevant information, and adopting strategies that can address the pending or occurring issues. But more often than not, I would argue, we are being reactive in our problem-solving behaviour as opposed to proactive; however, either approach tends to result in greater complexity and additional ‘problems’ to ‘solve’.

To sum up this scanning behaviour and what arises from it: when the social and physical environments that we exist within begin to exhibit significant stress, humans increasingly notice and begin to look for ways in which that stress can be relieved. This stress relief is usually via some form of ‘problem solving’ investment. There is a good argument to be made to suggest that this is a classic ‘fight-or-flight’ response to alleviate anxiety/avoid pain. 

What are some of the more obvious stressors that seem to be rising to the surface of societal awareness? I’ve listed some in the following table and how they seem to manifest themselves.


These stressors seem to be exploding across nations and the globe, an indication of our global, industrial societies experiencing systemic strain and declining resilience. Such change significantly increases the potential for societal ‘collapse’; it doesn’t guarantee it, it simply sets up a society for a stress surge that cannot be addressed and pushes it past a tipping point. (See: Collapse = Prolonged Period of Diminishing Returns + Significant Stress Surge(s) Part 1, Website    Medium    Substack Part 2, Website    Medium    Substack Part 3, Website     Medium     Substack Part 4, Website     Medium     Substack)

Depending upon one’s perspective, the cause of these stressors varies widely. Most tend to be somewhat reductionist in their evaluation leading to the pointing of fingers at individual determinants, especially at the political and/or economic systems. And while these certainly play a not non-significant role, the vast majority of this thinking neglects the complexity of systems and especially the biogeophysical aspects that I would argue underpin the increasing stress our globalised, industrial societies are experiencing; especially biological processes (e.g., ecological overshoot), geological constraints (e.g., finite resource limitations), and physical laws (e.g., thermodynamic, especially entropy). 

It is rare indeed that there is any consideration or discussion regarding the notion that many if not all of the predicaments we are facing are the result of humanity having bumped up against and are now experiencing the consequences of ecological overshoot as laid out by Meadows et al in their 1972 text, The Limits to Growth, and William Catton Jr. in his 1980 monograph, Overshoot:The Ecological Basis of Revolutionary Change. 

For the most part, what one must not do is challenge the ideas of economic growth and its associated ‘progress’ for they are the dominant and preferred mindsets within the modern zeitgeist, and must be maintained regardless of the ‘costs’. 

Human Psychological Responses To Stressors

Regardless of the causes of these stressors, the responses by our species to them vary rather widely with much depending upon sociocultural context, community dynamics, available resources, and personal circumstances. And while some may simply seek more information about what is occurring, others pursue more actionable pathways–such as adapting behavioural changes that can steer individuals and/or communities towards ‘sustainable’ practices and self-sufficiency, relocating/migrating from a ‘failing’ region/nation, or engaging on a sociopolitical level–it is the psychological reactions that I am focussing upon in this Contemplation.

The psychological repercussions of growing societal stressors are exceedingly complex and also quite varied. Some people handle stress much better than others, with much depending upon personal experiences and personality traits, but also sociocultural norms and expectations. 

The tendency of some in the face of growing societal stress is to lay the blame at the feet of others and we see this in the rise of ‘othering’ alongside both domestic and geopolitical strife. Some actually take a diametrically-opposite path with attempts to form altruistic networks and organisations to support individuals and communities. 

Still others don’t even acknowledge these stressors, wondering what all the fuss is about. James Howard Kunstler has argued that many, perhaps most, are simply too caught up in the ‘thrum of daily life’ and personal/family stress that takes precedence over concerns about societal-level stressors (I often think about the ‘privilege’ I have in being able to contemplate and then pontificate about in my writing these issues and topics in light of some of the tragedies and situations others in this world are experiencing on an almost daily basis–some not small number of people are struggling to avoid sectarian violence, survive the next bombing run, put food on the table, and/or pay for or find shelter). 

Additionally, I wouldn’t be surprised if part of this ‘lack of interest’ is due to the large number of individuals in our ‘modern’ societies being medicated for anxiety/depression–a personal communication from one of our local pharmacists a couple of years ago caused me to pause when he declared that he guessed a good half of our town’s adult residents were on anti-anxiety/-depressant medication; likely exaggerated, but still… 

And then, of course, there are all the distractions that the ruling elite help to maintain–the Roman ‘bread and circuses’; ‘modernity’s’ version being found mostly in the entertainment industry (think musical performances, video games, theme parks, film and television production, sports, etc.). 

While fear and anxiety about external stressors can overwhelm some, perhaps the most common reactions are reflective of the grieving stages (much of the above few paragraphs on responses can be categorised into these). When societies experience stress, it is common to have to confront loss and significant change, and the stages of grieving are a reflexive response to this as they help to alleviate anxiety-provoking thoughts and fear.


The defence mechanism of denial is one of the initial ones employed when confronting stress. It is the refusal to accept the reality that one is experiencing. It is oftentimes a temporary coping strategy to help protect oneself from overwhelming emotions. If the issue doesn’t exist, neither does the emotional torment. Problem solved. 

However, in the context of a failing society, this reaction can lead to more problematic outcomes since it delays actions that might help to reduce the negative consequences that accompany ecological overshoot and societal simplification. Denial often results in the belief that things are not nearly as bad as portrayed by some and that stability will reassert itself soon enough even in the face of evidence to the contrary. 

And then there’s the bargaining stage. 

At this point in our global, industrial society’s ‘collapse’ I am witnessing a significant rise in this particular phase of grieving–it could just be my confirmation bias (I’ve noted it and now I see it everywhere). It would seem that more and more people are moving past the denial stage–more-or-less acknowledging that there are growing signs of societal and ecological stress–and into that of attempting to negotiate themselves and/or society’s way out of the situation to avoid the associated anxiety and loss. 

Oftentimes, the bargaining by way of seeking ‘solutions’ is aimed at sustaining current living arrangements with as little inconvenience as is possible. Many appeal to our politicians and political institutions (naively, in my opinion, believing the decision makers in these systems  actually have the best interests of the masses at the top of their agendas). Others put their faith in the ‘free market’ and corporate ‘leaders’ (believing that ‘rational’ choices by consumers and human innovation will lead us to the promised land). And some turn to society’s ‘experts’ and academics, having placed ‘science’ on a pedestal that is ‘objective’, definitive in its conclusions, and capable of ‘solving’ all ‘problems’ given enough time and resources (not appreciating the impossibility of our species to have complete objectivity, the influence that paradigms and incentives have on steering a lot of research, and the leveraging of this approach by various profiteers–including our political class).

A handful of my Contemplations that discusses these appeals to authority:
The Politics of Dancing: The politicians are now dj’s…. Website     Medium     Substack
She Blinded Me With Science, and More On The ‘Clean’ Energy Debate…. Website     Medium     Substack
Solace Will Not Be Found Within Our Sociopolitical Systems—Biogeophysical Limitations Cannot Be Overcome By Way Of Policy. Website     Medium     Substack
Our Political Systems Are Not Going To Help Our Predicament As They Want/Need Growth. Medium     Substack
Sociopolitical Agency, Narrative Control, and Collapse. Medium     Substack

Being who we are–a story-telling ape with the ability to devise and construct various complex tools–we are tending to gravitate towards utopian tales of unending progress and ‘relevant’ technologies in our attempts to ‘solve’ and/or mitigate the array of societal and ecological stressors. Most of the technologies we are employing tend to be ‘quick fixes’, the lower-hanging fruit of ‘solutions’. On top of this many are spreading fantastical tales through their support of prototypes or conceptual/as-yet-to-be-hatched technologies that will ‘save’ humanity and the planet–all of them quite magical in their ability to be ‘clean and sustainable’.


Unfortunately, this problem-solving approach that humanity tends to use ignores both the complexity and deeper structural aspects of the issues we are facing. And more often than not, we have been drawn towards the idea that technological fixes in particular are sufficient to prevent, address, or reverse precarious situations. Because, after all, technology is always ‘progressing’ as it’s always getting better (‘new and improved’), and human ingenuity guarantees this forever and ever. Amen!

This stage of grieving that strives to confront loss and change also aims to maintain/regain a sense of agency in our lives and societies. In trying to retain a sense of power over our lives, quick-fix solutions are quite appealing. We often don’t care if they are getting to the root of the issue or not. Does it provide, even temporarily, immediate relief from the stress/anxiety being experienced? Yes? Then let’s do it and to hell with the fallout or we will deal with it, if any, down the road. And since we’re such an intelligent species, we will ‘solve’ such repercussions…eventually. 

This is guaranteed because it’s always worked in the past–only it hasn’t. 

In Part 2, I will explore this human ingenuity and technological prowess aspect further and its use to bargain our way out of societal and ecological collapse. And what prompted me to write this Contemplation.

What is going to be my standard WARNING/ADVICE going forward and that I have reiterated in various ways before this:

“Only time will tell how this all unfolds but there’s nothing wrong with preparing for the worst by ‘collapsing now to avoid the rush’ and pursuing self-sufficiency. By this I mean removing as many dependencies on the Matrix as is possible and making do, locally. And if one can do this without negative impacts upon our fragile ecosystems or do so while creating more resilient ecosystems, all the better. 

Building community (maybe even just household) resilience to as high a level as possible seems prudent given the uncertainties of an unpredictable future. There’s no guarantee it will ensure ‘recovery’ after a significant societal stressor/shock but it should increase the probability of it and that, perhaps, is all we can ‘hope’ for from its pursuit.”If you have arrived here and get 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 William Catton’s Overshoot and Joseph Tainter’s Collapse of Complex Societies: see here.

 

Today’s Contemplation: Collapse Cometh CCIII–We Must Destroy the Earth To Save It

May 16, 2025

Today’s Contemplation: Collapse Cometh CCIII–
We Must Destroy the Earth To Save ItIf you’re new to my writing, check out this synopsis.

As I have done a handful of times in the past, I offer some conversations I had with others regarding a post shared on Facebook. Take from it what you will…

I would love to hear from some readers their thoughts on the subject.

The post by: WH – Permaculture Apprentice 

Some good news, but note that much of this growth has been driven by China, which by 2023 accounted for about 43% of the cumulative installed capacity worldwide.

Me: Great news for those who own: the land that the finite resources must be extracted from; the mining companies that perform the extraction; the refineries that process the minerals; the industries that produce the technologies; the retailers that sell the products; [Also]: the installers; those who maintain them; the financiers who create the debt to support all the above; and the governments who tax everything and need the continued growth to support the gargantuan Ponzi that is the financialised economy they have helped create. Not so great for our sensitive and fragile ecosystems that suffer from the continuing extractive and exploitive processes these industrial technologies require.

NP: SB, Steve just found out what it takes to build stuff, but he’s only mad about this particular thing.

Me: NP,  Industrial technologies, all of them, are detrimental to our ecosystems. I never claimed otherwise.

AD: SB, no, they are not. They only do so because human consumers demand energy, goods and services

Me: AD, So, only human demand motivates industry? Not profit?

JT: SB, you should raise a support ticket with Meta as the last 4 characters of your surname are not showing

Me: JT, Please prove me wrong.

AD: SB, only shareholders demand profits. All shareholders are ultimately humans.

SL: SB, you just described fossil fuels

Me: SL, Agreed. And let’s also not lose sight of the fact that massive amounts of hydrocarbons are required for these ‘renewables’.

LB: SB,  ,,,you “lost sight” when you ignored full lifecycle accounting of grams CO2/kWh.
Grams CO2/kWh:
Off Shore Wind 9
Onshore Wind 10
Hydroelectric 11
Run of the river 200kW 13
Solar PV 32
Geothermal 38
Nuclear 90-140 (highly dependent on fuel ore quality)
Methane gas peakers 500
Fuel cell 662
Methane gas 443 (excluding leaks)
Scrubbed coal 960 (excluding mine methane leaks)

MD: SB, I just brought 36 panels. 6mm thick glass. no frame.. so mostly made of sand… when done. they grind back to sand or recycle..

Me: MD, Aside from the issue of entropy, recycling is energy intensive, creates ecologically-destructive pollutants and toxins, and ineffective for parts of the panel, the charge controllers, and inverters. And then there’s the battery issues…‘Renewables’ are no panacea and are, in fact, additive to our energy consumption.

MD: SB, running our house on old batteries. cost not much and saves a bunch.. seem to be getting value them..

Me: MD, Now, scale the production of your items up to meet the needs of everyone on the planet. Then factor in that current electric needs are a tiny fraction of the power required to support the complexities of modernity for 8+ billion.

LB: SB, …those are all lame opinions.

Me: LB, Once again we will have to agree to disagree. Perhaps peruse physicist Dr Tom Murphy’s work on the math behind why ‘renewables’ won’t ‘save’ humanity, but instead help us destroy the planet. Perhaps start with this one: https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/…/08/mm-11-renewable-salvation/

LB: SB, …no. It is your claim. I don’t have to do the work of figuring out why you like degrowth.

If we are playing “appeal to authority” here is who supports AGW:
–every scientific institution on Earth in every scientific discipline. Individual scientists are just people until they falsify journal literature. And there is 200 years of journal literature on AGW.
–195 nations of Earth as members of the Paris Accord 2050 Net Zero plan.
–195 nations of Earth as members of the IPCC.
–All the O&G executive who confessed in US Congressional testimony to having lied and obfuscated their role and contribution to AGW so as to hinder RE and the remedy of AGW. We have their internal memos.
That leaves you with nothing.

DT: SB, yea ignore the oil man who does the same thing lmfao. Ignore the tailpipes making the only habitable planet man knows of becoming less habitable.
-Ignore the last oil platform, tanker, or pipeline disaster.
-The solar panels and wind turbines are recycled.

Me: DT, Where do I ignore such things. Hydrocarbon extraction and use is highly problematic for the planet, and it has helped to put our species into ecological overshoot. I have never said anything positive about them or favoured their use. But I am also not blind to the significant destruction being wrought via the production of ‘renewables’.

DT: SB, renewables are definitely the lesser of two evils

Me: DT, But one of the significant issues (of many) that the ‘renewables’ faithful ignore is that their power generation is additive to our energy needs; in fact, the growth of them over the past few decades is not even keeping pace with the growth in energy demand resulting in increasing hydrocarbon extraction and use. In other words, we are painting ourselves further and further into a corner…

DT: SB, do u refer to the making of them? Yes unfortunately ai has taken up any benefits of renewable installations. Not sure what to say other than putting limits on ai installations and scaling up of renewable energy sources. Do u have any solutions?

Me: DT, The issue far predates AI. And this is a predicament not a solvable problem. I have long advocated that local communities relocalize as much as possible, but especially food production, potable water procurement, and regional shelter needs to be as self-sufficient as possible then cross your fingers. Modernity cannot be saved.

DT: SB, I agree modern man’s ways are not sustainable.

Me: DT, Every experiment our species has attempted in large, complex societies has failed. Every. One. Throw the predicament of ecological overshoot on top of that recurring phenomenon and the writing is on the wall. Unfortunately, most adhere to a faith in technological ‘solutions’ (that are simply expediting our collapse this time around, and overshoot—and are being pushed by the world’s profiteers and snake oil salesmen), and rather than move through the grieving stages to acceptance, they remain stuck in denial and bargaining arguing over ways to sustain the unsustainable.

LB: SB, …there! You made a verifiable claim.
So what counts as evidence, and how does the evidence verify that “the growth of them [RE] over the past few decades is not even keeping pace with the growth in energy demand resulting in increasing hydrocarbon extraction and use. In other words, we are painting ourselves further and further into a corner…”
It is empirically clear that RE is 30% of all electrical energy now, trending to 50% in 2035 and 90% by 2050. RE typically adds two GW per day of load following capacity. It is also empirically clear that unless address AGW by 2050, our current societal, ecological, and industrial vectors will be terminally disrupted.
And where in your degrowth agenda do you address the 4-5 billion new middle class of the 2050s?
Degrowthers never have a plan for anything. They just harp on the Fallacy of Perfection as if all growth in civilization and science is terminally extractive.

LB: SB, ….more opinions. Still no evidence. Never any comparisons. Never a reasoned plan for anything.

LB: ….all fair critique requires evidence based comparison to alternatives. LCoE, final phase ERoI, grams CO2/kWh, externalized social cost, retail $/kWh, upstream fuel and water infrastructure, downstream waste and pollution management, and a hundred other things you either ignore or gloss over with opinion.

Me: LB, There’s plenty of research showing the negative environmental impacts of ‘renewables’ production; particularly beyond the carbon tunnel vision most view the issue from.

LB: SB, …no there isn’t any such journal research. NONE. You can’t produce it. And you weaken your claim further by resorting to ad hominem characterization. I offered several terms of comparison. Which ones are you using?

Me: LB, So, you are claiming that there is no peer-reviewed evidence showing that there are negative consequences to the industrial production of technologies? On this, we will have to disagree.

And, I would suggest that you get a better handle on what the logical fallacy of ad hominem is—it is not arguing that most people fail to acknowledge the ecological destruction caused by the production of ‘renewables’ beyond the one of carbon emissions.

LB: SB, …ad hominem is personal characterization as an argument against fact. I gave you several measures of COMPARISON for renewables vs. legacy power. You can’t apply any of them. If you also chose the Fallacy of Perfection and Unreasonable Expectations, then you add another flaw to your claim.
For context, fossil extraction today is 535 times greater than that of all renewables tech materials… as fossil at 15 billion tons per year… and RE peaking in the 2040s at 28 million tons per year. But after the 2040s, most all new renewables will be made from recycled renewables. The one-time production of renewables technology is thus superior to the recurring commodity cost of fuel based generation, its upstream fuel and water supply infrastructure, and its downstream waste and pollution cost management. ….just for starters.

Me: LB, Please show me where I attacked any person’s character.

LB: SB, ..you don’t recognize your accusations of criminal behavior?

Me: LB, What on earth are you referring to?

LB: SB, ..these are your accusations of criminal and antisocial behavior, for which you provide zero evidence, reasoning, or comparative critique. Because you cannot do so.
“…governments who tax everything and need the continued growth to support the gargantuan Ponzi that is the financialised economy they have helped create. Not so great for our sensitive and fragile ecosystems that suffer from the continuing extractive and exploitive processes these industrial technologies require….”

Me: LB, Governments do tax all the activities I listed. A financialised economy that governments have helped to create and that requires perpetual growth (increasingly through the creation of debt/credit) fits the definition of a Ponzi scheme. So where is the personal attack in that statement?

BTW, I am finished discussing this with you today. I have far better things to do, such as get all my seedlings into my ever-expanding food gardens.

LB: SB, Ponzi schemes are illegal and antisocial. You paint all government, regulation, investment, industry, science, and technology with the same brush of immoral behavior. That not only makes discourse impossible, it renders your claims ridiculous. In fact, all professions are based on altruistic service to society. All members in violation are decertified. See any code of professional conduct.

[Insert laugh track here!!]

WL: SB, from the same guy that will swear that humans have no effect on the climate when talking about fossil fuels.

Me: WL, And I say this where? I am not and never have been in favour of hydrocarbon extraction and use, but I am also not blind to the ecological destruction that occurs with the creation of ‘renewables’.

GG: SB, Oli companies are no profit institutions

Me: GG, Of course they are. I never claimed otherwise.

DM: SB, you mean the oil companies?

Me: DM, Well, oil companies are huge investors in ‘renewables’. And the production of ‘renewables’ requires massive amounts of hydrocarbons.

DM: SB, well that’s an interesting take, but it’s actually rather like your name….

Me: DM, Do some research.

From the Large Language Model AI DeepSeek:
“Yes, many **large oil companies** have invested in **renewable energy**—though the extent and motivations vary. Here’s a breakdown:
**Major Oil Companies & Their Renewable Investments**

– **BP**
– Plans to invest **$7–9 billion annually** in renewables (wind, solar, biofuels, EV charging) by 2030.
– Aims for **50 GW of renewable capacity** by 2030 (up from ~3.4 GW in 2022).
– Acquired **Lightsource BP** (solar) and invested in offshore wind (e.g., **Empire Wind** in the U.S.).

– **Shell**
– Targets **$10–15 billion** in low-carbon energy (2023–2025), including wind, solar, hydrogen, and CCS.
– Developing **offshore wind farms** (e.g., **Hollandse Kust Noord** in the Netherlands).
– Expanding EV charging networks (e.g., **Shell Recharge**).

– **TotalEnergies**
– Plans to invest **$5 billion/year** in renewables (mostly solar & wind) by 2030.
– Owns **Total Eren** (solar/wind developer) and has stakes in **Adani Green Energy**.
– Expanding battery storage and renewable hydrogen.

– **ExxonMobil & Chevron (More Cautious Approach)**
– **ExxonMobil** focuses on **carbon capture (CCS), hydrogen, and algae biofuels** rather than wind/solar.
– **Chevron** invests in **renewable fuels (biofuels) and hydrogen**, with limited wind/solar exposure.

– **Equinor (Formerly Statoil)**
– Leading in **offshore wind** (e.g., **Hywind Scotland**, the world’s first floating wind farm).
– Plans to spend **$23 billion on renewables by 2026**.”

“Yes, the production of **renewable energy technologies** currently relies on **hydrocarbons (fossil fuels)** at various stages, from raw material extraction to manufacturing and transportation. Here’s how:

### **1. Key Renewable Energy Technologies & Their Fossil Fuel Dependencies**

**A. Solar Panels**
– **Polysilicon Production:** Requires high heat (~1,000°C), often generated using **natural gas or coal** (especially in China, where ~80% of solar panels are made).
– **Materials:** Silver (conductive paste), aluminum (frames), and glass all involve mining and refining—energy-intensive processes often powered by fossil fuels.
 **Transportation:** Shipping panels globally relies on **diesel-powered ships and trucks**.

**B. Wind Turbines**
– **Steel & Concrete:** Turbine towers and foundations require vast amounts of steel (made using **coking coal**) and cement (a major CO₂ emitter).
– **Fiberglass & Carbon Fiber:** Derived from petroleum-based resins.
– **Rare Earth Metals:** Neodymium and dysprosium (for magnets) are mined and processed using fossil fuels.

**C. Batteries (For EVs & Grid Storage)**
– **Lithium, Cobalt, Nickel Mining:** Heavy machinery runs on diesel; refining is energy-intensive.
– **Electrolyte & Plastics:** Derived from petrochemicals.

**D. Hydrogen (Green vs. Blue/Gray)**
– **”Green” Hydrogen** (made via electrolysis using renewables) still often depends on fossil fuels for:
– Electrolyzer manufacturing (steel, plastics).
– Transport (compressed H₂ may use methane-derived energy).
– **”Blue” Hydrogen** is made from **natural gas + carbon capture**, keeping fossil fuels in the loop.”

What is going to be my standard WARNING/ADVICE going forward and that I have reiterated in various ways before this:

“Only time will tell how this all unfolds but there’s nothing wrong with preparing for the worst by ‘collapsing now to avoid the rush’ and pursuing self-sufficiency. By this I mean removing as many dependencies on the Matrix as is possible and making do, locally. And if one can do this without negative impacts upon our fragile ecosystems or do so while creating more resilient ecosystems, all the better. 

Building community (maybe even just household) resilience to as high a level as possible seems prudent given the uncertainties of an unpredictable future. There’s no guarantee it will ensure ‘recovery’ after a significant societal stressor/shock but it should increase the probability of it and that, perhaps, is all we can ‘hope’ for from its pursuit.”

If you have arrived here and get 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 William Catton’s Overshoot and Joseph Tainter’s Collapse of Complex Societies: see here.

AND

Released September 30, 2024
It Bears Repeating: Best Of…Volume 2

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

With a Foreword by Erik Michaels and Afterword by Dr. Guy McPherson, authors include: Dr. Peter A Victor, George Tsakraklides, Charles Hugh Smith, Dr. Tony Povilitis, Jordan Perry, Matt Orsagh, Justin McAffee, Jack Lowe, The Honest Sorcerer, Fast Eddy, Will Falk, Dr. Ugo Bardi, 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

Today’s Contemplation: Collapse Cometh C–Grieving: A Natural Response To Recognition Of Growth Limits

April 13, 2024

Today’s Contemplation: Collapse Cometh C

February 11, 2023 (original posting date)

Monte Alban, Mexico. (1988) Photo by author.

Grieving: A Natural Response To Recognition Of Growth Limits

Denial, anger, bargaining, and depression in the face of grievous reality is everywhere; and we all do it to some extent. Some move through the stages more quickly while others remain bogged down in one or more. And it’s not uncommon to bounce back and forth between different stages.

We don’t want to accept the unpalatable, particularly our (and society’s) mortality. Grappling with such thoughts can be debilitating, both physically and psychologically. I know my first few years of reflecting upon our various predicaments as I travelled down the rabbit’s hole that is Peak Oil was most difficult. My anxiety was, at times, through the roof; but being who I am much of that was channelled into physical activities, particularly constructing some elaborate food gardens.

Psychologists are fairly certain that moving to the final stage of grieving — acceptance — and engaging with reality in a more forthright manner (even when it is not what we wish or want) allows one to deal with the emotions in a way that helps us to validate them in a healthier way. But this is so difficult to do when we are grieving. Extremely difficult.

Accepting, for example, that our complex society and its relatively high living standards (thanks primarily to our leveraging of a one-time cache of photosynthetic-created energy) have an expiration date is a contemplation the vast, vast majority of us do not want to consider. We desperately fight to keep the negative thoughts out of our minds, thereby impacting the belief systems through which we interpret the world — its past, present, and future.

In a world that has experienced significant problem-solving success due to our tool-making abilities and this finite supply of dense and transportable energy reserves, it’s exceedingly difficult to imagine this trend of ‘progress’ is coming to an end. We subsequently weave a variety of comforting narratives to avoid such a disheartening reality.

“Complex technologies and human ingenuity will save us from any problem we encounter, including (place your favourite one here)” is one common narrative…except inductive reasoning/logic of this nature does not always work. Continual observations by the turkey of the farmer have provided nothing but overwhelming evidence and positive reinforcement that the farmer is a beneficent and thoughtful caregiver; right up until the day before Thanksgiving and the trip behind the barn to the killing cone, knife in hand.

Confronting the blinders imposed upon us by these comforting narratives allows us to view our world and reality differently, and very much more accurately in my opinion. Not perfectly, but more reflective of the limits existence upon a finite world brings to a biological species not very much different from all the others on this planet — except perhaps for its tool-making skills and denial of reality.

Alas very, very few want to do this. We would rather remain comfortable in our beliefs that humanity is not limited by its physical environment and stands outside Nature. To paraphrase Nietzsche: we don’t want exposure to reality because that destroys our illusions.

One such illusion among others that I’ve confronted recently is the belief that growth (be in economic or population) is not only inevitable but purely beneficial. It has been driving a significant construction ‘boom’ in my province and more specifically my town for a number of years. I’ve written about this before but I continue to see some rather misguided but quite common beliefs dominating the discussion among locals.

The following thoughts are what bubbled up in my mind as I reflected upon these conversations and what the significant majority of my fellow Ontarians appear to believe.

We need to reject the mythos that growth (especially economic but also population) is always and forever a good/beneficial policy path. It is not. Not only are the very real negative environmental/ecological consequences ignored or rationalized away in such a story, but the limits of what is possible and social problems that arise from it mostly discounted/minimized.

In addition, the tendency to assume such growth is inevitable completely overlooks the fact that it is a sociopolitical/socioeconomic policy choice, not a predestined path. We can stop or reverse it if we so choose.

Finally, little if any attention is paid to the reason(s) our ruling elite cheerlead growth. It is not for the virtue-signalling reasons they shout and market repeatedly. It is about sustaining a Ponzi-type economic system that supports status quo power and wealth structures. It is profit and prestige motivated. It must always be remembered that the primary motivation of our ruling caste is the control/expansion of the wealth-generating/-extracting systems that provide their revenue streams and thus positions of power and prestige. All other considerations are secondary/tertiary and ultimately are leveraged to meet their primary one.

The world is a complex nexus of geography, geology, biology, physics, and chemistry. And the stories told by our ‘leaders’ mostly ignore (or rationalize away) the physical realities of these fundamental sciences in favour of sociocultural myths that reinforce the idea that humans stand outside Nature — and their positions in our societies.

Significantly exponential credit-/debt-based fiat currency growth (thanks to the private financial institutions creating it from thin air and charging interest for its use in order to garner obscene profits, and which is what is feeding all this) collides catastrophically with the realities of existence upon a finite planet and its physical limits.

Given interest-bearing fiat is a claim/lien upon future resources — that we have encountered significant diminishing returns upon — and that we are several quadrillion dollars already in hawk, the writing is on the wall that we are totally and completely fubar. What is unsustainable cannot be sustained; no matter how much money we create. All we are succeeding in doing is stealing resources from the future and ensuring our planetary sinks are beyond repair.

The best option left is to prepare locally for the impending breakdown of the various complex systems that we have grown dependent upon, particularly the procurement of potable water, food production, and regional shelter needs. In addition, we should be degrowing our regions/communities, not making the situation even more dire and compounding its effects by continuing to chase growth — no matter what the profiteers from this perpetual-growth strategy are repeatedly telling us.

What I did say on one of the FB posts to try and keep it relatively succinct and simple:

Infinite growth on a planet with finite resources already encountering diminishing returns and using trillions of dollars of debt-/credit-based ‘money’ to pull them from the future. What could possibly go wrong? We are travelling in exactly the opposite direction of where we should be heading.

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.

Today’s Contemplation: Collapse Cometh LXXV–Decoupling Energy Use From Growth: More Bargaining

March 12, 2024

Today’s Contemplation: Collapse Cometh LXXV

November 9, 2022 (original posting date)

Chitchen Itza, Mexico. (1986) Photo by author.

Decoupling Energy Use From Growth: More Bargaining

Today’s short piece is a comment I shared on an article by Nathan Surendran that highlights a debunking of the idea that energy can be decoupled from growth and thus reduce carbon emissions whilst supporting continued economic expansion. Nathan has a number of great articles to read on our energy conundrum and related topics; if you’re not familiar with his writing, I recommend it.

Great piece, Nathan.

I’m increasingly coming to the conclusion that all such narratives (those that argue for the continuation of ‘growth’) are readily accepted by most since they are part and parcel of our denial/bargaining of the bio- and geo-physical limits of existence on a finite planet.

More ‘nefariously’ these stories are simply marketing/propaganda by the ruling caste and its sycophants to support their primary motivation: the control/expansion of the wealth-generation/-extraction systems that provide their revenue streams and thus positions of power and prestige. Everything, and I mean everything, is leveraged to meet this overarching goal.

For example, the idea that a massive transition to ‘green/clean’ energy and related industrial products and processes — that are marketed as ‘net zero/carbon-free’ — can alter our climate trajectory completely overlooks the significant environmental/ecological damages that such a shift would entail.

That the ruling elite has created an Overton Window such that most people buy into this tale and cannot think outside the box created is not surprising. Carbon is our enemy and can be overcome via ‘carbon-free’ thinking and products; anyone who points out the flaws in this narrative are climate change deniers or shills for the fossil fuel energy.

Nowhere in the discussion is a realisation that the knock-on effects of the significant industrial processes that are involved or necessary to transition away from fossil fuels are problematic — in the extreme. Or, that land system changes[1] created because of our constant expansion are detrimental to our hydrological systems and thus creating the extreme weather events we are experiencing — perhaps even more so than ‘climate change’[2].

That land system changes are having a significant impact on our weather patterns cannot be considered at all since the idea that we need to stop altering the landscape of our world runs in a diametrically-opposed way from the expansion and growth of our human experiment. And this, of course, undermines the ruling caste’s power base. Better to leverage crises in a way that allows status quo power/wealth structures to be maintained and/or expanded, just as the idea of decoupling does.

The growth imperative must be maintained at all costs and perhaps as importantly the idea/belief that it can be must be adhered to by the significant majority of the population (or, at least, passively accepted) so that there is little to no rejection and thus counter-narratives to it.

For despite the seeming strength of the concept that infinite growth on a finite planet is entirely possible (because of technology and human ingenuity), if a tipping point of the populace comes to understand that our pursuit of growth is what has destroyed vast portions of our planet and other species leading us deeply into ecological overshoot — and subsequently rejects its pursuit — then the entire foundation of the ruling elite crumbles. And we can’t have that!

Better to double or triple down on the propaganda and censor/ostracise counter-narratives, thus allowing the game to go on just a bit longer…

[1] See this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, and/or this.

[2] See this.

Today’s Contemplation: Collapse Cometh LXIII–Primary Motivation For Society’s Elite

January 28, 2024

Today’s Contemplation: Collapse Cometh LXIII

August 11, 2022 (original posting date)

Athens, Greece (1984). Photo by author.

Primary Motivation For Society’s Elite

It ain’t what you know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so.
-Anonymous[1]

I’ve been reflecting a lot recently (for years to be honest) on the ever-present belief by most people that our governments/political class/ruling elite can lead the way to ‘solving’ our various crises, be it the ‘climate emergency’, ‘energy crisis’, ‘inflation’, ‘inequality’, ‘geopolitical disagreements’, etc.. I note such a perspective virtually every day be it in personal comments people make in social media posts and/or by journalists/contributors in the media (both mainstream and ‘alternative’); and it is particularly strong and echoed by almost everyone around election times or perceived ‘crises’.

Add to this belief the ‘bargaining/denial’ arguments that tend to suggest that the only reason the ‘problems’ have not been addressed/solved/mitigated is because we simply have not had the ‘right’ individuals or ‘party’ in power; once the ‘right’ people get chosen by the public, all will be well again — if the new government can overcome the disastrous policies/actions of the previous one or current political opposition[2].

I lost that perspective some decades ago[3]. I have increasingly come to view our world/nation state/regional ‘leaders’ (aka ruling elite/class) as part and parcel of our growing problems/predicament. In fact, more often than not I see their actions/policies as resulting in even worse situations — eventually[4] — yet they are often (always?) marketed to the public as optimal and beneficial for all (or may result in some slight, short-term pain, but most certainly will result in longer-term prosperity for all — think of the current narratives developing around the ‘austerity’ and ‘sacrifices’ required to support the war efforts in Ukraine[5]).

I have come to interpret our societal elites’ behaviour as primarily motivated by a never-ending drive to control/maintain/expand the wealth-generating/-extracting systems that provide their revenue streams and thus their power/wealth/prestige/privilege[6]. That some portion of the wealth they appropriate gets funnelled back into the public sphere is simply ‘the cost of doing business’; just as the number of financial institutions that knowingly ‘bend the rules’ to obtain obscene profits set aside a portion of that ill-begotten wealth to pay the eventual fines should they get publicly prosecuted for their shenanigans[7].

Perhaps the most egregious (but purposeful) ‘error’ our elite make is their chasing and cheerleading of the perpetual growth chalice (particularly economic growth[8], but they do also encourage population growth[9]). The common refrain/narrative is that growth is primarily — if not ‘solely’ — a benefit to human ‘progress’ and well-being, any negative impacts being discounted or rationalised away demonstrating a poor if not conveniently purposeful ignorance of the way complex systems behave.

It is as Donella Meadows argues in Thinking in Systems: A Primer[10]:

…a clear leverage point: growth. Not only population growth, but economic growth. Growth has costs as well as benefits, and we typically don’t count the costs — among which are poverty and hunger, environmental destruction and so on — the whole list of problems we are trying to solve with growth! What is needed is much slower growth, very different kinds of growth, and in some cases no growth or negative growth. The world leaders are correctly fixated on economic growth as the answer to all problems, but they’re pushing with all their might in the wrong direction. …leverage points frequently are not intuitive. Or if they are, we too often use them backward, systematically worsening whatever problems we are trying to solve.

It seems self-evident to me that this pursuit of perpetual growth runs into some fairly heavy obstacles in the sense of biophysical limits on a finite planet, despite arguments to the contrary — especially by most economists who argue for infinite substitutability as the ultimate solution to such limits, or the ever-expanding ‘printing’ of money.

There is not just the issue of resource limits and diminishing returns on extraction/exploitation of the necessary resources for our ever-increasing societal complexities (especially energy-producing ones) but the predicament of ecological overshoot that occurs when a species exceeds its environmental carrying capacity[11].

It’s instructive at this juncture to revisit what archaeologist Joseph Tainter points out in The Collapse of Complex Societies[12] given that his analysis and thesis rests primarily upon ‘collapse’ in the sociopolitical sphere (which then has serious repercussions in pretty well everything else for human societies).

Tainter argues that ”[c]omplex societies are problem-solving organizations, in which more parts, different kinds of parts, more social differentiation, more inequality, and more kinds of centralization and control emerge as circumstances require.”[13] They are maintained almost exclusively through organisational control and specialisation.

Growth of complexity refers to size, distinctiveness and number of parts, variety of social roles, distinctiveness of social personalities, and a variety of mechanisms to organize parts into a whole.

Where more complex political differentiation exists: permanent positions of authority/rank can exist in an ‘office’ that can be hereditary in nature; inequality becomes more pervasive; groups tend to be larger and more densely populated; political organisation is larger, extending beyond local community; a political economy arises with rank having authority to direct labour and economic surpluses; and, with greater size comes a need for more social organisation that is less dependent upon kinship relations, and the constraint that kin-ties had on individual political ambitions is lost.

States, perhaps the most complex of human societies, are characterized by: their territorial organisation (i.e. membership determined by place of birth/residence); a ruling authority that monopolizes sovereignty and delegates all power — with the ruling class being non-kinship-based professionals that hold a monopoly on force within the territory (e.g. taxes, laws, draft) and is validated by a state-wide ideology; maintenance of territorial integrity is stressed; and, greater stratification and specialisation, particularly with regard to occupation, develops.

Complex states, like their simpler societies, must divert resources and activities to legitimising authority in order for the political system to survive. While coercion can ensure some compliance, it is a more costly approach than moral validity.

To ensure moral validity amongst the populace, states tend to focus on a symbolic and scared ‘centre’ (necessarily independent of its various territorial parts) which is why they always have an official religion, linking leadership to the supernatural (which helps unify different groups/regions). As the need for such religious integration recedes — although not the sense of the scared — once other avenues for retaining power exist.

In summary, organisational structures that arise in complex societies[14], especially as they grow larger and even more complex[15], concomitantly see the development of ‘power’ structures[16] that lead to outsized influence/power over others by a controlling elite that then creates and fosters legitimisation narratives, and/or coercive policies, to ensure these structures are maintained/expanded.

In addition, Tainter maintains that support, be it via legitimisation or coercion, also requires a material base. This support, however, can decline when output failure (political and/or material) ensues. As this process is ongoing, it necessitates resource mobilisation in perpetuity — a significant impossibility on a finite planet where such exploitation encounters diminishing returns due to our proclivity to extract the easiest- and cheapest-to-retrieve resources first. The tendency by the elite to deal with output failure is to begin pulling in resources from other spheres and/or increase coerciveness to maintain their priorities — be it using domestic reserves and/or surpluses, and/or exploitation of other societies.

Given the above, it is not a stretch to see that the primary motivation of the elite conflicts quite significantly with any policy/action/belief that would contend that growth cannot and should not be pursued in perpetuity. Throw in the evidence that we are in ecological overshoot and the predicament for humanity multiplies several-fold.

Then we encounter all the psychological and biological/physiological mechanisms that affect human beliefs and actions, and our situational predicament explodes. Cognitive dissonance reduction. Deference to authority. Desire to believe one has agency. Groupthink. Optimism bias. Confirmation bias. Avoidance of pain and seeking of pleasure. Rationalisation/justification of behaviours that conflict with certain beliefs. Overarching propensity to deny reality.

This all adds up to a tendency to believe in comforting lies and avoid harsh realities. We want to believe the propaganda of the elite and their promises to address and ‘solve’ our crises. We want to believe we have significant impact on society and agency via the ballot box. We want to avoid looking in the mirror. We want to continue with our lives unencumbered by existential worries and let others, our ‘leaders’, ‘solve’ our ‘problems’.

What we have instead, I tend to believe, are elite confabs that result in grandiose promises to benefit society at large while in actuality end up funneling wealth to the owners of the industries and financial institutions required to produce and fund the actions/directives sold to us as ‘solutions’. A mainstream media (again, owned by the elite) that parrots the elitist rhetoric and provides a widely dispersed platform for the marketing and misleading propaganda of the ruling class, especially legitimisation narratives. An ever-expanding potpourri of racketeering, such as the ‘green/clean’ energy narrative, ‘equitable/beneficial’ creation/distribution of fiat currency, the necessary expansion of ‘war’ and government, etc..

The world is not as it appears to most. What most of us believe in is, in my opinion, a tightly controlled illusion that benefits a minority primarily at the expense of the majority.

There are no ‘solutions’ to our predicament of ecological overshoot and the inevitable collapse that is awaiting us (if not already begun). There is, at best, a ‘hope’ for some to come out the other side of the bottleneck we’ve created (primarily via our leveraging of technology to overexploit our planet and expand the human experiment).

But as I shared with someone who commented on my last contemplation: “Hope is very much a two-edged sword. It can indeed foster denial and bargaining so as to avoid the stress of cognitive dissonance and provide pleasure while avoiding pain. It can, depending upon how one’s energies are focused with some ‘hope’, serve to provide direction and impetus to acting in ‘better’ ways. As I see it, however, the problem is that our ‘elite’ (and feckless others) pedal and leverage it for purely self-serving purposes, and most soak their version of it up because comforting lies are much more enjoyable than harsh realities.”

Seeing beyond the grand illusion that has been constructed over the ages by the elite is, again in my opinion, what is necessary to understand what can and should be accomplished to salvage some of our human experiment. It is, as I have argued before, most important to attempt to relocalise as much as is possible potable water procurement, food production, and regional shelter requirements. It is not to give over responsibility to others who do not have your best interests but theirs in mind. And it is not to believe in their ‘solutions’ — that way surely leads to ruin.

A handful of readings that support the notion that the elite’s primary motivation is the control/expansion of the wealth-generating/extracting systems that provide their wealth/power/prestige/privilege:

https://cdn.mises.org/Anatomy%20of%20the%20State_3.pdf

There Won’t Be Any Winners Because The Status Quo Is Corrupt Everywhere
July 27, 2022 Systemic corruption on this vast scale optimizes failure and collapse. Debating which nations will “win”…www.oftwominds.com
charles hugh smith-Money from Nothing: A Primer on Fake Wealth Creation and its Implications (Part…
Frequent contributor Zeus Y. explains how the financial system creates fake “wealth” from nothing and why the entire…www.oftwominds.com
charles hugh smith-When Belief in the System Fades
Knowledgeable correspondent Jon H. recently recommended an important book on the elites which sit astride the U.S…www.oftwominds.com
charles hugh smith-Fragility and Resilience
Non-resilient systems are prone to rapid devolution or collapse. The same can be said of structures, enterprises…www.oftwominds.com
charles hugh smith-The Big Squeeze: Part 2: Abused Fundamentals and Fake Markets: How They Play Out
(January 28, 2011) The Big Squeeze, Part 2: Abused Fundamentals and Fake Markets: How They Play Out I am pleased to…www.oftwominds.com

https://medium.com/@joe_brewer/the-global-architecture-of-wealth-extraction-4c0a6b954a1

What Happens When Corruption Is Systemic
The human mind evolved to deal with singular threats — a lion jumping out of the bushes or a wildfire spreading through…medium.com
Systems of Wealth Hoarding Hide in Your Mind
The internet is exploding with conversations about the Panama Papers — the largest data dump in history of secret files…medium.com

[1] Often credited to humourist Mark Twain, research suggests this ‘just ain’t so’ (see: https://quoteinvestigator.com/2018/11/18/know-trouble/).

[2] I have come to the conclusion that the only thing that really changes after an election is the narrative we tell ourselves and others: If my ‘team’ wins, all will be right with the world soon enough; if the other ‘team’ wins, the world will soon go to hell in a handbasket.

[3] Through the years I have been involved in the ‘political’ sphere in a number of roles. During some of my post-secondary years, I chaired a university department’s students’ ‘union’ and got to witness academic ‘politics’ first-hand. Perhaps the most eye-opening experience, however, were the years I spent as the chair of a political action committee for a relatively large teachers’ federation/union. After that, I spent a number of years as one of the chief negotiators for the region’s school administrators.

[4] The time lag that often occurs between an action/policy and the negative consequences can sometimes be quite long, causing a connection between them to be mostly unseen. However, very visible (and always highlighted) ‘benefits’ can occur quickly — think of infrastructure construction here where the project is clearly visible and can be laid before the public but the ecological/resource consequences are externalised and/or temporally far-off allowing them to be ignored/discounted.

[5] https://www.axios.com/2022/03/12/democrats-gas-prices-russia-ukraine; https://caitlinjohnstone.substack.com/p/how-much-are-we-prepared-to-sacrifice?s=w; https://caitlinjohnstone.substack.com/p/more-escalations-in-online-censorship?s=w;

[6] I have reached this perspective through personal experience, observation of current events, and lots of reading. A handful of examples of relevant readings will be included at the end of this contemplation.

[7] https://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/21/business/dealbook/guilty-pleas-and-heavy-fines-seem-to-be-cost-of-business-for-wall-st.html; https://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/breakout/11-billion-fine-just-cost-doing-business-jpmorgan-175948500.html; https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/faculty_scholarship/2147/; https://www.reporterherald.com/2013/01/16/bank-fines-just-a-cost-of-business/

[8] https://www.businesstoday.com.my/2022/07/09/encouraging-gdp-growth-will-strengthen-economy-in-q2/; https://www.gov.ie/en/press-release/4d723-minister-donohoe-notes-strong-growth-in-gdp-and-encouraging-indicators-for-the-domestic-economy/; https://www.businessinsider.com/tech-industry-growth-midsize-us-cities-recession-economic-recovery-2020-10; https://www.forbes.com/sites/garyshapiro/2013/01/23/six-ways-to-create-economic-growth/?sh=220ee7017e32; https://www.cbpp.org/research/economy/economic-growth-causes-benefits-and-current-limits;

[9] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-51118616; https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/14/world/europe/italy-births-fertility-europe.html; https://www.reuters.com/article/us-japan-economy-population/japan-targets-boosting-birth-rate-to-increase-growth-idUSKCN0T113A20151112; https://southeusummit.com/europe/france/migration-creates-net-positive-population-growth-france/

[10] Meadows, D.. Thinking In Systems: A Primer. Chelsea Green Publishing, 2008. (ISBN 978–1–60358–055–7)

[11] Catton, Jr., W.R.. Overshoot: The Ecological Basis of Revolutionary Change. University of Illinois Press, 1980. (ISBN 978–0–252–00988–4)

[12] Tainter, J.. The Collapse of Complex Societies. Cambridge University Press, 1988. (ISBN 978–0–521–38673–9)

[13] Ibid. P. 37

[14] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_society; https://anthropology.iresearchnet.com/complex-societies/

[15] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228384313_Organizational_complexity; https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3367695/; https://www.researchgate.net/publication/286533126_The_emergence_of_social_complexity_Why_more_than_population_size_matters;

[16] https://www.britannica.com/topic/social-structure/Theories-of-class-and-power

Today’s Contemplation: Collapse Cometh XLI–More Bargaining: Doughnut Economics

January 20, 2024

Today’s Contemplation: Collapse Cometh XLI

February 22, 2022

Teotihuacan, Mexico (1988) Photo by author

More Bargaining: Doughnut Economics

The following ‘contemplation’ was prompted by an article that was shared to a Facebook group I am a member of regarding ‘Doughnut Economics’ and its possible role in addressing our ecological overshoot.

While I have not read extensively the argument/theory regarding ‘Doughnut Economics’[1] it seems to me, on initial perception, to be another in a growing line of rationalisations that attempt to support and extend the resource-intensive processes that provide for our complex societies. While it incorporates a lot of the concepts around ideas of sustainability and ecological overshoot, it bases most of its argument around the redefinition of ‘progress’ or ‘sustainable development’ in a way that makes it appear less environmentally-/ecologically-destructive (not too dissimilar to the ‘net zero’ narrative that ‘shifts’ numbers around to look compelling). When one scratches at the surface of the proposal, however, it looks just as resource dependent — especially with respect to energy — as our status quo system; it simply redistributes/redirects those resources in an attempt to bring all of humanity up to a ‘preferred’, and supposedly ‘sustainable’, level.

It’s almost as if the theory employs the fallacy of the straw man by initially establishing that the current economic system employed by humanity is the sole/primary cause of our existential crises because of its propensity to chase the infinite growth chalice. It then highlights the inequitable nature of ‘capitalism’. Having set up this straw man, it concludes by arguing we can continue to ‘grow’ if we just dismantle this problematic economic system and employ a different one that defines ‘growth’ in a way that allows us to keep our cake and eat it too[2]. This is all established, however, while ignoring the pre/historical examples of complex societies failing/collapsing as a result of overexploiting their natural environment despite having very different economic systems.

There is a compelling argument to be made that every experiment in complex societies to date has failed eventually because of the diminishing returns they encountered as they expanded and eventually ran out of places to extract resources from to support their growth and increasing complexities[3]. Technology at the time simply didn’t allow societies to control ever-larger areas of land and shuffle resources back to their sociopolitical centre for more than a few centuries, at best (a couple of exceptions dragged on longer but they too eventually succumbed to overextension and diminishing returns). And when the benefits of being part of the society fell below the costs, members opted out and ‘collapse’ ensued. Every time.

The takeover method of expanding one’s environmental reach from which to draw resources and support growth shifted eventually to the drawdown method of resource extraction. This occurred at a time most/all niches were occupied and expansion into unexploited regions became ever more problematic. The energy provided by a one-time cache of ancient fossil energy has allowed the human experiment to grow to unprecedented levels, well beyond the ‘natural’ capacity of the planet to sustain us[4].

The evidence is becoming clearer that we are encountering significant issues not necessarily because of the economic system we are currently employing but because the fundamental resource we have grown extremely dependent upon (fossil fuels) has encountered very problematic diminishing returns — to say little about the negative consequences of this use on our planet’s environment/ecological systems. We are now stumbling around attempting to ‘solve’ a predicament without ‘solutions’, pointing our fingers at all sorts of ‘culprits’, and many gravitate towards the clear disparity between our elite ruling class who seem to be doing just fine, thank you, and everyone else because of a ‘natural’ tendency to seek a ‘fair and just’ world (see the non-human primate studies on justice and fairness).

So, if we were to redefine ‘progress’ and ‘sustainable development’ in a way that doesn’t impinge upon our environment, as Doughnut Economics seems to aim to do, we could continue to ‘grow’. This thinking, however, appears to ignore all the resource inputs that go into virtually everything we do, regardless of how one defines it. So-called ‘service’ industries, for example, still require significant resources (especially energy) to be sustained[5]. How does one extract these resources from the environment without requiring significant resources in the first place? Especially when all the easy-to-retrieve and cheap-to-extract resources have already been used up, and remaining ones require ever-more energy/resource inputs to access and recover what’s left. Even recycling of products, as beneficial as that process is, demands significant resource inputs[6].

Perhaps the problem is not primarily the economic system employed (although that could exacerbate certain negative aspects) but, as Erik Michaels argues at Problems, Predicaments, and Technology[7], our complex societies themselves with their resource demands. And this is especially true as we approach eight billion resource-dependent humans at a time of significant diminishing returns on all the resources we have come to rely upon for our existence. Sure, we could curtail the overconsumption of ‘advanced’ economies and direct the associated resources into more ‘equitable’ avenues, but the pressure on resources and the environment remain when we are looking at billions of humans.

If we are not discussing a purposeful and likely significant contraction of our current experiment (and this is especially true for so-called advanced economies that are responsible for the lion’s share of resource demands and their negative impacts), then I fear we are simply attempting to rationalise a continuation of it to avoid the chaos of the unmitigated collapse that always accompanies a species that has overshot its environment’s natural carrying capacity.

The fundamental flaw I see in Doughnut Economics is that it proposes a ‘solution’ that is entirely the opposite of what we need to be doing. We need to be contracting our complexities and the resource-demands they place upon our planet. We can’t be seeking to bring the vast majority of ‘un/under-developed’ humans up to ‘advanced’ economy standards. We need to be lowering significantly the standards and size of the advanced economies that are very much responsible for much of our plight — perhaps even disbanding large, complex societies completely (and how many of us would survive that given the loss of skills/knowledge to be self-sufficient?). And could this even be done in an ‘equitable’ manner? I have my doubts.

Will such a radical shift even happen? Unlikely, for as writer Robert Heinlein observed we are rationalising creatures, not rational ones. And we employ all sorts of magical thinking to make sense of our ‘world’ and ensure its continuation. As long as we have ‘magic’ (i.e., complex technologies) at our disposal to kick-the-can-down-the-road, we will continue to employ it; we are after all genetically predisposed to avoid pain and seek out pleasure; and collapse, even on our own terms, will be quite ‘painful’.

As I implied in my last ‘contemplation’, we have to be on the lookout for taking the wrong path as we attempt to address our existential predicament of ecological overshoot because it will simply expedite our overshoot and bring about the collapse that always accompanies such a trajectory more quickly and ensure there is little we can do about how it unfolds[8]. A circular economy that extracts resources and recycles them at a pace that doesn’t break through planetary limits might have been tenable a couple of centuries (millennia?) ago, but not in today’s world where we seem to be already sliding down the Seneca Cliff of energy availability for an ever-larger population.

Please consider visiting my website and supporting its maintenance through the purchase of my fictional novel trilogy.

[1] https://doughnuteconomics.org; https://earth.org/what-is-doughnut-economics/

[2] Perhaps I’m misreading the theory, but that’s how it appears in my interpretation of it. It’s not that I support ‘Capitalism’, it’s just that I don’t see our current economic system as the most fundamental driver of our overshoot. It may have expedited the journey but it’s our complex societies themselves (as problem-solving organisations) that seem to be the underlying impetus.

[3] https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/477.Collapse_of_Complex_Societies; https://www.peakprosperity.com/joseph-tainter-the-collapse-of-complex-societies/

[4] https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/319810.Overshoot; https://resourceinsights.blogspot.com/2015/02/william-cattons-warning.html

[5] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/269824226_Carbon_emissions_from_the_service_sector_An_input-output_application_to_Beijing_China

[6] https://energyskeptic.com/2022/why-ev-batteries-arent-being-recycled/; https://energyskeptic.com/2021/metal-recycle-limited-by-many-factors/

[7] https://problemspredicamentsandtechnology.blogspot.com

[8] https://stevebull-4168.medium.com/todays-contemplation-collapse-cometh-xl-96bb5d4c151

Hope Dies, Gold Rises

December 5, 2023

Hope Dies, Gold Rises

The primary stages of grief include: Denial, anger, bargaining, depression and finally, acceptance.

When it comes to grieving over the slow demise of the American economy, sovereign IOU/USD and the absolute failure of our “re-election-only-focused” policy makers, these stages of grief are easy to see yet easier to ignore.

But false hope won’t help us.

Denying a Recession

With the vast majority of sectors that make up the U.S. economy evidencing three months of negative GDP growth while a laundry list of leading homebuilder indicators (housing starts and prospective buyers) drops into recessionary red, I keep wondering when the recession debate will finally end.

Walmart is worrying, Jamie Dimon is worrying, commercial real estate delinquencies are rising and IPO markets are all but dead on arrival.

But that’s just the latest hard data.

One can cite everything from the Conference Board of Leading Indicators, negative M2 growth, yield curve movements and a drying repo market to make it empirically clear that the US is not heading for recession but has already been in one for nearly a year.

In fact, if we were to define a Depression by growth rates of inflation-adjusted GDP per capita, then factually speaking, we have also been in a quantifiable depression for the last 16 years.

Such data, of course, is depressing, but are we all still hoping for kinder facts or a political and monetary Santa Claus to cure our denial?

I for one favor preparation over denial.

Then Comes the Anger

Citizens storming the Capital, or grabbing guitars and singing “I’m taxed to no end and my dollar aint $#!T” are just the first signs of  the anger stage.

…click on the above link to read the rest…

Today’s Contemplation: Collapse Cometh XXVIII–The Predicament of Ecological Overshoot Cannot Be ‘Solved’, Especially Via ‘Renewables’

November 16, 2023

Today’s Contemplation: Collapse Cometh XXVIII

August 10, 2021

Tulum, Mexico (1986) Photo by author

The Predicament of Ecological Overshoot Cannot Be ‘Solved’, Especially Via ‘Renewables’

Today’s very brief ‘contemplation’ is a comment I penned on an article that discusses the limits to growth we have probably surpassed, Kuber-Ross’s stages of grief (especially denial and bargaining) that the world seems to be experiencing in the wake of increasing awareness of our existential dilemmas/predicaments, and a call for cooperation amongst the world’s people to address our plight.

I have repeatedly experienced the denial and anger that tends to arise when one challenges another’s personal beliefs. I should know better than to present countervailing evidence/narratives, especially given the defensive psychological mechanisms that arise to preserve such beliefs. We tend to look for confirmation of our strongly-held views by surrounding ourselves with like-minded voices, not disruptive narratives that can lead to cognitive dissonance. Such stories are denigrated and attacked (as the author of the article points out for the Limits to Growth authors).

I do believe, however, that the acceptance of our limits in many aspects leads to a conclusion that degrowth needs to be not only considered and discussed, but widely pursued if humanity is to have any hope of at least some of us transitioning through the self-made bottleneck that is directly ahead of us. Pursing the ‘wrong’ path will only make our predicament far, far more challenging and greatly reduce any opportunities for at least some of humanity to survive.

As I have come to understand our predicaments better (not perfectly of course, but better), I have reached the conclusion that the best way to mitigate our situation (or at least preserve some semblance of human society) is to pursue degrowth strategies. What I have encountered along the way is a very well-meaning but somewhat problematic counterproposal (that is very narrowly focused in my view) that the best way to confront our situation is to throw everything we have at transitioning us from fossil fuels to ‘renewables’ (I put this in quotes since their dependence on non-renewable, finite resources — including fossil fuels — suggests they are not truly ‘renewable’).

This approach appears to be the mainstream one and the one that seems to be getting the most support at this time probably because it is comforting in the sense that ‘others’ are responsible for seeing its funding, development, distribution, etc. and it offers a means of maintaining our complexities without much disruption; at least that is the narrative/perception (but also likely because there is much profit to be made in the attempts to completely replace the fossil fuel-dependent technologies currently employed).

Increasingly, however, this storyline is showing many plot holes: energy-return-on-energy-invested close to zero or even negative; non-renewable, finite resource limits; environmental/ecological destruction to procure needed resources; dependency upon the fossil fuel platform for the procurement and processing of necessary materials as well as the distribution, maintenance, and afterlife disposal/reclamation processes. As I attempt to point these roadblocks out to the advocates of ‘renewables’ and suggest degrowth is a more realistic path given the biophysical limits of living on a finite planet, I am quite chagrined with the variety of personal attacks I am subjected to. From being a climate change ‘denier’ to a shill for the fossil fuel industry, the anger/denial that is displayed is quite something.

So, if we are hoping for cooperation and discussion to help us confront our existential dilemmas, there is much, much work that has to be done. What I am experiencing is not unique to those who have accepted our limitations and predicaments. The ‘clean/green’ energy crowd seems unwilling to accept that their ‘solution’ and convictions may in fact expedite, or at least contribute to, the further degradation of the planet and result in the exact opposite of what they believe. I fail to see how this can be resolved in a timely manner when so much of the propaganda we are exposed to by our world ‘leaders’ cheerlead it as a means to continue expanding our growth and ensuring prosperity for all.

Why are “Solutions” Really Just Bargaining?

November 14, 2023

Why are “Solutions” Really Just Bargaining?

Flag Rock Recreation Area, Norton, Virginia

I have tried to point out the reality throughout this entire blog that what we face moving forward is a set of predicaments with outcomes, not problems with solutions. Therefore, prescribing different ideas (whether they are actually labeled “solutions” or not is more or less irrelevant) focusing on ways to mitigate or “fix” these predicaments is a fool’s game because no solutions are available. Reflecting on a recent article where I pointed out that the chief cause of problems is solutions brings a certain level of discovery to many people. Pointing out that enlightenment eradicates false beliefs and that who and what we are as a species isn’t going to change no matter what ideas are brought forth, human ingenuity needs to be seen for what it actually is – precisely what brought us to this point in the first place!

I have also pointed out my support for the degrowth movement but that doing so changes nothing with regards to the predicaments we face. Sadly, I am still frequently accused of NOT supporting the degrowth movement despite my efforts (which frequently are far superior to those busy denigrating those efforts). I am also often accused of “giving up” or being a doomer or spreading doomism or being a nihilist or even “Malthusian” of all things. I choose to laugh at this criticism because none of those criticisms hold up under scrutiny and their hypocrisy is noted as what is known as special pleading. This is a logical fallacy, in other words. Each one of these people who criticize me for being skeptical, critical, or otherwise pointing out the reality is suffering from denial of that reality and often at the same time suffering from optimism bias as well, which often leads into toxic positivity. Basically, these folks are suffering from a huge dose of hopium…

…click on the above link to read the rest…

Today’s Contemplation: Collapse Cometh CLVIII–Most People Don’t Want Their Illusions Destroyed

October 30, 2023

Today’s Contemplation: Collapse Cometh CLVIII

Mexico (1988). Photo by author.

Most People Don’t Want Their Illusions Destroyed

Another one of those conversations with someone at the Degrowth Facebook Group I am a member of…

JM:
I’ve just had a lengthy debate with good-willed people who are serious proponents of a rapid transition to renewables. People actually do understand how far beyond carrying capacity we are and why but they do not accept their own understanding. When I suggest that humanity must live within the photosynthetic energy budget of the current biological cycle, the reaction is repulsion, anger, and ridicule. That reaction is a visceral understanding of the carrying capacity of Earth’s systems and that the only reason society exists beyond that capacity is the infusion of energy. The response is that renewables can supply plenty of ‘clean energy’ to support ‘society’. People see and are unwilling to relinquish the societal upside of our energy subsidy, and argue that the ecological downside can be managed, but do have an unacknowledged understanding of how far past carrying capacity we are.

AD:
I start to think we need to start from arguing that we have less than half a century of oil left — and explicitly accept the ‘right-wing’ argument that our wealth has been built on fossil fuels. We had a single planetary shot at using fossil fuels well, and we are in the final stages of squandering it. After the oil is gone, there will be no more rubber, bitumen or plastic. There will be no paint; there will be no drugs. There will be no way to make or transport the solar panels or wind turbines. If we insist on burning our chemical stocks for things that do not address essential human needs, we will run out of ways to address those needs. The issue is not ‘energy’ per se: it is resources more broadly — clean air and water; a functioning ecosystem, including fertile soils; raw materials for manufacture. You can’t make a tyre for a Tesla out of nuclear power…

Me:
AD, Throw on top of all this those dangerous complexities we’ve got scattered about the planet that require large amounts of hydrocarbons to maintain: nuclear power plants and their waste products; chemical production and storage facilities; and, biosafety labs. Interesting times ahead…

AD:
SB, I’m talking more about ‘how do we convince people’, though.

Me:
AD, It’s next to impossible to ‘convince’ others. Most people don’t want their illusions destroyed.

AD:
SB, Ultimately, the only reason I’m on a group like this is because my hope is to see degrowth achieved, which will require convincing people. What are your reasons for being on the group?

Me:
AD, To learn and share my learning/understandings. And degrowth/simplification is coming, it’s just a matter of how that’s still up in the air. Pre/historical precedents and biological principles suggest it won’t be ‘managed’.

AD:
SB, Which biological principles are those?

Me:
AD, Those associated with ecological overshoot primarily.

AD:
SB, I think you are talking through your hat.

Me:
AD, Then I suggest you read Meadows et al’s The Limits to Growth, Tainter’s The Collapse of Complexity Societies, and Catton’s Overshoot to better understand.

AD:
SB, asked you why you thought people couldn’t be convinced of a need to change. You replied, ‘because ecological overshoot’. That’s the non-sequitur that I called you on.

_____

My final response:

AD, Your comments/responses do not make it clear that you asked ‘why people couldn’t be convinced’; you asked why I was in the Degrowth group. Regardless, not sure if you’ve ever studied psychology (especially social psychology) but there are strong tendencies to protect oneself from anxiety-provoking thoughts — and the notions of collapse, overshoot, etc. are certainly those. So, I don’t know if it’s possible to convince/persuade many others of the need to change fundamental aspects of their behaviour unless they are willing to challenge many of their core beliefs and expectations; and most people, quite frankly, are not. And, I would argue, that tends to be human nature.

From attempts to reduce cognitive dissonance (see Festinger’s work), to the grieving stages outlined by Kubler-Ross (particularly denial and bargaining), to beliefs about agency (we have little, if any), tendencies towards deference to authority/expertise (see Milgram’s work), going along to get along and groupthink (see Janis’s work), to a potpourri of biases (especially confirmation and optimism bias) and heuristics that lead us to overly-simplify complex phenomena, Homo sapiens tend to ‘believe what they want to believe’; reality often plays a minor role in it, if at all.

As an article on the faulty beliefs about ‘renewables’, co-written by Dr. Bill Rees (of ecological footprint fame), argues: “We begin with a reminder that humans are storytellers by nature. We socially construct complex sets of facts, beliefs, and values that guide how we operate in the world. Indeed, humans act out of their socially constructed narratives as if they were real. All political ideologies, religious doctrines, economic paradigms, cultural narratives — even scientific theories — are socially constructed “stories” that may or may not accurately reflect any aspect of reality they purport to represent. Once a particular construct has taken hold, its adherents are likely to treat it more seriously than opposing evidence from an alternate conceptual framework.”

Given these psychological mechanisms, our story-telling ways of communicating and developing belief systems, recent historical trends, energy blindness, and the huge role of propaganda/narrative management by our ‘ruling elite (see Bernays’ work) we tend to get overwhelmed by counter-narratives to our core beliefs and gravitate towards those that reinforce our own — regardless of how wrong or counterproductive they may be.

We very much rail against evidence that do not confirm the beliefs we hold. We deny. We ignore. We craft bargaining narratives to rationalise away ‘facts’ that don’t support our thinking; i.e., if only this happened…if we did this…yeah, but….

It is for these reasons above (along with others) that the quote “Sometimes people don’t want to hear the truth because they don’t want their illusions destroyed” arose (often attributed to Friedrich Nietzsche). And it is for these reasons that the overwhelming majority of people will not and cannot be convinced to give up what they perceive as ‘modernity’ (i.e., all the hydrocarbon-based complexities we have established over the past century+).

We, especially in the West, like to believe we are rational and objective but the overwhelming evidence would suggest otherwise. We are story-telling apes that have a strong tendency to craft tales to support our belief systems rather than develop belief systems based upon objective observations. Humans are exceedingly subjective.

Perhaps this is why author Robert Heinlein quipped that “Man is not a rational animal; he is a rationalising animal” in opposition to Aristotle’s definition that humans are a rational animal.

And it’s not simply enough to come up with a factual, persuasive argument but to have to overcome the massive counter narratives being fed to everyone by our ruling elite who benefit greatly from the status quo…

My personal experience strongly supports the observation that the significant majority of people do not want to be convinced that just like all living organisms, societies have an expiration date, and we can no more persuade everyone to ‘do what’s right’ than we can ‘science our way out of overshoot’.

Not only do we have a strong urge to deny our own mortality, we have a strong (perhaps even stronger) one to deny the mortality of our society and the living standards/expectations it holds for virtually all within it.

Bargaining and Degrowth

March 16, 2023

Bargaining and Degrowth

Gazebo at Fort Macon, North Carolina

Once again, new material forces me to write a new article to disclose the new information (OK, honestly, I chose to write this article, but you already knew that). I often simply add updates (both marked and unmarked) to previous articles, but this particular scenario needed its own post as it combines more than just one topic. As is typical with the energy sector, denial of reality and optimism bias is often key as to why people can’t seem to see the writing on the wall that the idea of fossil fuel-derived devices that require the fossil fuel platform in order to continue to be maintained are not items that can exist without the fossil fuel platform; so they do not and can not replace fossil fuels; nor do they accomplish anything to reduce ecological overshoot as Steve Bull points out.

While the typical discussion regarding non-renewable “renewables” continues amassing more evidence that the entire scheme has been nothing more than about money, new material about other angles of the so-called “solutions” typically brought forth are also getting a more critical look from scholars. This is now making it clear that the ideas being marketed to the general public don’t actually solve anything but provide more money to those who will benefit from such ideas in the first place. Chris Hedges discusses some of this with Derrick Jensen and Lierre Keith in this video.

I have covered some of the papers and provided videos from Simon Michaux in the past, and many of these same papers have been criticized, promulgating Michaux to provide a new paper going over these criticisms and his response to those claims (spoiler alert: those claims against his papers are proven to be without merit)…

…click on the above link to read the rest…

Bargaining to Maintain Civilization

December 30, 2022

Bargaining to Maintain Civilization

Happy Winter/Summer Solstice!!As anyone reading my articles often already knows, ecological overshoot is the master predicament causing many different symptom predicaments. I constantly see many people blaming emissions or greed or capitalism or governments or oil companies or fossil fuels (and on and on…) for causing climate change (or their favorite symptom predicament). Playing the blame game gets us nowhere though, and unfortunately, it is also far more complicated than that. Reducing emissions is a great idea (NOT a solution as noted below in the new paper from James Hansen), but it cannot be accomplished without reducing ecological overshoot because ecological overshoot is precisely what is CAUSING emissions. Ecological overshoot is caused by technology use, which means that it is being caused by our behavior. In order to reduce emissions, there is no other choice than to reduce technology use. This requires changing our behaviors. Most emissions historically have been produced by Western Society, so Western Society must change the most in how we behave. This is not optional. If we don’t change our behavior, nature will solve the predicament for us by removing habitat that we require in order to continue surviving. This is the outcome for that scenario – extinction. Of course, inherent here is that infamous “we” which brings the good ole’ lack of agency into the mix.

Now, this is the background to what I am writing about. While my articles here have just been recently introduced to society at large, I’ve actually been conversing about this and writing about it far longer in several different groups, many of which I’m no longer a member of. Why am I no longer a member in these groups one may ask. Because those groups feature and promote a mental defect known as wetiko, and they refuse to accept the truth that ecological overshoot and its symptom predicaments are not problems with solutions…

…click on the above link to read the rest…

Today’s Contemplation: Collapse Cometh XXVIII

August 10, 2021

Tulum, Mexico (1986) Photo by author

Today’s very brief ‘contemplation’ is a comment I penned on an article that discusses the limits to growth we have probably surpassed, Kuber-Ross’s stages of grief (especially denial and bargaining) that the world seems to be experiencing in the wake of increasing awareness of our existential dilemmas/predicaments, and a call for cooperation amongst the world’s people to address our plight.

I have repeatedly experienced the denial and anger that tends to arise when one challenges another’s personal beliefs. I should know better than to present countervailing evidence/narratives, especially given the defensive psychological mechanisms that arise to preserve such beliefs. We tend to look for confirmation of our strongly-held views by surrounding ourselves with like-minded voices, not disruptive narratives that can lead to cognitive dissonance. Such stories are denigrated and attacked (as the author of the article points out for the Limits to Growth authors).

I do believe, however, that the acceptance of our limits in many aspects leads to a conclusion that degrowth needs to be not only considered and discussed, but widely pursued if humanity is to have any hope of at least some of us transitioning through the self-made bottleneck that is directly ahead of us. Pursing the ‘wrong’ path will only make our predicament far, far more challenging and greatly reduce any opportunities for at least some of humanity to survive.

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

12-minute video: 5 stages of human awakening: denial, anger, bargaining, depression, acceptance; and why your leadership matters for the revolution just ahead

February 13, 2016

12-minute video: 5 stages of human awakening: denial, anger, bargaining, depression, acceptance; and why your leadership matters for the revolution just ahead

Those of us relatively awake have gone through some form of the five stages of grieving, and observe fellow humans mostly stuck in its first stage: denial.

As .01% Emperor’s New Clothes obvious crimes centering in war, money, and lies become more outrageous, more of us will choose integrity and courage to voice the obvious. The exposure and end of .01% criminal oligarchy will occur in a relative moment; and at that point our leadership on this journey will be essential for transition.

Our leadership isn’t much, we know, and our relative acceptance of the facts puts us in position for constructive vision to build a brighter future.

We have researched solutions, and are ready to work in good-faith effort with honest data.

Be prepared.

Note: the final three minutes of the video present a particular path to consider of the video creator’s choice. Our presenting the video is not an endorsement; each of us must find our own best paths.

**

Note: I make all factual assertions as a National Board Certified Teacher of US Government, Economics, and History, with all economics factual claims receiving zero refutation since I began writing in 2008among Advanced Placement Macroeconomics teachers on our discussion board, public audiences of these articles, and international conferences. I invite readers to empower their civic voices with the strongest comprehensive facts most important to building a brighter future. I challenge professionals, academics, and citizens to add their voices for the benefit of all Earth’s inhabitants.

 

Olduvai IV: Courage
Click on image to read excerpts

Olduvai II: Exodus
Click on image to purchase

Click on image to purchase @ FriesenPress